#rhtrcs

Hold your opponent responsible for the actions of their entire group, or culture. Demand that they show penance by calling out every example of the behaviour you don’t like. Be sure to gleefully point these out.

/11. Demand answers

It doesn’t matter if your questions are relevant, interesting, or important. Keep demanding. Proclaim loudly that your opponent won’t answer your questions, and that, really, the answers to the questions are the important thing.

/12. Be disappointed

Make it clear to your opponent, you are disappointed in them. Look, you expect a higher standard of behaviour and/or argument from them, and really, they’ve let you down, they’ve let their family down, but mostly, they’ve let themselves down.

/13. Change the subject

What you say applies to dilemmas, where no good choice is available. The M meme is one example of that. It doesn’t apply to the authority memes: it is possible for Denizens to decide if they play the man, or not. They simply can’t do both, notwithstanding gems like yours yesterday:

I don’t care for strictly appeals to authority, but having said that, I don’t reject them out of hand.

You, Danny, need to choose if you care for authority, or if you don’t. I say you should care for authority, since all points out to the fact that you do. What you should say, then is that you don’t care for the authority of those you distrust.

So much the worse for Judy’s bottom line that “rather than invoking authority, they’d be well advised to stick to careful argument.” But then, if we ditch Judy’s meme, does it mean we disregard her authority regarding authority?

Food for thought.

Most obliged.

“How can the pause be false” can be translated to: how can you claim A is still related to t? While “caused by something” can be translated to: A is also related to X, Y, and Z. I hope the abstract case makes clear that you can claim that A is related to X, Y and Z without claiming that A is not related to t.

http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-can-pause-be-both-false-and-caused.html Second, because Judy’s trick would always work were it not for that old refutation:

Kant goes on to write, “‘being’ is evidently not a real predicate” and cannot be part of the concept of something. He proposes that **existence is not a predicate**, or quality. This is because existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality. He states that by taking the subject of God with all its predicates and then asserting that God exists, “I add no new predicate to the conception of God”. He argues that **the ontological argument works only if existence is a predicate**; if this is not so, then it is conceivable for a completely perfect being to not exist, thus defeating the ontological argument