Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 684127778005975231
^
That's a non sequitor
Because their reality is altered
but it's their reality
No that's a non sequitor, ideologies are not the same as mental illnesses
Can you make your point for idealism
I tried
You're asking me to argue idealism from the perspective of an idealist
which is impossible
Well I'm yet to see a refutation of it. You said it was false, and your argument as to how it was false presupposed the falsity of the conclusion, which I assume you know is a fallacy. You cant presupose the falsity of a conclusion within the argument against that conclusion
Also I never demanded that. I demanded an argument against idealism which doesnt presuppose invalidity of idealism within one of its propositions
To suppose that idealism is real for a minute is to be an idealist entirely
That's just ridiculously wrong. I can epistomologically conceive of X without believing X
Varies on if you're an empiricist or not
Let's say it's a warm day
but you're cold
Can you conceive it's warm?
No because you're cold
You can make-believe all you want
it's still cold lol
You are a rationalist
You can conceptually? But again i seem to be noticing a pattern that whenever you get cornered, you start derailing
So, let me ask again. You asserted X was wrong. I asked for evidence as to how X was wrong. Your argument against X presupposed the falsity of X within one of its propositions, therefore making it a fallacious argument. Do you have an argument that's not fallacious against the position you asserted that was wrong
It's human nature to derail when in bouts of confusion
Its a yes or no question, dude
So forgive me for being human
I haven't derailed, i've sticked to the topic in fact
Are you going to answer my question?
I didn't say you were
well you said it was human nature, and im human thus id be bound by that rule, and im evidently not since i havent derailed
are you going to answer my question though?
Its a simple yes or no question
I will answer your question
Alright, lets see it
I did answer it.
Quote yourself.
There is nothing wrong with my answer of previous
That idealism is a tool of mass control
I demonstrated what's wrong with your previous argument
And I still don't understand your criticism
You're typing in fucking hebrew
Your argument presupposes the falsity of the conclusion it aims to rebut, in one of its propositions