stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
KF is getting his boo-taé positively handed to him 
| Quote | 420
Viola Lee
May 19, 2021 at 6:57 am
Thanks to WJM at 413 for saying the obvious about something I wrote. I’ll quote at length, and bold the important part:
| Quote |
Viola stated an empirical fact, that diversity of beliefs exist in the population. Viola then made the observation that if a diversity of beliefs exist in the population, we have to live with that. Under charitable interpretation, one would assume this means: unless we commit suicide or intend on eliminating that diversity in some manner, then we have to find a way to live with it.
There’s nothing incoherent or self-defeating whatsoever in that. It’s necessarily true given the empirical fact premise.
Sandy, SB and KF seem so intent on finding “self-defeating incoherence” in everything people say here that they have apparently stopped even trying to understand other people (not that they ever really tried much in the first place) and have suspended “charitable interpretation.”
|
Exactly. Here’s another example. Above I was complaining and making a bit of fun about how repetitive KF’s OPs are, and how he uses the same diagrams over and over and over. I happened to mention as an example the red ball. So does KF get the point? Not a bit. He responds at 410:
| Quote |
You object to metaphors while failing to realise that self-evidence is real and corrects warped thinking. No wonder your next objection is to a red ball A, distinct from rest of world ~A, so W = {A|~A}
which then allows us to see law of identity, and its close corollaries non contradiction and excluded middle.
A is itself i/l/o its coherent core characteristics, a red ball vs the impossibility of a square circle. The world W is such that any x in W must be in A or else not A, not both nor neither. That’s LNC, A or else not A, LEM not both nor neither.
In short you have managed to try to dismiss the core first principles of right reason.
|
That is ludicrous. I was not objecting to metaphors and I was not dismissing the laws of logic.
I was pointing out that KF says the same things over and over again without, as WJM points out, making any attempt to understand other people. Says WJM, “It’s kind of like a didactic computer program that access vast information but always outputs the same essential thing, over and over and over, regardless of the input, regardless of the meaning of the input.”
His posts today in response to things I wrote yesterday amply illustrate these flaws in how KF responds to other people who attempt to have discussions with him. |
Linky-dinky
|
