Ok.

Nah. Thats not why i entered the thread.

I entered the thread for what my first post said. Because i think its important to note people can have peace and division.


This is however why i dont like to discuses things with you. You put words in my mouth and twist my motivations. Plus i dont think you are really interested in discussion and are more interested controlling and dominating conversation. Maybe its all the questions that makes me feel that. Either way..


Id be more then happy to participate with others if they wish. Dont think anyone else would disagree but i could be wrong.

I did make a comment.

Like i said ill participate, just not with you.

As far as conflict. If you disagree peace can be had despite division then yes we are in conflict on that idea.

If anyone else disagrees id again be happy to try and resolve our conflict.

Id say it would lead to boredom. But what do i know.

I don't mean to, sometimes I reiterate and need you to clarify. Sometimes you don't realize what you are saying in the context of how I see things.

I don't blame but I know no other way to touch on the subject.


I do disagree and I think it can be clearly shown. But to cut to the chase division is rooted in false validation, it is not the natural. So its arising is itself is the quality of conflict. Maybe you could give an example of peace between two groups and we can look at it.

Right, but boredom comes in forms of an unfulfilled utility. So far example (as an ideal) a monk doesn't get bored. Or they do get bored but they pay no attention to it. And again we can say that being bored isn't necessarily the 'wrong' thing with respect to what the utility should be.

Ok.
Ok.
Well thats better then your first response.

But no means no.

Same as above.

At this point your posts are far too sloppily written to go into arguments on things like validity or utility, so I'll refrain from doing so. I'll merely note that now you have introduced a new concept called "natural" which seems to undermine your entire sentiment. A person can now just claim that it is natural to weigh utility. That's the price you pay for arbitrary ad hoc terminology.

Your version of peace sounds like a re-hash of Confucian harmony. As an utopian ideal it is nice enough. I have seen you argue it before however, and I all I saw was someone who argued that disagreement was bad therefore he would by default be correct. This line of reasoning is fairly similar to the one you are displaying here.

You don't want to argue your case, you want to disqualify disagreement. I can imagine many things that leads too, but peace is not one of them.

Hold up. You are correct in your observation but not in your application. Its the same argument I gave the solution for, but we recognize it as a different problem, and don't realize the same solution applies. If this is true then how might I explain how you could continually not get into that trap? I think only by examples.

I don't argue that validation of utility could be said to be natural. I argue it cannot be said to be logically validated. Our logic does not suggest that what is natural is therefore logical.

I have not broken any logic here, and I can show you that if you give me a chance with each example.

You are suggesting I break my own logic "peace is a logically correct utility" call it x, but you fail to couple it with the breaking of the accepted theory "utility has logical validation" call it Y.

I say neither x or y are valid*
So we logically cease the validation of both x and y
x is left over in an unvalidated state

You then point out x cannot be logically validated per *
But continue on validating Y?

When we apply our own logic correctly peace is left over, you must see its not because I skipped everything thing and used logic to hold peace up.

We use logic to hold nothing up and peace is left over. You can never use logic to hold nothing up and utility is left over. Utility can only come from a falsely validated root, other wise where does it come from?
To save an entire thread of explanation, I think this is far out of context, and I hope you can give me benefit of doubt (well honestly you already have).

I think its only slightly right but I hope the above showed why. Disagreement is fine. But we come to ever table with conflict as our assumption, so few tables to we come to with intent to increase the utility of all players.

You misunderstand me, I haven't stated any position. I have commented on yours.

You introduced an arbitrary term to save your own position. Instead of looking if oxygen could have utility, you merely stated that breathing was natural.

You haven't mentioned any limitations to "natural", so of course it plays as a term that allows us to ignore if something is "utility" We could merely state that this something is the result of something natural. Thus your own statements work against you. I could even just state that peace and violence are results of natural phenomena and void your entire case.

You are playing loose with your text and firm with your conclusions, which is generally a poor idea.

I may have misunderstood you but i think you might have misunderstood me first. You haven't stated your position, but observably you live by and believe that utility is logically valid. So I deem it to be valid, I hope you don't simultaneously insist i cut to the chase, while protesting the assumptions I then must make.

Again slight mix up, breathing CAN have a utility, I point out it naturally occurs when there is no utility. And I said generally, but nonetheless we can explore it, is there a logically valid utility for breathing, that doesn't rely on another utility to hold it up?

By natural I mean to refer to that which is left over when there is no illogical validation of utility. Perhaps we can outline the limitations to that together.

Yes by the laws of the universe it may be natural to be illogical. But by our own logic, its not logical to call improperly used logic as the natural occurrence.

If you don't accept them as true, then they cannot be used against me. So my logic works on my side and yours works on your side. But I am asking how you got to your side without first using the logic on your side?

If you see this, and FIRST admit it, but say "but newguy, you must have done the same error" then we are on the same page.

Please understand you are correct and I agree, however it not the same observation that illogically validated utilities are not natural by our own logic.
Because there is no other way, since the entire history of this realm was birth from false utility. Like 0's and 1's in the matrix, its infused in every aspect of this realm we perceive and relate to and with.

Acceptance has nothing to do with it, it is only a matter of using them and seeing that they do not work and then disagreeing. Also the implication of this statement is that nobody could disagree with you. It seems like a continuation of the theme you present in general.

Here is a lesson that could do you well: Precision of conclusion require precision of language.

Your style of posting seems to work the opposite. The more precise the conclusion, the more imprecise is your language. The natural thing to assume is that you are trying to shield your conclusion from disagreement and counter-argument, which is bad form. Your above post is a good example.

by your own logic, you cannot defeat my thesis from a statement you do not accept as true.

Is it vague?

It is certainly short and to the point. It is, however, wrong.

I have stated that I can defeat your argument by using your own ad hoc terminology against you. However, that I can use your own terminology against you of course doesn't imply that I have to in order to defeat your statements.

That would be like claiming that if I won a hand in poker with 34, then I can only win in poker with 34.

If this is the level of fallacious thinking you are privy to, I think you need to become a bit less pretentious.

You suggest here that you CAN defeat my thesis with a statement you do not accept is true.

In principle that is fully possible yes, but it is hardly necessary in this case.

This is due to validity. In regards to the validity of an argument, the truth of the statements is irrelevant. You only see if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.

For example this statement is valid:
Parrots are rocks.
George is a parrot,
therefore George is a rock.

This one is not:
Parrots are birds.
George is a bird,
therefore George is a parrot.

Were gonna keep this on topic that you are suggesting you can use a statement you don't believe is true as part of a proof for something else.

So staying equivalent, you don't believe parrots are rocks, you know its not valid....but you still are going to use it to prove in another case to disprove my claim that rocks are not birds?


You are adamant that you can use a supporting claim that you belief to be not true, its not logical, not at all. Your logic is skewed.

In other words its 'valid', but you are wrong to claim that George is a rock irl because some words are written to suggest that.

And I'm going to ask you again right after this, if you really want to claim that you can use a statement you know as false as a supporting point for an argument.

Is it really true that your argument that invalidates my whole dialog is that parrots are rocks? And I have to struggle to show you why that isn't correct?

No, it was merely an example to try and display one valid and one invalid argument. They had nothing to do with eachother. If you don't understand something as basic as this, you probably shouldn't try to make theses.

Again lets clarify that you think that Parrots are rocks because this 3 part argument is valid.

You are suggesting, in equivalent to this thread, that since the whole argument is valid, that statement 1 can be used as a valid supporting statement for another argument.

I just want to be clear that this is what you think is true, because I can assure you that its not.

Just like I said if you feel one of my statements is not valid, it cannot be used as a supporting fact against my claim. And that is what you did, and logic does not follow that way.

No, I don't think that. My argument, however, is valid because the conclusion follows from its premise. That it is absurd and obviously does not correspond to the real and/or is not in coherence with how we commonly use the terms "rocks" and "parrots" is irrelevant.

If you want to go into what I think, we have to move past validity and consider soundness. For an argument to be sound it must be valid and its premises must be true.

This i can work with but in fear greying the lines of whether or not im clear and correct, or whether all these objection can really be handled....

It's true you cannot use a known false statement to disprove my claim as if the statement is true right?

We shouldn't really move past this until we put it to rest, otherwise i fear you'll throw this into the many ways you showed I am wrong.

I can, I would merely have to show that your argument isn't valid. However, if I know the statement is false I would regardless of this know that your argument would not be sound.

As you can see, validity is a lower level consideration. To use an analogy it is the bottom layer of a house of cards. If we know an argument is not valid, we don't have to consider the coherence/correspondence of the premises.

Well they aren't doing the same thing but you won't let me uncouple them.

you say, 'I (Tame D.) can: use a known false statement to disprove my claim as if the statement is true right?'

But you go on to talk about something else, something we should address, but we have to put to rest the absurdity of the claim that you can use a not valid statement as a supporting point.

Again you are not following. I haven't even mentioned validity in regards to your argument, nor soundness. The only reason I brought this up was to contend your claim about what followed from my statements about your ad hoc terminology.

The reason I have not mentioned these things is is because I don't consider your argument as a logic argument, I consider it a dialectic argument.

Before we move onto something else, and before I go quote the part where you used an admittedly invalid statement to support your claim that my thesis is invalid, I just want to clarify that the last page of me repeatedly asking you if you think you can 'use a known false statement to disprove my claim as if the statement is true right'....is something I pulled out of the air and isn't relevant to the thread.

And yes I see you want to suggest you have something to show that my argument is not sound, but every time you bring something up and I try to work through it with you, you bring up the past things that you refused to work through, because of past things you refuse to work through and so on.

There is nothing not sound about the argument, but we need to work through your points 1 at a time, and not move on from them because you don't like where they are going.



We need to decide if the below is true or not, and I guess now, whether you incorrectly did this or I just accuse you of something you didn't do:

'use a known false statement to disprove my claim as if the statement is true right'

Its fastest I think if we admit you cannot logically do so, and that you tried to, and agree we can put that illogics to rest.

Suggesting that should counter should hold valid because you have another different way to prove me wrong is just as invalid. If you have something else, lets put this one to rest, and not put it in the category of that which newguy1234 uses sketchy dialogue to bypass.

I'm not being gray, I'm not avoiding it, its a simple question with a simple answer.

I'm quite happy to move on, once put to rest, and deal with what you think is obvious disproof to me thesis.

I never said your statement was invalid. What I said was that you introduced ad hoc terminology to avoid considering the utility of oxygen. This you did by stating that breathing was natural.

When you sloppily introduce new terminology like that, your argument falters. If you can consider breathing natural, then I can consider being non-peaceful natural.

There were many things bad about your case and "thesis", but I chose that one as it seemed like the simplest and most precise thing to show the badness of.

I get it. We didn't go into what it meant to say 'natural'. I used it with the assumption it was obviously correct, and you didn't want to move on in that regard. I miss that sometimes because I forget a word like natural means something to me in this context. It might help you to understand why I might do such an obvious slip up in relation, when we clarify it (below).

By natural I don't mean nature in the way we generally think. I don't mean to twist the word either. I mean to point out that which arises when there is no utility. I don't mean to say: that which arises is that which we think of as 'natural'. I mean that which arises comes out 'naturally' or without an external force (utility).

To be clearer, we might 'defeat' utility, and that might not be a natural way to go about things, yet 'that which arises' will still arise naturally.

It is natural in that it arises on its own when there is no utility. It is not natural (possibly) in regards to ending utility, I don't mean to imply it. I don't mean to bring in a new kind of natural, i just meant to give an adjective that it comes about when there is no utility.

I meant it like the word automatic and not to imply something to do with the order of the universe or something else not to specifically refer to the context of utility.


I think i understand what i didn't understand, apologies if this ended up clearing this up.

Right so I'm going to do the gray thing here I am accused of, because using the clarified definition of natural (in the automatic sense), we can quickly understand that craving oxygen needs no utility as it is automatic, and that craving violence comes from improper utility.

As I write this I think I know what you point to as well. You want to suggest that the instinct towards violence we have (akin to a tiger) is a natural arising of non peace.

If thats what you mean, you have outlined what I feel is the beginning of the separation of two types of violence, that like the tiger in the jungle, and that which man has created out of false utility.

I know you want that to be a copout, but first if it is brutality that comes out of no utility then yes it is natural. You might suggest then it is obviously not peace, but we have no definition yet to know that, its just that it doesn't pass the smell test. So I think I am understanding you here, and if I am then we can put most of this behind, and go into whether or not the ending of the validation of false utility, will naturally lead to even this kind of violence.

Before that I must point out, even if you are correct and this brutality that may naturally arise from not validating utility (because utility cannot be logically validated), we haven't shown in any way that it is wrong and that it is an unfavorable utility. All we can do is compare it to our own known (falsely) validated utilities and conclude-it is bad.

So it doesn't pass the smell test, but what I've been pointing out is that not passing the smell test, in no way, shows that utilities are now valid.

The rest of the explanation must deal with time, thought, and the psychological, and the effects that an ending of utility has on them.

Also I said its interesting that breathing, in general needs no utility. It was a side note. Truthfully we can show that in many spots, to breathe, requires a utility, otherwise there will be no breathing (so its not automatic in the sense of it needs a utility sometimes). And with that in mind, the will or utility to breathe, can easily become a motivation for war, and such a motivation gets justified by a certain utility that again is not based on rooted logic (who is to say one shouldn't just not fight for breathe?).

I'll post the statements below again, perhaps i've explained natural properly. I've changed the use of natural to explain better (from here:Statements quote

Which number is the single most glaring leak?

Not that it matters particularly, but newguy is completely wrong about the bolded. You can indeed use a false statement to disprove a claim--this form of argument is called a reductio ad absurdum. For instance, this is the form of the classical ontological proof--St. Anselm assumes that God doesn't exist in order to disprove atheism. I'll also point out that at least some of newguy's confusion here is the result of him not correctly using (and probably understanding) what is meant by "validity."