Originally Posted by jmac7142
you're the one who brought this whole thing to a head in the other thread, and now you're just going to stick your tongue out at it and support your argument with your own argument? classy.
So, if my argument holds that all arguments can be wrong, and that no truths absolutely exist insofar as we know, then it's to be dismissed, because it proves itself as possibly wrong? Because I believe I said earlier that mitigating evidence can often made an argument more objective and valid than others, just not to the complete extreme. Philosophers couldn't prove what they were saying when they talked about what society should be constructed like, or how man thinks, but a lot of what they said is still accepted as truth.
You're throwing around the "burden of proof", but I fail to see why I should feel the need to prove my argument when the concept is just that: a concept, and it can be flawed. Just like any other, and most certainly like your claims that there are universal truths humanity recognises. If you can prove me wrong to that effect, then the burden of proof is most definately on me, right?