His point is simply Arlon saying he has proof isnt proof of anything, especially when he don't share it. That his words hold no weight on their own. How does your point counter that?
I don't try to counter what he says about Arlon10 's words. What I say is that his words (@graham 's), those which I wrote about, are unreliable.
If he tries to build any argument or set of propositions based on those words, he won't hold to scrutiny. He couldn't. Therefore, what he says against Arlon10 may sound sufficient, but in fact it isn't and it can't be.
I don't try to counter what he says about Arlon10 's words. What I say is that his words (@graham 's), those which I wrote about, are unreliable.
If he tries to build any argument or set of propositions based on those words, he won't hold to scrutiny. He couldn't. Therefore, what he says against Arlon10 may sound sufficient, but in fact it isn't and it can't be.
There's none so blind...
You type against yourself. Your line of reasoning is not close to Arlon10's and your approach is in fact very limited. A house of cards uncrushed is yet a house of cards.
His point is simply Arlon saying he has proof isnt proof of anything, especially when he don't share it. That his words hold no weight on their own. How does your point counter that?
I don't try to counter what he says about Arlon10 's words. What I say is that his words (@graham 's), those which I wrote about, are unreliable.
If he tries to build any argument or set of propositions based on those words, he won't hold to scrutiny. He couldn't. Therefore, what he says against Arlon10 may sound sufficient, but in fact it isn't and it can't be.
His point is simply Arlon saying he has proof isnt proof of anything, especially when he don't share it. That his words hold no weight on their own. How does your point counter that?
I don't try to counter what he says about Arlon10's words. What I say is that his words (@graham's), those which I wrote about, are unreliable.
If he tries to build any argument or set of propositions based on those words, he won't hold to scrutiny. He couldn't. Therefore, what he says against Arlon10 may sound sufficient, but in fact it isn't and it can't be.
Graham is making a sarcastic argument, to show Arlon the error in his argument.
I don't try to counter what he says about Arlon10's words. What I say is that his words (@graham's), those which I wrote about, are unreliable.
If he tries to build any argument or set of propositions based on those words, he won't hold to scrutiny. He couldn't. Therefore, what he says against Arlon10 may sound sufficient, but in fact it isn't and it can't be.
Graham is making a sarcastic argument, to show Arlon the error in his argument.
You are treating graham's argument seriously.
I can't be more clear.
I find it hard to believe you are genuine.
The point is that sarcasm or not, something false is false. It's not his argument I consider seriously, it's the weakness in it.
For example, why would vernuf say now that I'm a hypocrite because of it (because of my words)? Is he taking my words seriously or is he being sarcastic or playful about it?
If he's serious about it (and it seems to me that he is), it's because a serious reason of 'weight' underlies the exchange of words, even when @graham tries to play sarcasm.
I don't try to counter what he says about Arlon10 's words. What I say is that his words (@graham 's), those which I wrote about, are unreliable.
If he tries to build any argument or set of propositions based on those words, he won't hold to scrutiny. He couldn't. Therefore, what he says against Arlon10 may sound sufficient, but in fact it isn't and it can't be.
Graham is making a sarcastic argument, to show Arlon the error in his argument.
You are treating graham's argument seriously.
I can't be more clear.
I find it hard to believe you are genuine.
The point is that sarcasm or not, something false is false. It's not his argument I consider seriously, it's the weakness in it.
For example, why would vernuf say now that I'm a hypocrite because of it (because of my words)? Is he taking my words seriously or is he being sarcastic or playful about it?
If he's serious about it (and it seems to me that he is), it's because a serious reason of 'weight' underlies the exchange of words, even when @graham tries to play sarcasm.
You type against yourself. Your line of reasoning is not close to Arlon10 's and your approach is in fact very limited. A house of cards uncrushed is yet a house of cards.
They fact that you don't understand what I've been saying/doing does nothing to argue against it.
Actually I agree with that, so you didn't correct me.
The problem I've corrected you on, is that you don't have any evidence.
No, you believe I have no evidence.
That's correct, and I'm fully justified in not believing you have evidence until you present some. Are you planning on presenting any? Remember that evidence is something that can be used to demonstrate the truth or your claim.
You type against yourself. Your line of reasoning is not close to Arlon10 's and your approach is in fact very limited. A house of cards uncrushed is yet a house of cards.
They fact that you don't understand what I've been saying/doing does nothing to argue against it.
The fact you think I don't understand is what I find interesting. Remarkable even.
The point is that sarcasm or not, something false is false. It's not his argument I consider seriously, it's the weakness in it.
For example, why would vernuf say now that I'm a hypocrite because of it (because of my words)? Is he taking my words seriously or is he being sarcastic or playful about it?
If he's serious about it (and it seems to me that he is), it's because a serious reason of 'weight' underlies the exchange of words, even when @graham tries to play sarcasm.
That's correct, and I'm fully justified in not believing you have evidence until you present some. Are you planning on presenting any? Remember that evidence is something that can be used to demonstrate the truth or your claim.
The number of people who disagree with you is too large to take you seriously.
Don't believe that all you want.
Children aren't happy without something to ignore, and that's what parents were created for.
That's correct, and I'm fully justified in not believing you have evidence until you present some. Are you planning on presenting any? Remember that evidence is something that can be used to demonstrate the truth or your claim.
The number of people who disagree with you is too large to take you seriously.