Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 11:41 am
This is fundamentally the same mistake you made with your understanding of 'impossible':
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:37 pm"Impossible" simply means NOT possible. And I say that it's NOT possible because I haven't seen anybody do it.
the one you had to:
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:55 amEdit 2: Recant on using my own definition of "impossible" and default to Oxford definition.
See, this is your error. You are holding onto your stupid unfalsifiable philosopher axiom that everybody else is always wrong. No. it's you this time.
You don't even understand what my error was.
There was no error in my understanding of "impossible". It means exactly what it means when English people use it, and that's exactly what I meant when I used it.
What I got wrong was thinking I was using my own definition, when I was intuitively using the Oxford meaning of the word.
The underlying meaning/understanding was 100% correct - all that changed was the definition I claimed to be using.
You are being very silly. You are attacking me for calling it "7+1" instead of "9-1". It's still pointing to the exact same meaning. You are confusing the language with the meaning of the language.