- Joined
- Mar 2, 2007
- Messages
- 15,357
- Reaction score
- 2,688
This is one thing that really annoys me about you. You seem to insist on there being a lack of clarity on the issue (and you've done this in the past as well) on my part. This literally is not a conundrum to me. The entire 13 minutes of that discussion is entirely trivial to me. I skipped to the very end after I made the last post (12:16), and heard Weinstein say "(...) how is it not, by just the virtue of the fact that it does something nothing else does (...)" and paused right there. From that fragment of his sentence, I know exactly what his point was, exactly what he was going to say later and that neither Peterson nor Pageau would be able to summon any counter to that.
That entire discussion may as well have been about whether or not water is wet. It really is that simple to me. There is nothing that can confound me, there is nothing that any of those three can teach me about the subject matter, and that's simply it. I am quite well trained in mathematics, computer science and logic, and through that education I have transcended this entire subject matter. That's how, even though I've never heard the term "performative contradiction", when Pageau said that I immediately knew exactly why that argument was false. There is nothing anyone can throw at me regarding this, that I cannot immediately dissect.
That's interesting Mr Brothir. You seem unwilling to entertain anything that is not predicated just on the objective truth. It's okay, nothing wrong with that. You most definitely orship your own intellect.