Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon,
I will type this slowly so, hopefully, you can get it.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Type this slowly? Lol. That is like saying to a blind man, “OK! I WILL SAY THIS VERY LOUDLY SO YOU CAN HEAR!”
Marvin wrote:
My statement:
--“Eating a single member of whole blood would not be eating blood.”
Refers to eating that which IS blood. It DOES NOT refer to eating FROM blood.
Tears of Oberon responds:
And that makes sense based on the actual proposition you gave how?
In your proposition, you are speaking of eating a member, i.e., constituent, that has a SOURCE “blood.” Apparently, you are saying that this “single member” = “blood,” even though you have stated previously that single constituents from a compound substance can never be the compound substance.
Eating a single member of whole blood
Means in “ordinary vernacular”:
Eating a single member FROM the source “whole blood.”
If you only want to talk about eating blood, then drop the “single member” crap and cut the fluff off of your proposition!
Marvin wrote:
Now back to the question asked of you:
AGAIN:
My active premise would then be restated to say:
-- To use from blood to eat is contrary to abstaining from eating blood.
Or, more succinctly,
-- To eat from blood is contrary to abstaining from eating blood.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Which is the same as saying:
To eat ____ from blood is contrary to (not eating) blood.
To eat [single member] from blood is contrary to (not eating) blood.
That is why I have repeatedly asked Marvin, that you PROVE that a single member (constituent) IS EQUAL TO blood! If it is NOT EQUAL, then eating a non-blood member would not be eating blood!
Marvin wrote:
Does Tears of Oberon agree with either or both those restated propositions?
Well?
Tears of Oberon responds:
If what you eat FROM blood is blood, then you would fail to abstain from eating blood by eating it. If what you eat FROM blood is not blood, then you would not fail to abstain from eating blood by eating it.
MARVIN 619
Marvin wrote:
Transplantation
Earlier I wrote:
We must go further BECAUSE Watchtower teaching EQUATES transfusion with eating.
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
That doesn’t have anything to do with the arguments that you are making. It is a completely different discussion from the one we are currently engaged in and you know it.
Marvin replied:
Wrong.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Where Marvin, in either my first post or ANY subsequent post have I, the creator of this thread, mentioned transplantation! Nowhere? Ok thanks bye.
Marvin wrote:
If “abstain from blood” means “abstain from [eating] blood” and a particular “use from blood” is one Watchtower EQUATES with “eating” then that “use from blood” is becomes a subject of the premise.
Tears of Oberon responds:
The topic of whether or not “transfusion = eating” is NOT the topic of whether or not eating [minor fractions] FROM blood means eating blood! They are different discussions Marvin. Quit trying to veer off course.
Marvin wrote:
[rest of post irrelevant and off topic]
MARVIN 621
Marvin wrote:
Mixing and MisMatching
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
-- Using [entity] X from [source] blood is contrary to abstaining from eating [source] blood when the use of [source] blood is that of eating.
And once again, Marvin’s statement is saying that eating any constiuent from any source is equal to eating the source itself. And yet, Marvin blantantly contradicts HIS OWN PROPOSITION just a few posts from now!
Marvin wrote:
No. The proposition above asserts blood is eaten from as a source. It does not speak to what is eaten from blood. It only says that eating from blood is contrary to using blood as a source from which to eat. Whether WHAT is eaten from blood fits an anatomical or chemical profile of the substance known as blood is a separate issue to whether the substance blood as been eaten FROM as a source.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
And NONE of the stuff you are going on about actually answers the question of WHAT is actually eaten! NONE OF IT! You shove “blood” off to the side and make it some indirect source of something else, but that also means that “blood” isn’t necessarily WHAT is eaten, it is only the SOURCE of something else that is eaten! If minor fractions are not blood, then eating minor fractions FROM blood as a source is NOT eating blood!
Do JWs eat blood Marvin? Yes or No? _______
Again:
Do JWs eat blood Marvin? Yes or No? _______
MARVIN 622
Marvin wrote:
Counterintuitive Absurdity
From Tears of Oberon’s blog:
Using [things] from blood is contrary to abstaining from blood
-- IF AND ONLY IF
Things = blood
---Marvin replied:
---And what exactly proves that is true? Your assertion is counterintuitive at face value.
Tears of Oberon writes:
Thank you for agreeing that what you write is also counterintuitive, because you hide your variables just like I did above! The expanded and full statement actually reads:
Using [things] from blood is contrary to abstaining from [things] from blood.
Marvin replied:
Only you know what that is supposed to mean.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I have a first grader here next to me—he seems to understand what I said just fine. I wonder why you can’t Marvin?
Marvin wrote:
What makes your statement unproven is your “IF AND ONLY IF” assertion. What you repeat does not prove that assertion true. In fact, what you write does not even address the validity of that assertion.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Lear to read better Marvin. IF [things] = blood, then the assertion is VALID. IF [things] =/= blood, then the assertion is NOT VALID. How is that not addressing the validity of the statement?
If I eat blood, then I have eaten blood.
Is VALID, because “blood” = “blood.”
If I eat a mango, then I have eaten blood.
Is INVALID if “mango” =/= blood.
If I eat a minor fraction, then I have eaten blood
Is INVALID if “minor fraction” =/= blood. That is why I keep telling you to prove that minor fractions are blood Marvin!
Marvin wrote:
The “IF AND ONLY IF” assertion means there is no other “thing” that can be eaten FROM blood that is eating FROM blood EXCEPT blood itself.
Tears of Oberon responds:
The “IF AND ONLY IF” assertion means that there is no other “thing” that can be eaten FROM blood that is eating BLOOD except blood itself.
Quit falling back on that same old fallacy Marvin. When both in verb form and used in reference to other entities, “abstain from = use = eat.” When both in verb form and applying to other entities, then “abstain from =/= use FROM =/= eat FROM.”
I eat X
Means
I do not abstain from eating X
Conversely,
I do not abstain from eating X
Means
I eat X.
Therefore:
No other “thing” may be eaten FROM blood that is [not abstaining from eating] blood EXCEPT blood itself.
No other “thing” may be eaten FROM blood that is [eating] blood EXCEPT blood itself.
Marvin wrote:
That is no more than you saying you agree with yourself because THAT is what you keep repeating. You saying THAT does not exclude other possibilities.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I have PROVED my form innumerable times now Marvin. You have never once PROVED your preferential form! It is true merely because you say it is true!
Proof for the Statement:
I eat X = I do not abstain from eating X
Negative operators: “abstain” = (-), “not” = (-)
I eat X
I (-) (-) eat X
Two negative operators = a positive statement.
I (do not) (abstain FROM) eating X
Using similar clear and concise methods, please PROVE your own statement that:
I eat from X = I do not abstain FROM eating X.
I will even give you a hint: You can’t! It DOES NOT WORK.
Marvin wrote:
What makes your assertion counterintuitive is that commonly it is held that folks can, for example, eat FROM an apple without eating an apple itself. They can eat THINGS from an apple and be eating from an apple.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Yes, both are POSSIBLE Marvin, and one is TRUE.
Eating X from an apple is to abstain from eating an apple IF AND ONLY IF X =/= apple.
Eating “things” [=x] from an apple is to eat [things] from an apple.
Marvin wrote:
What you write above would have us believe:
Using [things] from [an] apple is contrary to abstaining from [an] apple
-- IF AND ONLY IF
Things =[an] apple
It is absurd!
Tears of Oberon responds:
Notice how Marvin swapped in the invalid TYPE “use” instead of eat when making this stawman? “Use” is not a valid type of abstention, because “not use” = “abstain.” It is the same as writing:
Using [things] from an apple is contrary to not using an apple.
Ok….use how? That statement is dang near meaningless, and most definitely not practical. Define the TYPES of “usage” in your propositions Marvin.
On the other hand though, if Marvin actually sticks with the valid TYPE “eat,” then the proposition makes perfect sense:
[eating] things from an apple is contrary to not [eating] an apple, IF AN ONLY IF “things” = apple.
If the “things” eaten are not apples, then you have not eaten an apple, have you? It makes perfect sense when avoiding strawmen and when actually defining the TYPE of usage.
MARVIN 623:
Marvin wrote:
Analogy – Ness
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
In his actual arguments, Marvin NEVER bothers to define the TYPE of use or the TYPE of abstention. But in his examples, he throws in TYPES of use and TYPES of abstention and pretends that the examples match his arguments, which they don’t! If he wishes for them to match, then he needs to make allowance for a TYPE of abstention in his basic argument!
Marvin wrote:
It’s called analogy.
Tears of Oberon responds:
It is called bovine scatology.
Marvin wrote:
Either you agree with it or you don’t.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Either it IS valid or it is NOT valid, regardless of my personal opinion.
Marvin wrote:
AGAIN:
-- I abstained from your car because all I stole was the tires from your car.
Do YOU feel like I abstained FROM your car because I ONLY took the tires FROM your car?
Tears of Oberon wrote:
The problem with Marvin’s ‘analogy’ is that he is using the general concept of ‘stealing’ and is extending its stigma to things that do not involve actually stealing the entities known as ‘cars.’ Additionally, what I personally ‘feel’ has nothing to do with the question of whether or not a CAR was taken. Feelings are subjective, truth and logic are not.
Setting up the hypothetical universe:
Tears of Oberon is now God. In the universe that Tears of Oberon creates, there is only one person: Marvin. In the universe that Tears creates, there is only one all encompassing moral law: do not take cars. There ARE NO OTHER moral laws. You may kill anything you like, you may lie about anything you like and it will not be considered “immoral” in any fashion. You may also take anything you like as long as what you take is not the entity known as a “car.”
In this universe, the proposition:
-- I took a nut, therefore I have abstained from taking a car.
Is TRUE until it is proven that “nut” = car.
MARVIN 624
Marvin wrote:
Using and More Using
Earlier I wrote:
Because “use” CAN BE applied in a sentence without combining it with “from” DOES NOT MEAN that “use” and “from” are any less a compound term when used in combination. As “abstain from” presents a concept as a compound term so does “use from”.
Tears of Oberon responded earlier by writing:
In verb form
-- Abstain from entity Y
Means
-- Do not use entity Y
In verb form
-- Do not use from entity Y
HOW does a Witness use “things” from blood without either “using blood” with their own two hands or else having someone else do it for them as their agent?
HOW?
Tears of Oberon responds:
“use” is NOT a valid type of abstention Marvin! Your statement is not actually saying anything!
To use is to not abstain from = to use is to not use.
To use is to not use.
JWs use blood.
Therefore, JWs do not not use blood.
That is the absurdity that Marvin is trying to shove down our throats. DEFINE THE TYPE of “usage” and the statement can become non-irrelevant and practical!
A Witness may take a canvass into a hospital and paint a picture of a unit of whole blood.
Painting is a type of use of blood.
Therefore, the Witness has failed to abstain from blood.
I prick my finger and give myself a blood sugar test because I am diabetic.
Blood sugar testing is a type of use
Therefore, I have failed to abstain from blood.
“touching” blood is also using of blood Marvin
“examining” blood is also using blood Marvin (using blood to determine its natural color)
“speaking” about blood is also using blood Marvin (using blood as an example in a speech)
“thinking” about blood is also using blood Marvin (using blood as an object of ponderment)
Your proposition is MEANINGLESS and IRRELEVANT without defining what TYPE of usage or abstention you are talking about!
MARVIN 625
Marvin wrote:
Not the Same – Point
Earlier I wrote:
The proposition you dispute APPLIES “use from” as a concept compared with “abstain from” as a concept. BOTH terms assert something as compound terms.
Tears of Oberon responds by writing:
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Yes Marvin, both assert SOMETHING, but that SOMETHING is not the SAME THING!!
Marvin wrote:
Yes. That is what the premise says. The two are not the same thing. They are CONTRARY things.
-- To use from IS CONTRARY to abstain from
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Pathetic attempt at dancing around the point Marvin. The MEANINGS or the proposition are NOT contrary!
“use X from” refers to an entity being used from some source OF that entity.
“Abstain from” means “do not use an entity.”
You are trying to convince us that any given entity in the universe is always equal to its source, thus also implying that every entity in the known universe besides God is equal to every other entity in the universe! It is lunacy!
MARVIN 626
Marvin wrote:
Unanswered questions:
-- Can I eat frosting FROM a cake without using FROM that cake to eat?
Yes or no?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Can you? As in, is it possible? Not enough information to say.
Can I eat frosting [=X] FROM a cake [=Y] without eating ____ FROM that cake?
By tacking the “eat” on to the end, you are defining for us what the TYPE is for the second “use” term. Thus, “eating” becomes interchangeable with the second “using.” However, you don’t actually bother to tell us exactly WHAT is eaten FROM the cake. If we do not know WHAT it is from the cake that we cannot eat, then how can we say one way or the other if eating “frosting” from the cake is violating the prohibition?
Marvin wrote:
-- Can I eat frosting FROM a cake without using that cake to eat?
Yes or no?
Tears of Oberon responds:
CAN you? As in, is it possible? Yes, if what you eat FROM the cake is not equivalent with the concept of “cake.” The difference here is that you DO tell us exactly WHAT is being eaten: the cake. You do not tell us exactly WHAT is being eaten in the previous example.
MARVIN 627
Marvin wrote:
Unanswered Question
-- Can I “eat something FROM blood” WITHOUT “using blood” or “using from blood”?
Yes or no?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Nice non-parallel examples Marvin. What happened to the “to eat” phrase tacked onto the very end? You seem to have just totally thrown it out in this question. And sadly, without that phrase on the end to actually tell us the TYPE of usage, your statement becomes irrelevant and pointless. You use two different TYPES of abstention in the same statement, thus equivocating.
Can I “eat something FROM blood” WITHOUT “using [something] FROM blood”
Use 1 = eating
Use 2 = all conceivable types of usage in the universe (since he don’t bother to define it)
Can I “eat” something FROM blood” WITHOUT (directly or indirectly) “employing at least one of any of all conceivable types of usage in the universe” on [something] from blood?
And how exactly is that statement practical for anything Marvin? The Apostolic Decree’s TYPE of non-usage is “eating,” not “either directly or indirectly all conceivable types of usage in the universe.”
I will not answer it because it is absurd, it is irrelevant, and it is a strawman. Define your type of usage, and then I will answer the question for you.
MARVIN 628
Marvin wrote:
Watchtower Disagrees
Tears of Oberon wrote:
“Use from Y” is valid, but it is INCOMPLETE! Answer the question Marvin: use WHAT from Y?!
Marvin wrote:
WHAT is used from Y could anything from “a small component of Y” to “a big component of Y”.
Watchtower says eating the small component of “X from Y IS contrary to abstaining from Y”.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Watchtower does not talk in terms of “big and small.” They talk in terms of “major formed elements” and elements derived from those major formed elements. Stop lying and stop misrepresenting them.
Marvin wrote:
You say eating the small component of “X from Y IS NOT contrary to abstaining from Y”.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I have not contended that “eating X from Y” is NOT eating Y. I have, in every case, stated that eating X from Y is not eating Y IF AND ONLY IF X = Y. IF X =/= Y, then eating X from source Y is not eating Y. I leave both possibilities open and do not bother to answer them in specific terms.
Quit lying and quit misrepresenting me Marvin.
Marvin wrote:
I say eating anything from Y is contrary to the notion of abstaining from Y if that abstention is of using Y as a source to eat.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Or in simplified terms:
Marvin says that eating any [thing] from Y is contrary to not eating Y
Y is made up of [things]: A, B, C, D, E, F through to infinity.
I pick out random thing S from my infinite “things” and eat it.
Is eating S eating Y? Is S = Y?
Yes or No? _____
MARVIN 632
Marvin wrote:
More NonResponsive Response III
Earlier I asked the question:
Can a Witness eat from blood that which 1] is NOT whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, AND 2] is NOT all the fractions at one time of what was whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma?
I asked Tears of Oberon to state in straightforward language whether his response represented a Yes or a No.
Tears of Oberon responded by writing:
It is called reading comprehension Marvin. I would think that someone as educated as you would be able to interpret a simple answer and say whether or not it is in agreement or disagreement with your proposition. Perhaps you only want a yes or no answer so that you can rip that single word out of context and make a new strawman to use against me for every post from here to 10,000?
Marvin wrote:
A person who can type all that is certainly capable of keyboarding either a Yes or a No. It is telling that you choose to hammer out all that and yet still not find it within yourself to key Y-E-S or N-O.
Tears of Oberon responds:
It is telling that I explain my answer so thoroughly and yet you still cannot find the comprehension to tell whether or not my thorough answer agrees or disagrees with what you stated.
Marvin wrote:
What you are doing is plain for readers to see. You have been asked a question that damns the position you prefer should you answer it in straightforward terms; hence you refuse to answer it in straightforward terms.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I answered the question numerous times, and I indicated clearly whether I agreed or disagreed. It is not my fault that Marvin apparently failed the “reading comprehension” section of the ACT.
MARVIN 634
Marvin wrote:
Using Something – How
Tears of Oberon earlier writes:
If you are not using NOTHING FROM a source, then you are using SOMETHING from a source.
Marvin replied: Of course. But my premise does not speak to WHAT is used from the source. It speaks to using from the source. Hence your fallacy.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Hence MY fallacy?! MY fallacy?! You admit! That:
Use from Y = Use X from source Y
Where X = something.
If you don’t give X a value, it DOES NOT GO AWAY—it simply remains as X! Marvin has not yet gotten this simple point through his head yet.
Marvin wrote:
Otherwise, HOW exactly does one use SOMETHING from a source unless they either use that source with their own two hands or else have someone else use that source on their behalf?
How?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Because the use of the “source’ can be different TYPE of use than the use of the “something”! That is what you get when you don’t define your TYPES: equivocation and confusion.
MARVIN 635
Marvin wrote:
Do They – Don’t They
Tears of Oberon earlier writes:
But do Witnesses EAT blood? Yes or No?____
Marvin replied:
Some would say yes and some would say no. It depends on what definition of “blood” is applied. Of course, for either answer to make a lick of sense the definition of “blood” must be something that is objective and measurable, and it must be consistently applied.
Aside from that, were I to equate transplanting blood with eating blood, and were I to assume that eating SOMETHING from blood is eating blood, then my answer to your question would have to be “Yes” because Witnesses do accept transplantation of SOMETHING from blood.
Tears of Oberon responds:
That is nice way to weasel around the question and get off an unsupported jab at the same time Marvin. Marvin’s basic answer to my question is exactly the same answer that I have been giving from the beginning:
IF the something = blood, then the Witnesses eat blood, and thus do not abstain from blood.
IF the something =/= blood, then the Witnesses do not eat blood, and thus abstain from blood.
Thank you for finally agreeing with me Marvin. It only took you 600 posts.
MARVIN 636
Marvin wrote:
Can They – Can’t They
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Can a person eat a constituent FROM blood and still abstain from eating BLOOD?
Yes or No?_______
Some would say yes and some would say no. It depends on what definition of “blood” is applied. Of course, for either answer to make sense the definition of “blood” must be something that is objective and measurable, and it must be consistently applied.
My answer to your question would be Yes,
Tears of Oberon responds:
Very good Marvin. You finally agree with what I have been saying from the start. All of your “maybe, maybe so,” makes a CONDITIONAL statement:
IF the constituent = blood, then eating the constituent is eating blood, and thus the eater does not abstain from eating blood.
IF the constituent =/= blood, then eating the constituent is not eating blood, and thus the eater abstains from eating blood.
Marvin continues:
but not for a reason you agree with or respect. I would say Yes because of the biblical principle telling us that no single member of a body is the body itself. Blood is a body composed of many members. No single member of that body is the body itself.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Therefore, Marvin has explicitly stated for us that he thinks:
When Witnesses eat any constituent from blood, then they are not eating blood and are thus abstaining from eating blood.
See, was that so hard Marvin?
Marvin wrote:
On the other hand, I do not believe a person can eat a constituent from blood and then honestly declare, or remotely suggest, they have abstained from using blood as a source from which to eat.
Tears of Oberon responds:
In other words, and in a complete sense:
“A person cannot eat [constituents] from blood and say that they have abstain from using blood as a source from which to eat those [constituents].”
And again, Marvin’s statement fails in honesty and clarity, because he is using too different types of usage (or types of abstention) in the same sentence.
When the TYPE of usage = eat:
A person CAN eat [constituents] from blood and say that they have abstained from [eating] blood.
When the TYPE of usage = use
A person cannot (use) constituents from blood and say that they have (not used) blood.
The first statement is the sense in which the Witnesses actually make the statement, “we abstain from blood,” i.e., when the type of abstention = eat. The TYPE of abstention as intended in the Apostolic Decree is also “eating.”
The second statement (Marvin’s preferred statement) is true but irrelevant, because it uses the word “uses” in an absolute, universal sense that was is not intended by the Witnesses, is not intended by the Bible writers, and is not understood as such by any sane person hearing the Witness.
Here is a question for you Mr. Shilmer:
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses who take blood sugar tests for diabetes fail to abstain from using blood? YES or NO?
MARVIN 637
Marvin wrote:
Using Blood
Witnesses pay others to extract, store, fractionate and deliver to them lots of things from blood for their consumption.
Is that consumption possible without either using blood with their own two hands or else having someone else use blood for them?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Using Blood
Witnesses with diabetes directly use blood in their blood sugar testing.
Are those Witnesses failing to abstain from using blood? YES or NO.
Does general “using” with no TYPE defined have any relevancy when talking in the context of the Apostolic Decree? YES or NO?
MARVIN 638
Marvin wrote:
Eating Blood
Under Watchtower teaching can a Witness eat “things” from blood so long as those things are not:
--Whole blood
--Red cells
--White cells
--Platelets, or
--Plasma
And those “things” from blood are not the sum total of the fractions from the above listed items?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Answer
IF what is eaten =/= blood, then a Witness may eat that “thing” without violating the command to abstain from blood SPOKEN IN THE SENSE OF “not eating.”
IF what is eaten = blood, then a Witness may not eat that thing without violating the command to abstain from blood SPOKEN IN THE SENSE OF “not eating.”
MARVIN 639
Marvin wrote:
Blood – Ness – Sentence Structure – The UnAnswered
Tears of Oberon makes much noise objecting to the proposition:
--to use from blood is contrary to abstain from blood
He insists on reframing the proposition to say:
--to use something from blood is contrary to abstain from blood
He then goes on to attempt refutation of the reframed proposition.
Tears of Oberon responds:
And yet, Marvin has admitted numerous times that the second statement is perfectly equivalent to the first statement…
Tears of Oberon earlier writes:
If you are not using NOTHING FROM a source, then you are using SOMETHING from a source.
Marvin replied: Of course…
Tears of Oberon replied back:
Use from Y = Use X from source Y
Where X = something.
If you don’t give X a value, it DOES NOT GO AWAY—it simply remains as X!
The concept is not difficult.
Marvin wrote:
It is a curious thing to watch Tears of Oberon attempt his refutation for the reason that Watchtower teaches on one hand that “using something from blood is contrary to abstaining from blood” and on another hand it also teaches that “using something from blood is not contrary to abstaining from blood.”
There are several questions in this discussion Tears of Oberon has just flat out refused to answer. But perhaps chief among them is:
1. Just how does a person go about eating something from blood without using blood either directly, or else indirectly by paying someone else to do the job of using blood on their behalf? Tears of Oberon never says.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Because “usage” in an undefined, universal sense is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Witnesses also “use” blood when they take a blood sugar test for diabetes, but what does that have to do with the Apostolic Decree and not EATING blood?
Marvin wrote:
2. Just why is it, precisely, that eating some things from blood is contrary to abstaining from eating blood yet eating other things from blood is not contrary to abstaining from eating blood? Tears of Oberon never says.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Different topic, different discussion. I have the article written, but don’t feel like putting it up for review yet because that would take another 6 hours a day of my time in responses. I am annoyed enough responding to your foolishness on this one topic.
Marvin wrote:
3. Why, on one hand, does Tears of Oberon object that eating something from blood is not contrary to abstaining from blood, yet on the other hand agrees that eating something from blood is contrary to abstaining from blood?
Tears of Oberon responds:
I say no such thing. Marvin is fishing for strawmen and red herrings again. Tears of Oberon holds simply that:
There are things FROM blood that are blood and there are things FROM blood that MIGHT BE blood.
I do not and have not stated what is definitely NOT blood, because THAT definite threshold is a waste of time trying to find and quibble over. Watchtower holds the same position. So stop misreprenting your opponents Marvin.
Marvin wrote:
4. Why does Tears of Oberon refuse to answer the question posed of what Witnesses can eat from blood under Watchtower’s blood doctrine?—(link)
Tears of Oberon responds:
I will give you the same answer that I have always given, and in perfect harmony with the answer to your third question:
IF what is eaten =/= blood, then a Witness may eat that “thing” without violating the command to abstain from blood SPOKEN IN THE SENSE OF “not eating.”
IF what is eaten = blood, then a Witness may not eat that thing without violating the command to abstain from blood SPOKEN IN THE SENSE OF “not eating.”
MARVIN 640
ThirdWitness has already addressed this speculative and unproven point of yours. I feel no need to add anything else.
MARVIN 641
Same answer as to 640.
MARVIN 642
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
In the previous responses, I have clarified myself sufficiently with regards the terms “conceptual” and “abstract.” I concede that “abstract” is no longer important to what I was actually trying to communicate. Instead, the important terms are “conceptual noun” and “verb.”
Marvin wrote:
Thanks.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
You are welcome. Please also remember that you cannot hold a non-specialist to the same standards of usage regarding technical jargon related to a specific field as you can a specialist of that field. You have to sometimes interpret the meaning based on context and intent, rather than purely on the absolute literal meaning of the terms.
Marvin wrote:
Now let’s take a look at this “conceptual noun” and “verb” business you raise.
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
A word used as a conceptual noun is not necessarily bound by the same grammatical rules that the same word used as a verb is bound by. When “abstain” is used as a verb rather than as a conceptual noun (like how it was used at the start of this sentence), and if you wish to actually indicate WHAT is being abstained FROM, then “abstain” MUST be paired with the word “FROM”!!
Marvin replied:
The word “from” suffixed to “abstain” has the effect of pointing to a source of which to abstain.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Pardon my French, but that is bull hockey and you know it Marvin. “Abstain from X” doesn’t involve “sources” or “indirect points of origins,” it is DIRECT. Abstain from eating X means do not eat X, not some indirect source of X!
Marvin wrote:
I agree with that. In common usage “abstain from” is the succinct means of pointing to a source of which to abstain.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Again, total horse crap. “Abstain from” has nothing to do with “sources.”
Marvin wrote:
Though there are less succinct ways to express the same thing.“From” points to a source.
Tears of Oberon responds:
In isolation and when unnecessarily paired with words “from” points to a source—but when “from” is grammatically NECESSITATED, such as when “abstain” is used as a verb, then “from” no longer has to point to a “source,” it can point directly to what is ACTUALLY not used. That is why “abstain from X” MEANS “do not use X.”
Marvin wrote:
The word “from” suffixed to “use” ALSO has the effect of pointing to a source of which to use.“From” points to a source.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I agree that when “from” is unnecessisarily paired with the word “from,” it points to a source rather than directly to what is used. If “from” is not paired with “use,” then the term “use” applied directly to what is acted upon.
Marvin wrote:
I expressed both these ideas far back in this discussion at my entry number 182 titled “Use From -- Abstain From”.—(link)
Tears of Oberon responds:
Yes, we know that you have been espousing the same wrong idea for some 400 posts now Marvin.
Marvin wrote:
Why Tears of Oberon accepts a suffixed “from” as pointing to a source in one instance and refuses to accept it as pointing to a source in the other instance when that is how it is employed, he does not explain, except he says it is not grammatically necessitated in the case of “use”.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I give the same answer that I have already given, and that Marvin has repeatedly ignored: A word used as a conceptual noun is not necessarily bound by the same grammatical rules that the same word used as a verb is bound by. When “abstain” is used as a verb rather than as a conceptual noun (like how it was used at the start of this sentence), and if you wish to actually indicate WHAT is being abstained FROM, then “abstain” MUST be paired with the word “FROM”!!
Examples:
Do not use meat
Do not use shoes
Do not use hamburgers
The above point to the objects mentioned as directly being acted upon. If we wish to express the same idea (objects being directly acted upon instead of only their sources being acted up), then we must add a word to “abstain.”
Abstain FROM meat
Abstain FROM shoes
Abstain FROM hamburger
Even though the “abstain” statements have an extra word, that extra word “from” DOES NOT change the meaning because it is grammatically necessitated by the word and the sentence structure! On the other hand:
Do not use from meat
Do not use from shoes
Do not use from hamburgers
Are different statements than the first set of “use” statements, because the extra word we added is not grammatically necessitated and thus CHANGES the object that was previously directly acted upon to a SOURCE of SOME OTHER object that is now being directly acted upon.
When we define the actual TYPE of usage or abstention, then this difference becomes even clearer.
(do not eat) meat = (abstain from EATING) meat
(do not eat) FROM meat = (abstain from eating) FROM meat
What is not grammatically necessitated, i.e., abstain as a verb requiring “from,” must still be added to BOTH sides to maintain balance. What IS grammatically necessitated, i.e., abstain as a verb requiring “from,” need not be added to both sides for balance.
Do date, Marvin has not ONE TIME proven his statement that:
Do not eat FROM = abstain from eating
NOT ONE TIME. He has merely assumed that the statement is true on the basis that his name is Marvin Shilmer and our names are not. On the other hand, Tears of Oberon has repeated proved his own tautologies, instead of just assuming them to be true and attacking anyone that disagrees.
Marvin wrote:
Here is the problem with the explanation offered by Tears of Oberon related to necessity:
What he says is true if the term “use from” speaks to [what is used] rather than [the source of what is used]. My premise of dispute does not speak to [what is used]. My premise speaks to [the source of what is used].
Tears of Oberon responds:
Very good Marvin. You agree with me yet again.
“Use from” speaks to a source from which SOMETHING ELSE is used, where that “something” might be a non-equal constituent or an equal constituent.
“Use” speaks directly to what is actually used.
“Abstain from” speaks to what is actually used.
That is why “abstain from” goes with “use” and NOT “use from.”
Marvin wrote:
When we suffix “from” to “use” to express the source of what is used then we are using the term precisely as we do in combination with “abstain”. We are using the term to point to a source which is either abstained from or used from.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Marvin is delusion with regards his interpretation of “abstain from.” It means no such thing.
Marvin wrote:
If we employ the term “use” and we want to point to a source of what is used [rather than simply what is used] then the suffix is necessary for succinct speech, as it is for abstain.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I am glad that Marvin is at least partially starting to pick this up. Now if only he can get it through his head that “abstain from” points towards what is directly not used rather than some source.
Marvin wrote:
It appears to me Tears of Oberon’s position on this matter boils down to this:
Tears of Oberon thinks “abstain from blood” does NOT prohibit using blood that is bled from an animal as a source from which to eat UNLESS that blood is eaten in the form of either 1] whole blood, 2] red cells, 3] white cells, 4] platelets, or 5] plasma, all of which have “bloodness” to Tears of Oberon.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Again, Marvin makes the deceptive switch between “eat” and “use.” In using the latter over the former, Marvin is assigning to me a position that I do not hold. The position I hold is:
Tears of Oberon thinks “abstain from blood” does NOT prohibit EATING constituents from any type of blood IF those constituents do not hold conceptual equality with blood.
Marvin wrote:
More succinctly stated, it appears Tears of Oberon thinks “abstain from blood” does NOT prohibit using blood that is bled from an animal as a source for food.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Strange that Marvin’s “more succinctly” actually only makes things more confusing and murkier. Again:
Tears of Oberon thinks “abstain from blood” does NOT prohibit EATING constituents from any type of blood IF those constituents do not hold conceptual equality with blood.
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon has been asked questions to clarify that that is, indeed, his position, but he has so far been unwilling to answer these questions in a straightforward manner in bold terms.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Tears of Oberon has repeated and consistently provided Marvin with answers to these questions (like above), only to have them completely ignored. Odds are that even the answers provided to the questions in this current response will be ignored completely, and Marvin will only parrot the same question again.
MARVIN 643
Marvin wrote:
Verbs – Nouns – Equal Terms
Tears of Oberon wrote:
When “use” is used as a verb rather than as a conceptual noun, and if you wish to actually indicate WHAT is being USED, then the word “from” is not grammatically necessitated like when using the verb form of “abstain.”
When both are in verb form:
-- To use is not to abstain FROM.
-- To use X is not to abstain FROM X.
When both are conceptual nouns:
--“usage” is contrary to “abstention.”
Marvin’s favorite little trick is mixing up verb forms and conceptual noun forms within the same argument for the purpose of creating an illusion of one-to-one work equivalence:
-- To use [verb form] is contrary to “abstention”[conceptual noun form].
-- To use X is contrary to “abstention.”
But the question is left by his conceptual noun form: abstention FROM what?
Marvin wrote:
In answer to Tears of Oberon’s question “Abstain FROM what?” the answer is abstain from the blood as a source to eat.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Nicely weasel worded Marvin. Now your “what” merits examination.
Blood as a source to eat
Is just a rearranged form of:
Eat from blood
Which leads Marvin right back to the same exact question: eat WHAT from the source blood!? His statement reads in full:
Abstain from eating from blood
My question has not been answered: abstain from eating WHAT from blood!?
Marvin wrote:
Here is the question for Tears of Oberon:
-- Since “from” suffixed to “abstain” points to a source of which to abstain
Tears of Oberon responds:
It does no such thing. I have demonstrated this in the previous few lines.
Marvin wrote:
-- Then,
-- When “from” is suffixed to “use” to point to a source of which to use
Tears of Oberon responds:
I agree that the grammatically unnecessitated “from” added to the verb form of “use” CHANGES the meaning from direct use of an object to use of something new FROM that object.
Marvin wrote:
-- Should we accept the suffix “from” on equal terms?
Tears of Oberon responds:
No.
MARVIN 644
Marvin wrote:
Stealing – Abstaining From
Tears of Oberon earlier writes:
(stealing)(tires) from cars is contrary to abstaining from (stealing)(tires) from cars.
(stealing)(cars) is contrary to abstaining from (stealing) cars.
Tears of Oberon steals a tire from a car.
Tears of Oberon has abstained from stealing a car.
Marvin replied:
Those statements avoid answering the obvious question:
-- Can Tears of Oberon “steal a tire from a car” and then honestly tell cops he abstained from the car he was supposed to abstain from?
Well, Tears? Can you honestly tell the coppers that, or not?
Tears of Oberon responds:
I repeat my previous answer.
The problem with Marvin’s ‘analogy’ is that he is using the general concept of ‘stealing’ and is extending its stigma to things that do not involve actually stealing the entities known as ‘cars.’ Additionally, what I personally ‘feel’ has nothing to do with the question of whether or not a CAR was taken. Feelings are subjective, truth and logic are not.
Setting up the hypothetical universe:
Tears of Oberon is now God. In the universe that Tears of Oberon creates, there is only one person: Marvin. In the universe that Tears creates, there is only one all encompassing moral law: do not take cars. There ARE NO OTHER moral laws. You may kill anything you like, you may lie about anything you like and it will not be considered “immoral” in any fashion. You may also take anything you like as long as what you take is not the entity known as a “car.”
In this universe, the proposition:
-- I took a nut, therefore I have abstained from taking a car.
Is TRUE until it is proven that “nut” = car.
MARVIN 645
Marvin wrote:
Action – Primary – Secondary
Tears of Oberon wrote:
“Using from X is contrary to abstaining from X” is only a different sentence structure that speaks to a source from which is EITHER used or abstained. Because your usages above is true does not make other usages less than true.
Marvin wrote:
I agree with that statement. The proposition in dispute does not speak to what is used but rather the source that is used from. I am not sure your sentence above communicated what you are/were trying to say.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Marvin once again doesn’t get it. The statement does not “not speak” of what is used, the statement “DOES NOT ASSIGN A VALUE TO” what is used. And when no value is assigned, then the thing that is actually used remains a variable!
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
If you wish to communicate usage of a source, then simply state that X is a source!
Marvin wrote:
“Use from” and “use of” are related but not equivalent concepts. In this statement of yours you speak to use OF a source whereas in your previous remark [quoted above] you speak to using FROM a source.
Tears of Oberon responds:
No. I do not speak of use of a SOURCE, I speak of use of an ENTITY! Stop abusing the word “source” Marvin! A source is something that an entity is used from, but is not the actual entity having an action performed upon it!
Marvin wrote:
These concepts are not precise equivalents.
Tears of Oberon responds:
They are not equivalents at all; thus, “abstain from” can only match with one of them.
Marvin wrote:
A person can “use from” a source without that particular instance of “use” being of the whole source, though that usage would require an original use of that whole source.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Or in other words:
Use X from source Y.
Marvin wrote:
When we speak to “use of” a source we are speaking to using a source as a whole.
Tears of Oberon responds:
In an appeal to elegance, the “of” term and the whole addition of “sources” should be stricken for a simpler form that means the same thing.
When we speak of “using” an entity we are speaking of using that entity.
Marvin wrote:
What we take and “use from” that source as a secondary action is something else.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Take WHAT from that source Marvin? Let me give you a hint: take X from source Y.
Marvin wrote:
Essentially the premise in dispute speaks to a secondary act of “using from blood” that is admittedly true. You do agree that Witnesses “use from blood”. What you dispute is that Witnesses “use blood”.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I dispute neither, but neither is relevant. Witnesses “use” blood merely by administering a blood sugar test for diabetes. What I am disputing is the notion that Witnesses eat constituents that may not carry identity as blood and yet still be accused of eating blood.
MARVIN 646
Marvin wrote:
Nouns – Verbs
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Compound conceptual noun form:
-- The term “use from”=/= the term “abstain from”
In consistent verb/raw language form:
-- To use W from X is contrary to abstaining FROM W FROM X
Marvin wrote:
If it is true that as conceptual nouns “use from =/= abstain from” then you have reduced my premise to say this:
-- to X is contrary to not X
I agree with that.
Tears of Oberon responds:
No Marvin, I think that you missed the point. The symbol “=/=” is a NOT equal sign, not an equal sign. While “use from” is not equal to “abstain from,” the term “use” IS equal to “abstain from.” Your form actually reduces to:
To use X from Y is contrary to abstaining from Y
T use X from Y is to not abstain from Y
To use X from Y is to use Y
Assigning a type of use, we may obtain:
To eat X from Y is to eat Y
Thus, you run into the same validity issue: Is X = Y? Yes or No? ____
Marvin wrote:
As for your asserted “consistent verb/raw language form” stating,
-- To use W from X is contrary to abstaining FROM W FROM X
Though I agree it is consistent with a base proposition expressing “use W from X is contrary to abstaining FROM W FROM X,”…
That does not mean we cannot use the same base proposition to express “use from X is contrary to abstaining from X” because THAT is what the proposition expresses as a concept, AND, as it turns out, it is possible to perform the action [read: VERB]“use from” just as it is possible to perform the action [read: VERB]“abstain from”.
Tears of Oberon responds:
The problem is that the actions are performed ON DIFFERENT NOUNS!!! That is the problem and that is why your proposition is not balanced unless you prove that the constituent that is used from some source = the source itself!
Marvin wrote:
Because those two terms can be identified in noun form as concepts DOES NOT MEAN the same terms are something less than verbs for what they actually assert as actions.
Tears of Oberon responds:
It also does not mean that the actions apply to the same thing…
Marvin wrote:
What you say above of “use from” and “abstain from” can be said equally of “use W from X” and “abstaining FROM W FROM X” as concepts. That is, when we speak of the concept known as “use W from X” we are speaking to the term as a noun. The same with “abstaining FROM W FROM X”. When we speak of it as a concept we are speaking to the term as a noun. But that does not change what the same terms express as verbs.
Tears of Oberon respond:
Marvin is babbling again. The phrase “use X from Y” communicates that an action is performed ON X. Abstain from Y indicates that an action is performed ON Y. If you set the two EQUAL to each other, then you need to prove that X = Y!
MARVIN 647
Marvin wrote:
False Bifurcation – Noun – Verb
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Either the terms are verbs or they are conceptual nouns.
Marvin continued:
No. Because a term can be used as a noun for purposes of identifying a concept DOES NOT mean the same term cannot express action as a verb.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Marvin doesn’t seem to understand the simple statement…the terms cannot be both nouns and verbs at the same time, they must be one or the other. Marvin treats them as both simultaneously in his arguments, as well as mixing and equating concept noun forms of a term to verb forms of a term. That is his fallacy.
Marvin wrote:
Murder is a noun or a verb depending on how it is USED.
Tears of Oberon responds:
And yet, it cannot be both at the same time now can it?
Marvin wrote:
It is USAGE that determines whether a word or term is treated within a given statement as a noun or a verb. It is not the actual TERM or WORD that determines whether it is a verb or noun in a sentence. Hence your fallacious either-or assertion above.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I honestly have no idea what you are fighting against here. I have asserted nothing of the sort. All I gave was very simple statement with a very simple meaning.
Marvin wrote:
There is also the option of:
-- the terms can be both nouns and verbs depending on HOW they are used in a statement.
Tears of Oberon responds:
And yet, when you treat ONE as a concept noun (with specific grammatical requirements for that concept noun form) and you treat the OTHER as a verb (with different specific grammatical requirements for that verb), then you create illusions of proper equivalence that aren’t really there! If you are going to equate two terms, be consistent with their usage! Don’t deceptively mix and match in order to create a false one-to-one word equivalence.
Marvin wrote:
Accordingly,
--The abstract concept “use from” is contrary to the abstract concept “abstain from”
Uses the quoted terms as nouns.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Nice way to mutilate the English language Marvin. However, what you actually put within the parentheses are not nouns, they are VERBS because you made them part of a full isolated clause within a clause.
Within the actual parentheses, “use” is being used as a verb, not a noun! “Abstain” is still being used as a verb within the parentheses, and not as a noun! When you stick quotes around clauses instead of single words, then the part of speech of the terms within the isolated clause are dependent upon the structure of that isolated clause alone!
The concept of “not bicycling down the road” is contrary to the concept of “bicycling down the road.”
The concept of “abstaining from bicycling down the road” is contrary to the concept of “bicycling down the road.”
The clause within parentheses is grammatically isolated from the rest of the sentence, i.e., what is grammatically necessitated for words outside of the parentheses is not grammatically necessitated for words within the parentheses.
Oh and, stop weaseling in the word “abstract” when it has no purpose except to muddy the water!
Marvin wrote:
Whereas
-- Harry using from is contrary to Harry abstaining from blood
Uses the same terms as verbs in a statement expressing that the two actions or Harry are contrary to one another.
Tears of Oberon responds:
No, it doesn’t Marvin! Stop making my 3rd grade English teacher roll over in her grave!
1. Fixing the problem of you leaving the type of usage undefined (which you always do)
2. Adding blood to both sides to maintain balance (which you never do)
3. Assigning a placeholder for WHAT is actually used (which you never do but should be doing)
4. Reducing blood to a permutable variable
5. Changing the statement to positive terms.
6. Substituting in “not eating” for “abstain from”
We end up with:
Harry eating X from Y [=blood] = Harry not abstaining from eating Y [=blood]
Haring eating X from Y [=blood] = Harry eating Y [=blood]
And ONCE AGAIN, you must prove that X = Y if you wish to show that eating X violates some command to not eat Y.
MARVIN 648
Marvin wrote:
Asserting
Tears of Oberon responds:
Something you do quite a bit of with no support.
Marvin wrote:
One more thing about the noun/verb business
Tears of Oberon responds:
Oh Lord here we go… *English teacher stirs in her grave again*
Marvin continues:
Because
-- Harry using from blood is contrary to Harry abstaining from blood
Tears of Oberon responds:
Already shown to be invalid and imbalanced.
Marvin wrote:
Makes use of two concepts as nouns does not mean those two concepts do not actually express what they literally say as verbs.
Tears of Oberon responds:
You aren’t using the terms “use” and “abstain” as nouns Marvin, you are using them specifically as VERBS!
Marvin wrote:
“Harry used from blood” expresses the action “used from blood”.
Tears of Oberon responds:
“Harry used from blood” expresses the action (in verb form): “used.” Since when is “from blood” an action Marvin?
Marvin wrote:
“Harry abstained from blood” expresses the action “abstained from blood”
Tears of Oberon responds:
“Harry abstain from blood” expresses the action (in verb form): “abstained from.” Since when is “blood” an action Marvin?
Marvin wrote:
It just happens to be that those two actions are contrary to one another.
Tears of Oberon responds:
It just so happens that Marvin is full of crap.
Marvin wrote:
Simply asserting a preferential usage does not make the actual usage the preferred one, and neither does it refute what terms mean.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Take your own advice Marvin. Simply asserting a preferential usage does not make the actual usage the preferred one, and neither does it refute what terms mean.
Marvin wrote:
If “use from” is contrary to “abstain from” as concepts
Tears of Oberon responds:
It isn’t.
Marvin continues:
then the two are contrary as actual acts.
Tears of Oberon responds:
They aren’t.
AULDSOUL 650
Auldsoul wrote:
Tears of Oberon,
Tears of Oberon responds:
You are hopeful aren’t you, especially considering that you haven’t been included in this dicussion fro around 600 posts.
Auldsoul wrote:
I cannot find where the fundamental logical challenge has been overturned that:
"receive transfusion of blood" =/= "eat blood"
Does "receive transfusion" = "eat"?
What proof do you have that this is true?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Maybe you can’t find the answer to that question because the subject of this thread has NOTHING TO DO WITH that question. It’s kind of difficult to find the fundamental theory of calculus in an art book…
Auldsoul wrote:
The argument with Marvin, in my opinion, is only relevant to the degree that this fundamental premise of your religion's doctrine has been first established on something stronger than,“We BELIEVE ‘receive transfusion’=‘eat.’”
Tears of Oberon responds:
Again, are we even discussing that subject yet? No? Ok thanks bye.
Auldsould wrote:
Since you have not demonstrated as logically true this predicate conclusion upon which your religion's doctrine is based, the balance of your arguments with both Marvin and Shilmer are moot.
Tears of Oberon responds:
A wall is composed of many bricks…just because we are only examining the structure of a single brick at the moment does not mean that the wall in front of us just goes away…
Auldsoul wrote:
However, to put into a nice little nutshell your comprehension problems that lead you to premature declarations of victory:
"Eating a single member of whole blood would not be eating blood."
... does not contradict ...
(1) "Use from blood is contrary to abstain from blood."
Tears of Oberon responds:
Which is the same as saying:
Using from blood is using from blood.
And that statement is pointless, redudant and irrelevant unless we know the TYPE of use.
Auldsoul wrote:
(2) "Eating from blood is contrary to abstain from blood."
Tears of Obeorn wrote:
Which is the same as saying:
Eating from blood is using blood.
And that statement is pointless and irrelevant unless we know the TYPE of use. Touching blood is also using blood. Getting blood pressure tests is also using blood. Drawing blood for diabetes testing is also using blood. Making an oil painting of a unit of whole blood is also using blood. So what?
Auldsoul wrote:
(3) "Eating a single member of whole blood would not be abstaining from blood."
Tears of Oberon responds:
Which is the same as saying:
Eating a constiuent [=X] from source “whole blood” [=Y] is using whole blood.
And that statement is not true. The “eating” of the constituent is not the using of the source. You “use” the source by actions other than eating, i.e., taking the source and drawing out the constituent in the first place. There are two different (actually infinite by lack of definition regarding the second) TYPES of usage being used here, and that is equivocation.
Auldsoul wrote:
(4) "Eating from blood is using from blood and is not abstaining from blood."
Tears of Oberon responds:
Which is the same as saying:
Eating [consituent] from blood is using [consituent] from blood and is using blood.
And it is false merely as stated, because you are not using “blood,” you are using [constituent]. You might indirectly “use” blood in the process of getting that constiuent in the first place, but that has nothing to do with “eating,” i.e., it would be different TYPE of usage and thus equivocation.
Auldsoul wrote:
... and to assert otherwise would be logically false, when weighed with the scales of Boolean logic.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Auldsoul must hate Boolean logic then, or it simply hates him…
Auldsoul wrote:
Likewise:
"Eating a single member of whole blood would not be eating blood."
... does NOT mean ...
(1) "Eating a single member of whole blood would be abstaining from blood."
Tears of Oberon responds:
Which is the same as saying:
Eating a constituent from source “blood” would be not using blood.
Which is again, equivocation because there is more than one TYPE of use in play here. However, the following statement would be true.
Eating a constituent from source blood would not be EATING blood if and only if THE “constituent” =/= blood.
Auldsoul wrote:
(2) "One can use from blood and abstain from blood."
Tears of Oberon responds:
Which is the same as asking:
One can use from blood and not use blood.
And this is a true statement IF you have more than one type of use in play (which you do).
Eating = a type of use
Throwing = a type of use
Once can “eat” from blood and not “throw” blood.
Auldsoul wrote:
(3) "Eating a single member of whole blood is not a use of blood."
Tears of Oberon responds:
And here he blatantly disagrees with Marvin Shilmer, how quaint. Remember all of Marvin’s ranting about:
“How can a person use from blood without using blood? How how how how how?”—Marvin paraphrased.
...and to assert otherwise, in any case, would be logically false, when weighed with the scales of Boolean logic.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Thereofore, what Marvin says is logically false, when weighted “with the scales of Boolean logic.”
Auldsoul wrote:
[blah blah blah off topic and unrelated babbling…]
No comments:
Post a Comment