Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

[Logik]

You've mixed up two arguments.
The argument with "=" is valid, the argument with "is" is not valid.

That's because it's not an argument! It's a proposition.
SpeakPigeon is human (SpeakPigeon = Human).

What fucking planet are you from?

What is it you don't understand?
First, the argument with "=" is valid:

A=C;
B=C;
Therefore A=B.

And then the argument with "is" is not valid:

John is human;
Jane is human;
Therefore, John is Jane.

What is it you don't understand?
If you want a formal expression of the second argument, here is it:

A∈C;
B∈C;
Therefore, A∈B.

And it is clearly not valid.
What is it you don't understand?
Ah, yes, logic.
EB

WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT.

I am not making any ARGUMENTS. I am making TRUE ASSERTIONS about reality!

John is human. ( A = C ). I look at John - he is fucking human!
Jane is human ( B = C ). I look at Jane - she is fucking human!
John is not Jane (A != B). I look at John and Jane - they are different fucking people!

Why do I need to argue about these fucking things?

Do you think you need to argue that you are human and that you are not me?

IT IS FUCKING OBVIOUS.

[Age]

I am not making any ARGUMENTS. I am making TRUE ASSERTIONS about reality!

John is human. ( A = C ). I look at John - he is fucking human!
Jane is human ( B = C ). I look at Jane - she is fucking human!
John is not Jane (A != B). I look at John and Jane - they are different fucking people!

They are NOT 'true assertions'. What they are are YOUR, so called, "true assertions".

For example you do NOT look at 'john'. What you look at is 'a human body', that you KNOW as, and call by the GIVEN name, "john".

'john' is NOT a 'he' and 'john' is NOT a 'human' also. As I pointed out to you earlier 'john' IS just A NAME that was GIVEN/PLACED upon a human body.

Why do I need to argue about these fucking things?

Because of the obvious FALSENESS of what you see and say. If there was NO falsity in what you see and say, then obviously you would NOT have to argue for them.

If you were just expressing the TRUTH, then you would NOT need to argue about these things, like you are TRYING TO do now.

Do you think you need to argue that you are human and that you are not me?

When, and IF, you ever learn how to LOOK at things objectively, 'you' being one of those things also by the way, then "you" will learn/discover what the 'you' IS, in the Truest sense, and also discover/learn what the 'human' actually IS, also.

IT IS FUCKING OBVIOUS.

TO YOU it is.

But what is OBVIOUS to ME is, That the one human being labelled 'logik', here in this forum, is NOT able to yet SEE the actual and real Truth of things, at the moment of when this is written.

'you' can ASSERT what you SEE is TRUE, but that does NOT mean that what you are asserting is thee actual and real TRUTH of things.

Are you, at least, UNDERSTAND that?

[Logik]

I am not making any ARGUMENTS. I am making TRUE ASSERTIONS about reality!

John is human. ( A = C ). I look at John - he is fucking human!
Jane is human ( B = C ). I look at Jane - she is fucking human!
John is not Jane (A != B). I look at John and Jane - they are different fucking people!

They are NOT 'true assertions'. What they are are YOUR, so called, "true assertions".

For example you do NOT look at 'john'. What you look at is 'a human body', that you KNOW as, and call by the GIVEN name, "john".

'john' is NOT a 'he' and 'john' is NOT a 'human' also. As I pointed out to you earlier 'john' IS just A NAME that was GIVEN/PLACED upon a human body.

Why do I need to argue about these fucking things?

Because of the obvious FALSENESS of what you see and say. If there was NO falsity in what you see and say, then obviously you would NOT have to argue for them.

If you were just expressing the TRUTH, then you would NOT need to argue about these things, like you are TRYING TO do now.

Do you think you need to argue that you are human and that you are not me?

When, and IF, you ever learn how to LOOK at things objectively, 'you' being one of those things also by the way, then "you" will learn/discover what the 'you' IS, in the Truest sense, and also discover/learn what the 'human' actually IS, also.

IT IS FUCKING OBVIOUS.

TO YOU it is.

But what is OBVIOUS to ME is, That the one human being labelled 'logik', here in this forum, is NOT able to yet SEE the actual and real Truth of things, at the moment of when this is written.

'you' can ASSERT what you SEE is TRUE, but that does NOT mean that what you are asserting is thee actual and real TRUTH of things.

Are you, at least, UNDERSTAND that?

What a lot of babble.

I have asserted that "Age is human" is True.

If it's a mistake. Show it to me.

[Age]

I am not making any ARGUMENTS. I am making TRUE ASSERTIONS about reality!

John is human. ( A = C ). I look at John - he is fucking human!
Jane is human ( B = C ). I look at Jane - she is fucking human!
John is not Jane (A != B). I look at John and Jane - they are different fucking people!

They are NOT 'true assertions'. What they are are YOUR, so called, "true assertions".

For example you do NOT look at 'john'. What you look at is 'a human body', that you KNOW as, and call by the GIVEN name, "john".

'john' is NOT a 'he' and 'john' is NOT a 'human' also. As I pointed out to you earlier 'john' IS just A NAME that was GIVEN/PLACED upon a human body.

Why do I need to argue about these fucking things?

Because of the obvious FALSENESS of what you see and say. If there was NO falsity in what you see and say, then obviously you would NOT have to argue for them.

If you were just expressing the TRUTH, then you would NOT need to argue about these things, like you are TRYING TO do now.

Do you think you need to argue that you are human and that you are not me?

When, and IF, you ever learn how to LOOK at things objectively, 'you' being one of those things also by the way, then "you" will learn/discover what the 'you' IS, in the Truest sense, and also discover/learn what the 'human' actually IS, also.

IT IS FUCKING OBVIOUS.

TO YOU it is.

But what is OBVIOUS to ME is, That the one human being labelled 'logik', here in this forum, is NOT able to yet SEE the actual and real Truth of things, at the moment of when this is written.

'you' can ASSERT what you SEE is TRUE, but that does NOT mean that what you are asserting is thee actual and real TRUTH of things.

Are you, at least, UNDERSTAND that?

What a lot of babble.

I have asserted that "Age is human" is True.

If it's a mistake. Show it to me.

Once again YOUR BELIEFS are blinding you from the actual words that are written in front of you. Just because you can NOT see these words that OPPOSE your BELIEFS does NOT mean that they are NOT here, nor that they are babble.

'age' IS NOT human. I asserted that. So, does that, by itself, MEAN that it is true? (you are aware that this is the "logic" that you are TRYING to use here now, right? You can assert as many things as you like. But the actual Truth of them OR NOT will come to light and be SEEN.

What you asserted IS A MISTAKE. I will SHOW you. The three letters that make up the word 'age' is just a USERNAME given to separate the writings in this forum from the writings from another identity.

Was that simple enough for you to SEE now?

Are you, at least, able to UNDERSTAND this now?

[Logik]

They are NOT 'true assertions'. What they are are YOUR, so called, "true assertions".

For example you do NOT look at 'john'. What you look at is 'a human body', that you KNOW as, and call by the GIVEN name, "john".

'john' is NOT a 'he' and 'john' is NOT a 'human' also. As I pointed out to you earlier 'john' IS just A NAME that was GIVEN/PLACED upon a human body.



Because of the obvious FALSENESS of what you see and say. If there was NO falsity in what you see and say, then obviously you would NOT have to argue for them.

If you were just expressing the TRUTH, then you would NOT need to argue about these things, like you are TRYING TO do now.



When, and IF, you ever learn how to LOOK at things objectively, 'you' being one of those things also by the way, then "you" will learn/discover what the 'you' IS, in the Truest sense, and also discover/learn what the 'human' actually IS, also.



TO YOU it is.

But what is OBVIOUS to ME is, That the one human being labelled 'logik', here in this forum, is NOT able to yet SEE the actual and real Truth of things, at the moment of when this is written.

'you' can ASSERT what you SEE is TRUE, but that does NOT mean that what you are asserting is thee actual and real TRUTH of things.

Are you, at least, UNDERSTAND that?

What a lot of babble.

I have asserted that "Age is human" is True.

If it's a mistake. Show it to me.

Once again YOUR BELIEFS are blinding you from the actual words that are written in front of you. Just because you can NOT see these words that OPPOSE your BELIEFS does NOT mean that they are NOT here, nor that they are babble.

'age' IS NOT human. I asserted that. So, does that, by itself, MEAN that it is true? (you are aware that this is the "logic" that you are TRYING to use here now, right? You can assert as many things as you like. But the actual Truth of them OR NOT will come to light and be SEEN.

What you asserted IS A MISTAKE. I will SHOW you. The three letters that make up the word 'age' is just a USERNAME given to separate the writings in this forum from the writings from another identity.

Was that simple enough for you to SEE now?

Are you, at least, able to UNDERSTAND this now?

I am bending nothing, you obscurantist.

Your forum username is Age.
Are you human? This is a yes or no question.

[Age]

What a lot of babble.

I have asserted that "Age is human" is True.

If it's a mistake. Show it to me.

Once again YOUR BELIEFS are blinding you from the actual words that are written in front of you. Just because you can NOT see these words that OPPOSE your BELIEFS does NOT mean that they are NOT here, nor that they are babble.

'age' IS NOT human. I asserted that. So, does that, by itself, MEAN that it is true? (you are aware that this is the "logic" that you are TRYING to use here now, right? You can assert as many things as you like. But the actual Truth of them OR NOT will come to light and be SEEN.

What you asserted IS A MISTAKE. I will SHOW you. The three letters that make up the word 'age' is just a USERNAME given to separate the writings in this forum from the writings from another identity.

Was that simple enough for you to SEE now?

Are you, at least, able to UNDERSTAND this now?

I am bending nothing, you obscurantist.

Your forum username is Age.
Are you human? This is a yes or no question.

NO. HOW many times do I have to tell you?

Are you, at least, able to UNDERSTAND this now?

[Logik]

NO. HOW many times do I have to tell you?

Only once.

Are you human?

[Age]

NO. HOW many times do I have to tell you?

Only once.

Are you human?

Define 'you'?

[Logik]

Define 'you'?

That is your job, not mine.

[Age]

Define 'you'?

That is your job, not mine.

So, are you completely incapable of defining and clarifying the words that you use, or you just do not want to define them?

By the way, WHY do you say that I only have to tell you the answer once but after I tell you the answer you immediately ask me the EXACT same question two more times?

By the way I have ALREADY defined it. One day you might be able to also? We will just have to wait and see.

[Logik]

So, are you completely incapable of defining and clarifying the words that you use, or you just do not want to define them?

I do not have to define every word I use.

I use the word 'you' EXACTLY the same way that YOU are using it.

[Age]

So, are you completely incapable of defining and clarifying the words that you use, or you just do not want to define them?

I do not have to define every word I use.

I use the word 'you' EXACTLY the same way that YOU are using it.

There is NO way you are using it the way I use it.

You have absolutely NO idea of the way I am using it, and at the rate you are going you NEVER will.

[Logik]

There is NO way you are using it the way I use it.

You have absolutely NO idea of the way I am using it, and at the rate you are going you NEVER will.

Define "I"

[Age]

There is NO way you are using it the way I use it.

You have absolutely NO idea of the way I am using it, and at the rate you are going you NEVER will.

Define "I"

'you' is NOT ready for that Truth yet. 'you' are incapable of UNDERSTANDING the 'I', for now.

When you can answer the question 'Who am 'I'?' properly and correctly, then the 'I' is defined. Until then 'I' will leave 'you' in your state of confusion and being unable to define the actual words that 'you' use.

[Logik]

'you' is NOT ready for that Truth yet. 'you' are incapable of UNDERSTANDING the 'I', for now.

When you can answer the question 'Who am 'I'?' properly and correctly, then the 'I' is defined. Until then 'I' will leave 'you' in your state of confusion and being unable to define the actual words that 'you' use.

I am not asking for Truth. I am asking for a definition.

If you can't define "I", then perhaps you will define "you"?

Since I am in a state of mental confusion and you are not then help me define the meaning of 'you' and 'I'.