That is only the first of the things I am saying that you are.

Only petty minds obsess themselves with needless complexity. There's no reason to spend more words than necessary to describe the obvious flaws in your logic.

It takes more than one instance of a theory being correct to find it generally true. One of the inherent flaws here is that an "opposite" is a subjective term that's really only defined by human perception and nothing else. The closest objective parallel is the is/is not division; i.e., everything in the Universe is or is not a refridgerator.

I beg to differ. Opposition has been shown to be scientific fact in some instances and as such it is not subjective

Science is an objective and verifiable observation.

Polarity or "opposition" has been shown to exist within molecules as well as magnetics and gravity.

So that Dark Messiah means that you are indeed wrong. I forgive you this once though

And matter and anti-matter. Yes. But to try and apply it as a philosophy that defines all aspects of the Universe requires a lot of bullshitting and assigning non-applicable opposites to things. When you get to concepts like fire and ice you're applying a human interpretation that invalidates the theory.

I am not the one trying to propose the concept as fire and ice.... that is you and the others.... I have been forwarding it as a scientific ideal

Philosophy is glorified mental masturbation with strings of orgasmic deductive logic that are often as ephemeral as the euphoria derived from sexual congress

Once again I will forgive you your erroneous ideals

Opposites have been scientifically proven to exist and as such are objective NOT subjective. Science is based on objective and verifiable observation. Therefore polarity within science is objective and observable. It is not subjective nor defined by human perception. It is verifiable science

Can we agree that science is objective??? And if we can and you do agree than it falls into place that you agree that polarity is objective as well.

And I can tango. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Opposition as a theory hinges upon more than opposites simply existing in some instances.

I agreed that as a base theory it has its holes.

Yet you said it was subjective and pursuant to human perception. That is wrong. It is objective and based on observation. If the price of tea in china shows that you are wrong than it indeed has everything to do with it.

Firstly six--The validity of polarity is not up for discussion as it is scientific fact. It exists. Its premise is completely justified. It has been objectively viewed and is fact. It exists. So lets not even discuss its existence anymore because we know that it does indeed exist.

Than six again--I would ask where he got this theory of big "T" truth and small "t" truth because it is a pretty theory but wrong in its own right We both agreed at this point that polarity does indeed exist yet somehow six turned that into not meaning much because it is a small "t" truth.... whatever that might mean. Do they teach you that stuff in school??? If it is a truth than it is a truth and nothing more or less.

Than you jumped in with your bullshit rhetoric and stupid meaningless posts in order to provide us with a clear view of just how superiour you are to our small minds---Followed by--
Another meaningless post that has nothing to do with anything except as a small slight insinuation that I am an accidental fool nice but still meaningless

Than you say--Where you state that an opposite is subjective when we know that polarity in science is objective.

Clear for you to understand.

Polarity is fact. The theory is that everything is infused with polarity and exists as a whole because of the tension derived from opposition. So please be aware that we are discussing two things here and not one. That way you do not get confused.
We can say--- our sun manufactures 3.8 x10 23rd kilowatts and so another star which is comparable would manufacture the same amount. Yes it is conjecture and yet very sound. So yes it would be a theory yet it is based on science fact and the prudent mind would consider its evident truth.

It's not wrong. The theory of opposition is based upon perceived opposites like life and death, night and day, fire and water. In order for the theory to be valid we have to begin to accept as things opposites for which there is no clear proof. This is not even the true flaw in the theory, of course; the real problem comes up when there are no even remotely tenable cantidates for an idea's opposite.

The theory of opposition is, was, and never will be based upon the polarity of atoms. It is a neat little objective proof of the original idea that inspired the theory, yes, and I did misspeak. Even though, of course, atomic particles don't teach us of their existence via their opposites. Regardless, proving that bricks exist doesn't mean that you've proven the Great Wall of China exists. You seem perpetually to be ignorant of the very theory you're trying to defend.

You're the one attempting to bring the subject to life, again and again, as a strawman argument. Again. Said very slowly so that you can understand this; The theory of opposition entails much, much, much more than opposites existing on some levels.

It is not a truth that can be relied upon, and therefore it is not a Truth, and the theory is invalid. Many things, most things in fact, do not have an opposite that defines them.

I suppose if you ignore the previous points at which I 'jumped in', as well as any posts or part of quoted posts that don't support your argument.

Also, not 'our'. Yours.

See above.

See above.

See above.

See above.

But not for you, as a polarity is not the same as an opposite, particularly within the context of discussing the theory of Opposition, which supposes even more than simply everything in the World somewhere having it's opposite.

I legitimately don't expect you to understand a single level of the conversation. Asking me to take it to another couple tiers is just silly.

No they wouldn't. Only an idiot would consider that a truth. Gravity isn't even considered a law. You have no idea what you're babbling about and this is totally unrelated.

And the end product--- Me Dark Messiah.... me smart you stupid.... you babble.... go away and leave me to my brilliance....

Yes.... indeed I shall

It's amazing how that post doesn't make you seem childish. To wit, that post does not make you seem like a child, at all.

Six.... question.... do you utilize the traditional square of opposition???

If you wish to insult me further please do so elsewhere.... I will leave you a grand opening in off-topic if you so wish..... we can have a nice little verbal sparring match and you can get your knockers in a twist

What exactly does your theory of universal opposition entail Dyshade?

Well.... to put it simply.... which is altogether not very easy nor simple...

Existence is tension. Vibration if you will. This tension, or vibration, is the whole of everything being. This tension is created and held somewhat constant by polarity. Polarity and the tension it creates sustains existence. Everything exists in opposition. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT everything need have an equitable opposite nor even have an opposite. On an infinite scale which reads from infinite negative to infinite positive everything exists somewhere.
It is nothing as infantile as everything must have an opposite to exist..... though that can be forwarded as a valid argument in itself..... that is NOT what is meant nor inferred..... of course everything could have its opposite and we may never know this because we cannot as much disprove it as we can prove it.....


fuck.. that ain't simple is it

Maybe we should start a new thread

start it up i have a few counter points to the argument that everything has an opposite.

I also think that opposition may not be the best word for what your trying to convey.

Anyway its your topic, start a new thread or contain it here what do you want to do?

I will.. but did you even read that above???

yes, I am simply stateing that I have counter points to the everything has opposites portion of that statement.