brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:00 pm
You don't understand what the fallacy of ambiguity is; it usually uses dictionary definitions, just mixing applicable and non-applicable ones, or using non-applicable aspects of definitions to draw conclusions incorrectly.
Yargh... Fine, so now I've been accused of a crime (the fallacy of ambiguity and the bannable offense of not acknowledging it), so despite wanting to can the conversation because it's going nowhere, I am compelled to stay to clear my name (or the misunderstanding, if there actually is one, and you're not just derailing the thread because you don't want to directly address the points I've made regarding the inherent contradiction of the vegan statist position).
As for denying logic and science, I don't how I could be any more clear about the fact that I am not denying their validity
relative to their subjects (thought and observation respectively), only that there is no ground for asserting them as "objective" since there is no element of objectivity anywhere present in the endeavors, being wholly concerned with subjective phenomena (note that I'm not saying they are not
objective, only that the assertion of objectivity is an impossible claim). Furthermore, for our purposes here, this is a completely irrelevant distinction; this has not been used as a premise for any of my arguments concerning anarchy.
Here's the post in question:
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:50 pm
Human thought isn't wholly subjective, that's a ridiculous assertion... Human thought can be affected by some bias, which is subjective... What you are saying is a denial of the validity of logic and science, you may just be too ignorant of what these things actually mean to realize it...
BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:37 pm
Ok, so let's establish some definitions via the dictionary:
: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought.
Please explain how human thought is not wholly "existing in the mind" and "belonging to the thinking subject"? And yes, bias is subjective (because it is thought), but the term "subjectivity" is not limited to this characteristic, though many people use it synonymously.
: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference; the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
Please explain how inference, reasoning, knowledge and study are not functions of thought; and how principles regarding the function of a wholly subjective phenomenon can be anything but subjective? Again, this does not deny logic's validity as a means of governing the subjective phenomenon of thought. What's being challenged is the assertion that logic is objective, when 100% of its apprehension, expression and application is subjective.
: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
And again, we have knowledge, observation and experimentation -- all subjective phenomena. The argument made for logic also applies here.
Please tell me specifically
how I am "mixing applicable and non-applicable [definitions], or using non-applicable aspects of definitions to draw conclusions incorrectly."