Again your unethical selective use of citations leers it ugly head from the sewer, and your lying is obvious and tedious....Originally Posted by seer
Again your unethical selective use of citations leers it ugly head from the sewer, and your lying is obvious and tedious....
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
I said nothing about undisputable facts. I spoke of undisputed facts.
So this sentence...
"A good enough reason to believe any assertion is any undisputed fact, or set of facts, that is inconsistent with the assertion's denial."
...is making my head spin. I think you are saying that an assertion should be accepted as true if we have a body of undisputed facts that run counter to the denial of that assertion (i.e., show the denial to be false). I'm not sure I agree that is always true, but can you provide an example of such an assertion and the associated fact (or body of facts), so I can better understand what you're saying?
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
-Martin Luther King
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote