"Every instance" and "always" implies an absolute. There is no way that statement can ever be proven true.
Again, "nothing" and "everything" imply an impossible, unprovable absolute.
At this point it would probably be easier since the dog would be more receptive to new ideas.
I could say the exact same thing about you but I think my post is self-explanatory enough.
-420
[snapback]37013[/snapback]
Nothing can be proven true or false. Perception is based on the individual. No implication, only your assumption.
Nothing is proveable, once again. You want to get into perception? Everything exists at the same time that it doesn't. Theories are opinions, opinions are points, facts are false, false things are true. You don't know anything until you know nothing. Arguments are impossible just like everything that is possible is impossible.
Compared to whom? Everyone? I suppose that's your opinion, though I know you mean me, it doesn't matter. As you reject mine as easily as I accept yours without you seeming to understand that I accept yours, but present the material in a form of objection to it, due to my thought that any thought is nothing but a thought, as well as everything else beyond a thought, and therefore cannot and can be understood.
Of course, as a human I feel I should at least try to grasp what I consider this to be "true chaos" with a form of "looking glass" to see some sort of reality. Otherwise, I am fairly certain I could not be sane. So, I make my own opinions as to right and wrong, true or false, despite believing on the exterior, that everything is both true and false and neither.
Sure you could say the exact same thing as me, you have that right, it makes sense to me why you'd think that way, and think that I don't think similiar due to my presenting contradicting material, that is also presented as a disagreement with your own. However, I've never seen a rule anywhere that says you cannot raise points or make arguments against statements/opinions you agree with, and I have especially not heard any rule saying you cannot raise points or make arguments against statements/opinions you agree with as well as disagree with.
At this point it would probably be easier since the dog would be more receptive to new ideas.
Just as you said previously, 420, I could say the exact same thing about you. Assuming that the implication is, in theory, that the statement is making a comparison to me. You may not think I am receptive to new ideas, although I would say this is not true (in non-technical terms), I would also say that you are not for the same reasons, then.
Of course it's different. 420 sees it as an argument, I see it as a misunderstanding. Then again, I see many commonly perceived "arguments" as misunderstandings.
Throbble is right, it isn't different!
Well, yeah it is. But no it's not!
I purposely started this "argument."
On another note: Hello Mel!
In other news... I just got engaged. =D
I think I've summed up my nothingness/everythingness? so I shall allow you to further decide whether or not everything I've said is a joke, or has a deeper meaning. Surely you can handle that? Or perhaps you don't care, that's fine too.
