Bobby Sands R.I.P. 5th May 1981

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

You avoided me on the Nazi analogy, now you're doing the same again.

Can you answer the question: how do I convince them that cannibalism does not end the rainy season?

For a poster that never answers ANY question you have some cheek ! I did't avoid it Ramdom 2 answered it .

Now back to this question, you have already committed yourself so why not finish the job , Would you arrest them for kidnapping murder and cannibalism or not ?

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Would you arrest them for kidnapping murder and cannibalism or not ?

Contradiction. How can I? Its my belief today that cannibalism is murder. But you have specifically asked me to think within the confines of their reasoning only at that time.

So again: how do I convince them that ending cannabilism doesn't mean the rains won't come?

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Contradiction. How can I? Its my belief today that cannibalism is murder. But you have specifically asked me to think within the confines of their reasoning only at that time.

So again: how do I convince them that ending cannabilism doesn't mean the rains won't come?

Are you 10 or what ?? Stop ranting on about what you think I think .

I am asking what YOU think !!

You believe cannibalism is murder ! Hip Hip Horay - we are nearly there.

Now would you arrest them for it ??

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Now would you arrest them for it ??

How can I according to you? I'm working exclusively with the parameters of your own statement:

but it must be in line within the reasoning of the time

My own belief that cannibalism is murder is irrevelant. Cannibalism makes the rains come all the time. They are right going by their own reasoning processes.

You tell me. What do I do? How do I persuade them they are wrong within the parameters of your theory?

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

How can I according to you? I'm working exclusively with the parameters of your own statement:



My own belief that cannibalism is murder is irrevelant. Cannibalism makes the rains come all the time. They are right going by their own reasoning processes.

You tell me. What do I do? How do I persuade them they are wrong within the parameters of your theory?

Stop faffing about ! Stop being obsessed with my theory and apply your own .

You have agreed that by your standards it was murder , now would you arrest them or not ?

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Stop being obsessed with my theory

We can and must offer criticism but it must be in line with the reasoning of the time

Eating people makes the rainy season come. Up to you to convince me it doesn't in light of the above. Can you do this?

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Eating people makes the rainy season come. Up to you to convince me it doesn't in light of the above. Can you do this?

Avoidance much, what are you afraid of ? if you won't answer the one question put to you we are done .

Would you arrest them or not ? Straight answer and the we can discuss the rainy season all you like .

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Would you arrest them or not ?

I believe a fallacy now exists since you are asking me to "to arrest them" on the basis of my belief that cannibalism is murder. Marienbad, can't you see what I think is irrelevant in the light of trying to analyse your own statement?

In contradiction to your own demand (see the "must"?) you are asking me to consider a line of reasoning that's clearly not in line with the tribesmen's only existing line of reasoning that I've set out in the scenario I gave. And to clarify that scenario, the tribesmen have lived in isolation up to this point, and are unaware of the concept of "murder" when related to the act of cannibalism.

Happyman42's charge (and mine) of an "illogical knot" in your argument needs to be refuted by you.

We can and must offer criticism but it must be in line with the reasoning of the time

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I believe a fallacy now exists since you are asking me to "to arrest them" on the basis of my belief that cannibalism is murder. Marienbad, can't you see what I think is irrelevant in the light of trying to analyse your own statement?

In contradiction to your own demand (see the "must"?) you are asking me to consider a line of reasoning that's clearly not in line with the tribesmen's only existing line of reasoning that I've set out in the scenario I gave. And to clarify that scenario, the tribesmen have lived in isolation up to this point, and are unaware of the concept of "murder" when related to the act of cannibalism.

Happyman42's charge (and mine) of an "illogical knot" in your argument needs to be refuted by you.

The only question I am asking you is , would YOU arrest them or not - so would you ?

And I am asking YOU that question in the light of YOUR beliefs. In this context my beliefs ,or what you thing are my beliefs are not required.

So would you arrest them - yes or no ?

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

So would you arrest them - yes or no ?

Mr Cumulonimbus and marienbad are walking together down the street.

I point across the street to a person that you know you have never met before, and say to you - "you MUST know that person's name?"

Conclusion?

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Mr Cumulonimbus and marienbad are walking together down the street.

I point across the street to a person that you know you have never met before, and say to you - "you MUST know that person's name?"

Conclusion?

Chicken . we're done