Philosophy Now Forum

Kid, let me tip you off on something you don't seem to have realised.

There's about 500 threads of your inane, pointless comments out there already. Plenty of place for you to while away your time upchucking online. Go away, please? The adults would like to have a conversation.

Trifeck wrote:Kid, let me tip you off on something you don't seem to have realised.

There's about 500 threads of your inane, pointless comments out there already. Plenty of place for you to while away your time upchucking online. Go away, please? The adults would like to have a conversation.

If you think yourself grown up then maybe it is time to ask a few grown up questions?

And you'll be the judge of that? A guy who flatly accuses a stranger of lying when they talk about their colourblindness? Give me a break.

Trifeck wrote:And you'll be the judge of that? A guy who flatly accuses a stranger of lying when they talk about their colourblindness? Give me a break.

The profundity of his colour blindness is a lie. Were anyone on earth to have such severity then that would be a medical phenomenon worthy of scientific study.

"The profundity of his colour blindness is a lie. Were anyone on earth to have such severity then that would be a medical phenomenon worthy of scientific study."

How can you make such a statement without seeing the obvious assumption - that you know everything, or that the world is an idealistic place where a medical "normal" has been eternally established, and every deviation is accurately diagnosed by doctors who are in constant contact with ALL of humanity? Do you not see that you have not the slightest shred of evidence to back up your "this is definitely a lie"? It's the same thing you were doing in the other thread. Making a statement of certainty with nothing to back it up. It's really offensive. Not to mention incorrect.

Trifeck wrote:"The profundity of his colour blindness is a lie. Were anyone on earth to have such severity then that would be a medical phenomenon worthy of scientific study."

How can you make such a statement without seeing the obvious assumption - that you know everything, or that the world is an idealistic place where a medical "normal" has been eternally established, and every deviation is accurately diagnosed by doctors who are in constant contact with ALL of humanity? Do you not see that you have not the slightest shred of evidence to back up your "this is definitely a lie"?.

i think it is a bit strong trying to claim I do not have a shred of evidence. I though you were not going to be bickering?

If a man told another person that he could live without a heart he would either be a very unusual medical specimen or a liar. Sometimes the only miraculous thing about miracles is that it requires a miracle to believe them.
I don't know everything, but I have looked into colour blindness. If he is not exaggerating then he needs to check in to the nearest medical research facility because he has much to offer science.

Trifeck wrote: It's the same thing you were doing in the other thread. Making a statement of certainty with nothing to back it up. It's really offensive. Not to mention incorrect

On what issue exactly?
You mean the one you have now conceded?

No, it's not a bit strong, because you actually don't have a shred of evidence. Just the evidence of your own experience - and there's no reason to assume that his experiences need to dovetail with yours. Even if your statement is correct - "If he is not exaggerating then he needs to check in to the nearest medical research facility because he has much to offer science" - that does not for a second suggest that you have any evidence to call him a liar.

This isn't bickering, this is separating fact from opinion.

And son, I haven't conceded anything. Only agreed that I might be wrong in my theory of thought being exactly like an electromagnetic wave - which does not translate to your "the mind/consciousness is only the physical components of the brain, and nothing else" demagoguery being correct.
On the thread "What creates matter", not "Edetic memory".

Conceding a point of view means to accept that the point of view is entirely incorrect. You still have some work to do if you intend to prove that. So far, all you've got is an interesting contradiction.

Trifeck wrote:No, it's not a bit strong, because you actually don't have a shred of evidence. Just the evidence of your own experience - and there's no reason to assume that his experiences need to dovetail with yours. Even if your statement is correct - "If he is not exaggerating then he needs to check in to the nearest medical research facility because he has much to offer science" - that does not for a second suggest that you have any evidence to call him a liar.

This isn't bickering, this is separating fact from opinion.

And son, I haven't conceded anything. Only agreed that I might be wrong in my theory of thought being exactly like an electromagnetic wave - which does not translate to your "the mind/consciousness is only the physical components of the brain, and nothing else" demagoguery being correct.
On the thread "What creates matter", not "Edetic memory".

Conceding a point of view means to accept that the point of view is entirely incorrect. You still have some work to do if you intend to prove that. So far, all you've got is an interesting contradiction.

Please point to the medical condition which shares such a profound colour blindness as described by the poster.


You are getting al uppity again.