For thjose of you who have not followed the link, here is a summary:
My point is A.
Well, facts X, Y, and Z refute your position, A.
I don’t argue that facts X, Y, and Z are actually facts. The fact that they are facts does not change the fact that I am going to ignore those facts. Hence, my point, A, still stands.
No, actually your point, A, does not stand. Facts X, Y, and Z are, well, facts. They can be proven. The logic of your point, A, depends entirely on X, Y, and Z to not be facts. Since X, Y, and Z are facts and you have not, because you cannot, refute them, point A simply cannot be true. Hence, your position is not valid.
I’m not arguing with you about X, Y, and Z. In fact, I agree with you about points X, Y, and Z. But my point still stands…
(0)
Comments & Trackbacks
For thjose of you who have not followed the link, here is a summary:
My point is A.
Well, facts X, Y, and Z refute your position, A.
I don’t argue that facts X, Y, and Z are actually facts. The fact that they are facts does not change the fact that I am going to ignore those facts. Hence, my point, A, still stands.
No, actually your point, A, does not stand. Facts X, Y, and Z are, well, facts. They can be proven. The logic of your point, A, depends entirely on X, Y, and Z to not be facts. Since X, Y, and Z are facts and you have not, because you cannot, refute them, point A simply cannot be true. Hence, your position is not valid.
I’m not arguing with you about X, Y, and Z. In fact, I agree with you about points X, Y, and Z. But my point still stands…
This would be why I haven’t commented past that first time. Doesn’t seem to be worth the effort somehow…