On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:52:29 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:33:51 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> >If you are unable to provide any examples of what you say you mean, I >> >take leave to doubt that you know what you mean, or that you mean >> >anything at all. >> >> Who says I'm unable > >I did not say you could not, only that you have not.
Nonsense. You said "unable". If you can't even recognize your own words there's nothing to talk about.
>> and why can't the general claim itself be >> evaluated without exemplification? > >Because I have no idea what your "general claim" is claiming.
That the alternative to absolute falseness in universal terms is perforce universally true.
>> If we can't agree on the general >> proposition we're certainly not going to be able to agree on >> particular examples. > > Your "general propsition" seems to be an assertion that somethings >exists, but your description of what those somethings are amorphous.
Then read it again.
>> I've noticed a common tendency with those unable >> to argue effectively against a general proposition to demand examples >> so they can argue ad nauseum about those instead. > >I am not "arguing against it", I am merely refusing to accept what I do >not understand. if you expect acceptance from me, it is your job to make >your position clear.
Then I suggest you explain what you don't find clear. So far whatever it is you're refusing to accept is amorphous.
>> My impression is >> that you want to deny that alternatives to universal falseness would >> perforce be universally true so as to reject any implicit possibility >> of universal truth but don't know how to proceed and need examples to >> argue about instead. > > My impression is that agreeing that "alternatives to universal >falseness would perforce be universally true" requires agreement on at >least what "universal falseness" means and what "universal truth" means, >and I have no referents for either.
I can't see how you need to understand what either means in order to evaluate the general proposition provided you understand that they're alternatives to one another.