Originally Posted by
snoop
Again, you ignore what you quote and start a new argument because you fear you have lost the one you were just in. Care to argue against my argument and not just spouting off dribble that makes no sense? Honestly, what in the fuck are you trying to say here? When did I ever mention ideas not being ideas, or assert that ideas were a material thing? What straws did you grasp at in your mind to come up with that? A paradox relies on very specific and vague wording. Let me give you the definition of a paradox according to many internet dictionaries:
Now let us think a moment here. How can a statement be seemingly contradictory but in fact be true? In order to meet that criteria you must be purposefully vague and make a broad, encompassing statement that to most would sound as if to be false, but in fact at least some of the time could be true. "Some paradoxes are not paradoxical" is a paradox, a statement that is seemingly contradictory (how can paradoxes not be paradoxical if paradoxical means to be characteristic of being a paradox?) but may in fact be true, because you did not say if the paradoxes were seemingly paradoxes, guaranteed to be paradoxes, or flat out lies labeled as paradoxes, you just said that some paradoxes are not paradoxical. Since you did not specify if they were true paradoxes or fake paradoxes or paradoxes assumed under false pretenses, the statement is technically true when otherwise it would be false because if you assume that the person asserting the paradox is talking about legitimate paradoxes when he says "some paradoxes", then of course, according to what logic tells us (and again we are talking about logic using its one and only definition, a methodology of thinking that does not contradict itself in any way, shape or form), the statement will always be false. If the giver of the paradox changes what he says to "All legitimate paradoxes are paradoxical," it becomes a factual statement and not a paradox, much like the statement that a broken clock--given that a clock is made with the specific purpose of keeping time during the day--will in fact show the right time at least once a day, even despite its brokenness. The brokenness has no bearing on if it can show the correct time of day once because that's a given! So, as I said, the statement would have to be revised to "broken clocks can keep time throughout the day" or something along that lines.
Now if you were paying attention, you could trap me here based on my own logic. During the course of this post I actually proved myself wrong somewhat, because you possibly could have been talking about a clock that refers to, for instance, CPU speed, but you never used that argument against me. So while admit I was somewhat wrong at first, I might as well be right because you never brought that valid point up and instead opted to grab for straws and try and get me to change the subject so we would forget that you don't know what a paradox is.
edit:
I feel like the reason you are so opposed to admitting you could be wrong or that someone else could possibly be right is because you are taking everyone arguing against you personally. I want you to know that I am not judging you as a person based on your beliefs or the arguments you have been making in this website, and if you bring a valid point when arguing against me I will acknowledge it, I see no shame in it. View this as a challenge, I am trying to make you actually cover your bases instead of ruin your arguments using the tactics you are already using. They aren't working, and they never will. Quit trying to change the subject, quit trying to say that we must be using different definitions for words that only have one accepted definition. Argue with reason and logic man, it helps.