Uccisore argues that you cannot use deductive arguments to prove the existence of concrete objects.
Proof is where everything is discarded and only one possible solution remains.
All words are existent concrete objects.
All deductive arguments use words.
All deductive arguments use existent concrete objects.
Therefor, all deductive arguments prove the existence of concrete objects in the form of words.
Uccisore also argues that assertions are not arguments…
All assertions use words.
All words are being chosen from about 20 million different words.
Argument is when there is opposing actuality to the choice of an existent.
All words are being used as arguments.
All assertions are being used as arguments. (there could simply be a different assertion - see point 3 for argument)
This is the argument Uccisore always uses to say that God cannot be proven or disproven using deduction, or perhaps anything.
Yeah but Ucci can’t tell the different between tautology and circularity.
But Ucci is right about that one.
Your version makes literally all things throughout the entire universe, “arguments”. It’s non-sense.
A word is not a argument merely because it was used in an argument (assuming that it was).
And if a word is an argument then so is a letter.
And if a letter is an argument then so is a pixel, pencil mark, or smudge.
Blinking of an eye is an argument.
Combing hair is an argument.
Picking your nose is an argument.
It’s non-sense.
Why is that nonsense? It’s plain as day. Sure eye blinking may often be autonomous, but that is a nervous system argument, an adaptation argument. I’m not saying we don’t make mistakes, as in perhaps an accidental pencil smudge, but I’m also not saying everything is intentional either, the argument here comes after the fact and says “That’s not what I intended to do”. Why is it so absurd? Think about it.
Bottles are existent objects.
Rocks are existent objects.
Bottles and rocks can be placed in a line.
Bottles and rocks and be used in a deductive argument demonstrating the existence of existent concrete objects that are not bottles and rocks.
Hm. I I don’t think so.
If the last statement is true then ‘maybe’ is an argument.
To me it seems like there is a distinction between and assertion and an argument.
By the way the conclusion of this (deduction?) is not the same as ‘assertions are arguments’.
If I scream out ‘Yes’ when having an orgasm is this an argument?
I think the sentence of yours in this second deduction needs to be made clearer.
It is true that people use assertions as arguments and confuse the two. This has parallels to people using someone’s opinion as proof. People use all sorts of things as evidence, proof and as arguments. People use violence as arguments. Insults. But this does not make the insult an argument.
I still think the distinction between assertion and argument is useful.
For example, why bother with these deductive approaches when you could simply have said ‘Uccisore is wrong’ (an assertion).
Instread of a bare assertion, you made arguments. Flawed ones I think, but they are arguments.
It is absurd because that is NOT what the word “argument” means.
No where does it say anything about every word being an argument. The closest use of a word being an argument is when the word is used to more specifically define another word or phrase that wasn’t an argument itself (much like an adjective or adverb).
That only applies if you are currently using the word in an argument or intend on it being the bone of contention in an argument, such as "we are arguing over a God issue and my argument is ‘Freewill’. The word is being used to identify an argument. In reality, the word itself is not the argument, merely an identification word for the actual argument. So in shortened language, it is often called the argument.
I am arguing over the issue of whether to type “random” letters, “uyqbqorqcin” or the word “word”, my argument is “word” because I’m trying to communicate effectively.
An argument is an addition to something, an “augmentation” of reasoning.
The fact that you are choosing one thing over another for some purpose does not indicate argumentation, merely decision making. Every decision is NOT an argumentation. Argumentation requires adding onto an existing assertion or proposal.
Speaking is not arguing. Arguing is adding to what reasoning has already been proposed.
Well, that is probably true of you, but not to most people.
You’re welcome to have your own language … as long as you don’t mind constant argumentation.
What’s more to the point, is not only do you not have to speak at all, which means your arguing a side just by speaking (the speaking side won), but it’s also about what you say, being argued from the multitude of things you can say, and what you said won over all the rest. That’s basic argument James. I can pull up definitions too for argument… which are basically defined as opposing points of view coming in contact with each other.
I laso have one more thing to level at Uccisore, so this becomes a three pronged thread. Uccisore says you can’t define Gods goodness because this is just art and you can’t define whether art is good or bad. I have several things to say about this comment… FIRSTLY, that means that we’re all subjective and not accountable to the judgement of good or bad either. SECONDLY, ART is defined by the intention to make it art, it is separate from function, the snow shovel evolved to a precise angle over tens of thousands of years to optimize the shoveling of snow, any other angle is suboptimal, and the shoveling of snow is for survival, all functional things. Now if you put diamonds on the handle of a shovel or took a picture of a shovel and tried to make it look interesting, that would be art, but a shovel in itself is not art. Understand? THIRDLY, torture is an art form, and there are lots of people in prison who kidnap people and use this art form… it is grotesque on every level except for the “good” metric of how bad it was, so you have a moral contradiction here. But if we just start saying everything Bad is Good if it’s art, then there could be no legal system. So yes, art can be judged as bad.
To be clear, I never argued that assertions are not arguments, though I may have stated it. It’s too obvious to require an argument, and anybody who doesn’t know this already is either completely ignorant of philosophy or is desperately reaching for a language-destroying definition of clear terms simply to make some rhetorical point.
If there was some non-asinine, clear reason to even entertain for one second that maybe, possibly, assertions are arguments, then perhaps I could be motivated to provide an argument to the contrary. But that standard has yet to be met.
That’s right, you asserted it. And made an argument that said since it was an assertion it couldn’t be argued against, and I countered that it was an fact an argument.
I can quote the thread as, “James told me in PM that i didn’t understand what Uccisore was saying, that assertions cannot be argued against, and he made an assertion, therefor you lost the debate.” And you came in and said to the effect of “See I told you so, Ecmandu ceded the debate.”
