CLoNiNG

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from stu:



Border line with definitive conditional

It was your first one though but I expect mitigating circumstances will apply... seeing on how you hadn't discussed this with me before . Good job I was able to point out the error of your ways.

You can feel or believe whatever you like. In my opinion, you have done nothing beyong pointing out your own vanity, that if you make up the rules, you can win an argument.

Closing cases on the interenet is akin to thinking you won an argument on the internet:

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Closing cases on the interenet is akin to thinking you won an argument on the internet:

that picture is getting very old hat now Optional . You are reacting inside that very small box you referred to.

I haven't won an argument it was never my intention to. I have simply stated what is reasonable.

The jury and judge are believers indeed They will surely believe in more than subjective verification for definitive statements

Such a defensive attitude you hold

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from stu:



that picture is getting very old hat now Optional . You are reacting inside that very small box you referred to. (Your opinion, not a truth.)

I haven't won an argument it was never my intention to. I have simply stated what is reasonable.

The jury and judge are believers indeed They will surely believe in more than subjective verification for definitive statements

Such a defensive attitude you hold (Your opinion, free country)

You state what YOU BELIEVE IS REASONABLE, it is your belief only. There is no proof that you have been reasonable, only in your own mind do you "feel" you have been reasonable according to your understanding of what reasonable is. There is no proof of reasonableness on your part.

In a debate, you have two individuals who put forth their ideas and opinions.....rules are agreed upon before the debate begins, then you have a moderator who guides the process along and a jury/panel/observers who come to their own conclusion about whether or not the debaters were reasonable.

There was no debate here. No rules, no moderator, simply people expressing opinions.

It is the only the vanity of one who only sees what they do as reasonable, and others as unreasonable that you are now displaying.

I claim neither victory or loss, neither having proven or disproven anything to you, neither having been reasonable or unreasonable.

Go ahead, gloss yourself as reasonable, free country.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:



You state what YOU BELIEVE IS REASONABLE, it is your belief only. There is no proof that you have been reasonable, only in your own mind do you "feel" you have been reasonable according to your understanding of what reasonable is. There is no proof of reasonableness on your part.

In a debate, you have two individuals who put forth their ideas and opinions.....rules are agreed upon before the debate begins, then you have a moderator who guides the process along and a jury/panel/observers who come to their own conclusion about whether or not the debaters were reasonable.

There was no debate here. No rules, no moderator, simply people expressing opinions.

It is the only the vanity of one who only sees what they do as reasonable, and others as unreasonable that you are now displaying.

I claim neither victory or loss, neither having proven or disproven anything to you, neither having been reasonable or unreasonable.

Go ahead, gloss yourself as reasonable, free country.

No one has asked for proof towards whether I have been reasonable or not in stating that definitive statements require more than subjective evidence in support of verification.
I asked for verification of your definitive statements.
I Put forward what I contend to be reasonable.
Rather than face the questions put to you, all you want to do, I assume because your statements don't hold water, is switch the argument around, You do not face the question. Fine. I say you are unable to justify your definitive statements.

Definitive statements are not necessarily just opinions

but.... Go ahead, convince yourself they are, free country.

whatever.....

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from stu:



No one has asked for proof towards whether I have been reasonable or not in stating that definitive statements require more than subjective evidence in support of verification.
I asked for verification of your definitive statements.
I Put forward what I contend to be reasonable.
Rather than face the questions put to you, all you want to do, I assume because your statements don't hold water, is switch the argument around, You do not face the question. Fine. I say you are unable to justify your definitive statements.

Definitive statements are not necessarily just opinions

but.... Go ahead, convince yourself they are, free country.

whatever.....

You stated that you are reasonable, I don't agree.

You are entitled to any opinion on my arguments or your own arguments, how could I stop you? Or why would I want to?

If you seek to engage in a debate, with rules, and a moderator, and a panel of agreed upon people to come to a decision of who is or is not reasonable, I am always up for that.

Until that time, anyone can claim that they are more reasonable than another.

Who cares? It is just opinion, not fact.

Lots of people believe a lot of things, free country.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:



You are entitled to any opinion on my arguments or your own arguments, how could I stop you.

If you seek to engage in a debate, with rules, and a moderator, and a panel of agreed upon people to come to a decision of who is or is not reasonable, I am always up for that.

Until that time, anyone can claim that they are more reasonable than another.

Who cares? It is just opinion, not fact.

Lots of people believe a lot of things, free country.

we agree It is just an opinion. The definitive statements you make are simply opinions(I am struggling with that as a definitive remark is hardly opinion unless it is made conditional). However you have made it clear they are meant to be opinion.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from stu:



we agree

You agree with me. That is a reasonable response.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:



You agree with me. That is a reasonable response.

You needed to wait for the edit. I don't type that fast

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from stu:



we agree It is just an opinion. The definitive statements you make are simply opinions(I am struggling with that as a definitive remark is hardly opinion unless it is made conditional). However you have made it clear they are meant to be opinion.

I have never claimed to have made statements of absolute fact, only my opinion and experience that anyone can prove or disprove by doing the labwork.

Personal experience is not a subject of fact, it is a fact in and of itself. My experiences are just matter of fact things.

Those who want to question the validity of their own experiences, feel free.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:
I have never claimed to have made statements of absolute fact, only my opinion and experience that anyone can prove or disprove by doing the labwork.

Personal experience is not a subject of fact, it is a fact in and of itself. My experiences are just matter of fact things.

Those who want to question the validity of their own experiences, feel free.

"God gives you the freedom of choice to believe in him or not."

"Proof of God is in the experience, which comes via the practice of faith. "

"Since God has granted his children freedom of choice....,"

Just my opinion of course but those sounded rather like statements asserted to be absolute fact. Perhaps just a misunderstanding on my behalf.

Now that I do understand they are just your opinion, that seems reasonable.
Personal experiences such as Faith not being a subject of fact also fits in with my understanding. I simply wanted to confirm. No winning of argument. The clarification I asked for has been supplied.