When I force you to make a coherent statement and prove that its based on faulty logic you revert back to your ramblings. You dont seem to have the capacity of nuanced thinking. Everything is black and white for you.
I'm not impressed with flights of fancy being palmed off as works of careful deduction.
This place is not intended to "impress" anyone. Plenty of sleeping people who will find this place outrageous. Its not really for them.
No. You cater to those who can't resist checking under their beds. No "kill switch."
You want me to take you seriously---or you don't want to "impress" me? You can't even make an argument to support your pipe dream. My "coherent statement" was nothing other than the face value of the words I used, and I am only surprised that what I said was initially beyond your grasp. Surprised no longer.
Since I myself am still in my journey for the question for the answer to this question, and all I can do so far is simply analyse pieces of information, I am very eager to know how you can assert this so confidently.
Go ahead, enlighten me. I am all ears. And note that until you clearly and logically prove this, I am not interested in any other ramblings from you.
The same way I dismiss the existence of leprechauns: no evidence, and no rationale. The burden of evidence is on the one who makes the claim. If you don't understand that to be a basic principle of logic, you have something to learn. I am under no obligation to disprove a flight of fancy, when the flight of fancy has no substance behind it. If you think you are in a position to judge an impossible proof, you are not in that position.
The reason for this is that it is generally impossible to prove a negative ["there isn't x"]. It is only possible to prove a positive ["there is x"]. Otherwise there would be no limit of the claims to be disproved. Do bats speak Esperanto? Do elves operate internet gambling rings? Is there really someone in your closet?
The burden of evidence is on the one who makes the claim.
I didn't claim to know the truth. On the contrary, I am on my quest to find the truth.
You on the other hand made a categorical claim that you know the truth. so the burden is on you.
Obviously you don't like to be burdened by the things such as logic, facts, evidence or anything else.
The reason for this is that it is generally impossible to prove a negative
So it is your habit of categorically asserting things, that you say are impossible to prove. Good to know.
Do bats speak Esperanto?
Do elves operate internet gambling rings?
Questions asked by a guy who does not understand the difference between impossible and improbable
Is there really someone in your closet?
Wait, you are trying to prove that it is generally impossible to prove a negative and you come up with this example? If only you were capable to seeing the irony in this!
When I force you to make a coherent statement and prove that its based on faulty logic you revert back to your ramblings. You dont seem to have the capacity of nuanced thinking. Everything is black and white for you.
This place is not intended to "impress" anyone. Plenty of sleeping people who will find this place outrageous. Its not really for them.
No. You cater to those who can't resist checking under their beds. No "kill switch."
You want me to take you seriously---or you don't want to "impress" me? You can't even make an argument to support your pipe dream. My "coherent statement" was nothing other than the face value of the words I used, and I am only surprised that what I said was initially beyond your grasp. Surprised no longer.
Since I myself am still in my journey for the question for the answer to this question, and all I can do so far is simply analyse pieces of information, I am very eager to know how you can assert this so confidently.
Go ahead, enlighten me. I am all ears. And note that until you clearly and logically prove this, I am not interested in any other ramblings from you.
The same way I dismiss the existence of leprechauns: no evidence, and no rationale. The burden of evidence is on the one who makes the claim. If you don't understand that to be a basic principle of logic, you have something to learn. I am under no obligation to disprove a flight of fancy, when the flight of fancy has no substance behind it. If you think you are in a position to judge an impossible proof, you are not in that position.
The reason for this is that it is generally impossible to prove a negative ["there isn't x"]. It is only possible to prove a positive ["there is x"]. Otherwise there would be no limit of the claims to be disproved. Do bats speak Esperanto? Do elves operate internet gambling rings? Is there really someone in your closet?
I didn't claim to know the truth. On the contrary, I am on my quest to find the truth.
You on the other hand made a categorical claim that you know the truth. so the burden is on you.
Obviously you don't like to be burdened by the things such as logic, facts, evidence or anything else.
So it is your habit of categorically asserting things, that you say are impossible to prove. Good to know.
Questions asked by a guy who does not understand the difference between impossible and improbable
Wait, you are trying to prove that it is generally impossible to prove a negative and you come up with this example? If only you were capable to seeing the irony in this!