Quit deluding yourself. It is NOT Germanic and you are NOT Anglican. Your thinking is perverse by comparison.
What was the question again: “Is?”
Essentialists wannabe Existentialists. Empiricism is a bitch ain’t it? It’s not for everybody, obviously.
Thus and As are (incongruent) misnomers.
“X as X is X” is pure nonsense and you know it. 
What’s wrong with it is this: It can only be responded to by arguing endlessly over whether the internal logic of the argument itself corresponds with the only way the argument can be construed logically.
It’s not about anything other than words defining and defending other words didactically.
Being and interpreting what?
We should have a contest on ILP for the stupidest, most pointless discussion EVER, like a really alpha-beta testosteroney one over as. I’ll be at the concession stand selling popcorn and beer at $9 a pop.
No, it’s about what Sauwelios means by the word “is,” which he takes to be “equals.” Thus being “is” or “equals” interpreting. Lecherlich.
That’s your assertion, yes.
I’m stupefied by the fact that you seem to think your mere saying so has any value whatsoever!
I never said I was Anglican. But the root of “as” is clearly Germanic, as you can see from the evidence I, for one, have provided…
No, it was ““Is”?”
Existence equals essence: see http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=168064.
I know it, but then again, I never said anything of the sort.
Maybe. But my reaction remains the same: Being “is” or “equals” interpreting what?
If, for example, I am a particular being watching a particular news segment on the war in Afghanistan, I am interpreting what I see. Does that equal my interpreting it?
I just don’t see the significance or the relevance of the argument. Yes, it would seem obvious that equal equals is here.
Instead, what fascinates me is how so many different people raised in the same historical age and culture can watch the very same segment and in interpret it in so many profoundly conflicting and contradictory ways.
What is the right way to interpret it? Is that equal to the way I do? To me, that’s where the rubber meets the road philosophically.
The question is not what’s ‘wrong’ with it, but what’s invalid about it.
All Being and Interpreting, as I’ve already said.
No I don’t. How can that still not be clear to you??
The word is lächerlich. Anyway, what the hell are you still doing here?
To what exactly does “that” in your last question refer?
Please stick to the topic or take your thoughts elsewhere.
And I find it interesting that you think that this is about value at all. All it’s about is VALIDITY.
Ah, so you’re just fooling around now—I suspect out of spite.
There can be no validity or invalidity to separate statements, smart-ass.
steps 1-3 are sound
step 4 is still gibberish
step 5 is tautological
step 6…well it’s based on a nonsensical sentence, so…idk
step 7 is based on step 6 which is based on nonsense, so…idk
what the hell does #4 mean? that’s not english you’re speaking, i have to agree with Debaitor on that one.
OK then, what does the sense of the syllogism depend on? You need to define all the ambiguous terms: is, being, and X.
My thoughts always revolve around the relationship between words and worlds. When I come upon an argument that seems to revolve only around the relationship between words and more words still it just fascinates me how folks can go on and on and never bring the words down into the world we live in. That is what I see wrong with the argument?
Am I not then entitled to raise that point?
If others don’t agree the point is relevant they can always just ignore it. But I’m always hoping to bumb into folks who take my point seriously enough to engage it. Or to explain why my point is not reasonable.
Or you just don’t understand it.
Suppose I interpret your Saying it’s gibberish as meaning that you don’t understand it. Then we can speak of “my Interpreting your Saying it’s gibberish as meaning that you don’t understand it”. If I had interpreted your Saying so as Insulting (which I don’t!), then we could speak of “my Interpreting your Saying so as Insulting”. Now if my interpretation is incorrect, we can say, “My Interpreting your Saying so as Insulting is incorrect.” This statement has the exact same structure as statement # 4.
I think that can be disputed, but I’m glad that you think so. I think so, too.
It means, “all interpretations that interpret all Being as belonging in the category “X” belong in the category “X””.
Please tell me if you’re having any problems with any of the following phrases or statements.
A. “I interpret something.”
B. “my Interpreting something”
C. “I interpret something as something.”
D. “my Interpreting something as something”
E. “Something is something.”
F. “My Interpreting something as something is something.”
Statement # 4 has the exact same structure as F above.
I have already defined “is” as meaning “belongs in the category of “…””.
“Being” (with a capital B) is Heidegger’s Sein. Heidegger’s question as to the meaning of Being occupied him his entire life. There’s even a song about it: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=172011.
X is a variable.
How do you know I will never do that? I will do that as soon as the argument is found to be valid, if that ever happens.
“Being as belonging” what the fuck? LOL! 
Being as belonging in category X???
Stick with German; quit trying to become English.
You’re clearly trying to equate “Being as Belonging”. This is your error of both logic and judgment.