View Single Post
Old 01-04-2009, 09:53 PM   #20
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
If your argument holds that all arguments can be wrong, then this includes your argument that there are no absolute truths, which means they can exist, no matter how much you wish to protest.
Never said they couldn't exist. I said they don't exist insofar as WE know. Humanity is too subjective.

Originally Posted by Achilles
Whether you realize it or not, you argument dictates that there must be absolute truths (your argument itself seeks to be one of them).
Not really. My argument seeks to disprove any absolute truths known to man.

Originally Posted by Achilles
There are degrees of subjectivity. Not of objectivity.
Pretty much exactly what I've been saying. Subjectivity exists, in varying degrees, to humanity. Humans can't be absolutely objective.

Originally Posted by Achilles
There is no reason to do so, unless you wish your argument to be seriously considered. If you don't, then there is no reason to post anything further. You made your claim and indicated your desire to do nothing more to defend it. Done and done.

The burden of proof is always on the party making a claim. I hope that helps to clear up any remaining confusion.

Thanks for your post.
That's neat. Just because you won't seriously consider it because I for some reason can't align it to your qualifications doesn't make it any less valid, I'm afraid. Since the concepts and definitions of "proof", "validity", or "seriously considerable" are all, by the logic of my argument, debatably subjective, then it stands to reason that my point is just as valid as yours. The only difference is, you're willing to dismiss things and deal in absolutes, and I am not.
Adavardes is offline   you may: