Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dark Messiah You really, truly seem to love being completely wrong about things. Saying a theory is wrong is not the same as proposing a new theory of the Universe, for the simple reason that it's generally not falsifiable. Sic can, and has, listed things that have no opposites, but as you will to half-assed evasions on how we simply don't know if those things have an opposite yet, nothing can be conclusively proven. As the being advocating a semi-falsifiable position, the burden of proof is on you to actually honest to God demonstrate how and why things are based upon opposition, rather than casually dismissing any possibility of illogic in your statement with, "One thing that you folks seem to misunderstand quite frequently is that everything that is a whole is only that way because of its opposing parts all the way down to molecules and atoms". You're using deductive logic to make an assumption that everything is based around opposites, and using that assumption to try and prove itself. |
You have me wrong dear DM. What I love is to play the other side of the court which is unpopular in order to stimulate conversation. Which it invariably does because people love to prove others wrong and I love to see those same people preening for the cameras
Now I was not the one to push forward the premise that opposition law is unfeasable or flawed. Six pushed that premise forward firstly and thusly the burden is upon him. He flat out stated that it was flawed. Yet he has shown no real facts which provide for opposition theory/law to be flawed fatally. I am still awaiting something concrete. Pointing at something and suggesting that it does not have opposition just does not cut it because it just might be in the realm of possibility that it does and we just cannot percieve it or we have not as of yet percieved it.
I am a risk taker when it comes to discussions and have no fear of being wrong. If I am wrong so be it
I do not have to be right all the time to fluff an overinflated ego
