Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon writes on his blog:
“Use from” requires this blank in front of the word “from” to be acknowledged. The term “abstain from” DOES NOT require any blank to be acknowledged before the word “from.” That is why they are different.
Marvin continued:
As a sentence structure we need,
-- Use from blood for [blank]
Or,
-- Use [blank] from blood
Either is an appropriate sentence and both communicate.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I agree that those two are equivalent, but the blanks still need to be acknowledged (as you have apparently felt the need to do). Those blanks are what cause the necessary questions:
Use from blood for WHAT?
Use WHAT from blood?
If you don’t answer the questions, then the statement does not tell you exactly what is being used—it only tells you the source of the unknowing “thing” that is directly being used. But it is the unknown “thing” that is actually important to our overall issue, and not the source!.
Marvin wrote:
As a sentence structure we need,
-- Abstain from [blank] blood
Tears of Oberon responds:
We need no such thing. The phrase communicates everything involved perfectly without the “from.” You can restrict the connotations of the term “blood” with a modifier in front, but it is not necessary.
Marvin wrote:
Saying “abstain” from blood is telling us to refrain from blood, but because “blood” is not a verb then we need an additional verb or verbs to tell us what abstention is required.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Ok what? The term “abstain” is the verb Marvin! And besides, what you are trying to add in front of blood would not be a verb at all, it would be a modifier of the noun “blood,” i.e., an adjective.
Marvin wrote:
In both cases we need to know WHAT blood is the subject, either to “use” or “abstain” from.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Having a modifier for blood, i.e., an adjective, is not necessary in the least bit. Blood does not require an adjective—it has sufficient meaning on its own.
This was your basic English lesson today.
MARVIN 500
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon,
For whatever its worth, right out of the box I see what appears to be some misunderstanding or miscommunication.
Tears of Oberon responds:
You saw “misunderstanding” before you even opened my post, admit it.
Marvin wrote:
Your “First Form” equation states:
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
--(Do not)[perform action (eat) on][entity (blood)]=(Abstain from)[perform action (eat) on][entity (blood)]
Marvin continued:
In raw language I read that as:
Do not eat blood = Abstain from eat[ing] blood
Tears of Oberon responds:
I agree with your “raw language” conversion of my First Form.
Marvin wrote:
If my reduction is what your “First Form” is asserting then here is the misconception:
You then say,
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
The first form is fine and dandy yes, however, my opponent does not adhere to the first form—my opponent adds something extra to his ‘tautology.’
Marvin continued:
I am fine with your “First Form” as I understand it. It presents what is, in my view, a tautology, which is what I think you are trying to present.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I didn’t exactly see the misconception there, but I am glad that you agree with my example of a valid tautology; although, I cannot say the same for the ‘tautology’ that you wish to use.
MARVIN 501
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon,
Here is another one:
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
(Do not)[perform action (eat) on][entity (minor fraction)][originating from source (blood)]=(abstain from)[perform action (eat) on][entity (minor fraction)][originating from source (blood)]
I say this is a misunderstanding because it does not assert any premise I have asserted.
In raw language I read the above as saying this:
-- Do not eat minor fraction from source blood = Abstain from minor fraction from source blood
This does not represent my premise of dispute because my premise of dispute does not assert what is or is not eaten.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Once again, you are in denial Marvin. You are ASSERTING and have been ASSERTING that the Witnesses’ use of minor fractions FROM source blood means that they do not abstain from blood. That is the entire point of your argument! If your argument does not involve the Witnesses’ use of minor fractions at all, then it is irrelevant and pointless, and should be scrapped completely.
Marvin wrote:
My premise you contend against says:
-- To use from blood is contrary to abstaining from blood
Said another way the same premise reads,
-- To eat from blood is contrary to not eating from blood
Neither statement in that premise suggests WHAT is eaten. Your tautology above DOES suggest WHAT is eaten.
Your tautology is relevantly dissimilar to the premise you dispute.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Because you do not bother to clarify what is eaten does not mean that NOTHING AT ALL was eaten. If NOTHING AT ALL was eaten, then your argument is pointless and irrelevant. If you are not asserting that NOTHING AT ALL was eaten, then you are asserting that SOMETHING was eaten! Take your pick from these two Marvin:
1. To eat NOTHING from blood is contrary to not eating NOTHING from blood.
2. To eat SOMETHING from blood is contrary to not eating SOMETHING from blood.
Which is your choice? _____________
MARVIN 502:
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon,
I am going to continue reviewing your new material, but I have no intention of boring further through your “3.0 SECOND FORM” because the tautology is presents is something altogether different than the premise you dispute.
If you want me to accept what you write as being said in relation to my premise of “to use from is contrary to abstain from” then you will have to address THAT rather than something else AS THOUGH that something else represents my premise. I just won’t waste anymore time addressing a premise that is supposed to represent my own that does not.
That said, I do not mind exploring new avenues of thought. I just am not going to pursue something as other than what it is. Your section “3.0 SECOND FORM” does not present any premise of mine.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I did not say that my Second Form was your argument! I said that my second form, along with my First Form, are examples of what YOUR tautology should be in order achieve validity, which it currently does not have!
Marvin: 1+1 = 1
Tears of Oberon: There are two valid ways of expressing a similar argument here. “1+1 = 1+1” would be an example of a valid equation. “1 = 1” would be an example of a valid equation. “1+1 = 1” is NOT a valid equation, and therefore necessitates a change to one of these other, accepted valid forms, OR ELSE it must be thrown out.
Marvin: If you want me to accept what you write as being said in relation to my premise of “1+1=1” then you will have to address THAT rather than something else AS THOUGH that something else represents my premise. I just won’t waste anymore time addressing a premise that is supposed to represent my own that does not. That said, I do not mind exploring new avenues of thought. I just am not going to pursue something as other than what it is. Your two other examples do not present any premise of mine.
See the absurdity here? I certainly do, but apparently it flies over the head of Marvin.
MARVIN 506
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon,
I just got into your section 4.0 INVALID TAUTOLOGY, and right out of the box there is another misrepresentation of my premise in dispute.
Tears of Oberon wrote at his blog:
My opponent actually uses a combination of the first form and the second form:
--(-)[perform action Q on][entity Y]=(-)[Perform action Q on][entity X][originating from source Y]
That does not represent the premise “to use from is contrary to abstain from,” or, said conversely, “not to use from is contrary to not abstaining from.”
In raw language what you write above says:
-- not Q on Y = not Q on X from source Y.
Said conversely, and in converse form, what you write above says:
-- Q on Y = Q on X from Y
In similar language, and in terms of an equivalence, my premise says:
-- No use from Y = abstain from Y
Tears of Oberon responds:
I noticed that you intentionally avoided using a variable for action, i.e., Q. I think that you understand that your argument would be exposed for the sham that it is if you do.
No = (-)
Use = action Q
Abstain from = (-)
(-) Q from Y = (-) Y
Or put in positive terms, i.e., dividing out the negatives:
Q from Y = Y
And your premise is exposed as being imbalanced and incomplete. First of all, there is no action on the right side, but there is an action on the left side. Second, if we do not know exactly what the action on the left side is being performed on, then the phrase “Q from Y” is useless. Perform action Q on WHAT from source Y? The “what” that you have ignored and pretended doesn’t exist, I have properly labeled as X.
Marvin wrote:
Honestly, I have idea how anyone could so misunderstand and misrepresent such a simple premise as that to the degree you have in this presentation. I am at a loss. But I am not discouraged. I am learning and sharing, and I hope you feel the same way.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Honestly, I have idea how anyone could so misunderstand and misrepresent such a simple premise as that to the degree you have in this presentation. I am at a loss. But I am not discouraged. I am learning and sharing, and I hope you feel the same way.
MARVIN 507
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
Form 1 and Form 2 are both valid tautologies. But you are not using either Form 1 nor Form 2, you are using a combination, which does not necessarily represent a tautology.
I AGREE that your Form 1 and Form 2 are valid tautologies. Problem is, NEITHER of them represent the premise in dispute. So far so good.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I never said that they were the same as what you are using. What you are using is equivalent to:
1+1 = 1
What I presented as examples of valid tautologies would be equivalent to:
1+1 = 1+1
Or
1 = 1
Marvin wrote:
I AGREE that your Form 3 is not a valid tautology. So far so good.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Closer and closer to the edge of the cliff you inch…
Marvin wrote:
I DISAGREE that your Form 3 represents my premise of dispute.
My premise in dispute presented as an equivalency says:
-- No use from Y = abstain from Y
Nothing you have written that you attribute to me comes close to this in your recent re-write. Not remotely close.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Marvin’s argument
No use from Y = abstain from Y
Needs to be reduced to purely abstract form, assigning variables for actions, variables for nouns, and variables (or symbols) for the words that turn the phrase negative. If you would like to attempt this Marvin, then feel free. But if you will not, then I will for you.
No = (-)
Abstain from = (-)
Abstain from = No
Use = action Q
Y = some entity
(-) Q from Y = (-) Y
Q from Y = Y
Use from Y = Y
You succeed in distancing your own argument from my tautologies Marvin, however, you fail in actually making your argument more valid! In trying to distance yourself, you make your own argument even more imbalanced and invalid.
Use from Y = Use from Y
Use from Y =/= Y
You must add the action variable to your right side if you wish to maintain balance Marvin, in addition to the extra from. If we bring the former, valid form back up the chain, then we obtain:
Use from Y = Use from Y
Q from Y = Q from Y
(-) Q from Y = (-) Q from Y
No use from Y = Abstain from use from Y
And taking into account the entity which is actually used from source Y, assuming that something is actually used instead of nothing, then we get:
No use X from Y = Abstain from use X from Y
And this is back to the one of the valid tautologies that I have already presented. Isn’t that just cool?
MARVIN 508
Marvin wrote:
No use from Y = abstain from Y, more
Tears of Oberon,
Expressed as an equivalency, do you seriously disagree with a premise that says:
-- No use from Y = abstain from Y
Do you disagree with that statement?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Yes, I do disagree for the reasons already expressed in my response to your previous posts. Balance your equation and reduce it completely to abstract form, and then we’ll talk Marvin.
MARVIN 509
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
*correction to last post:
Tears: But Marvin, your equation doesn't make sense. It says what it says on its own, but when you set it equal to something else, then something must change. 4+1 cannot equal 4. Only 4+1 can equal 4+1, or 4=4.
Marvin: STRAWMAN!!! I am not using 4=4 or 4+1=4+1!!!! I am using 4+1=4!! Quit misrepresenting my arguments!
Marvin continued:
I have no idea what you are trying to convey above. It’s not that I dispute the equations in that statement, I just don’t see any connection between what you write above and anything I have said. I know you see some connection, but I am damned if I can.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I have already re-expressed the idea in my response to Post 502.
Marvin wrote:
Get some rest. You are no quitter. Keep seeking.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Give it a rest, and learn to quit sometime.
Marvin wrote:
Do you agree or disagree with the following expression:
-- No use from Y = abstain from Y
Tears of Oberon responds:
I disagree for the reasons already previously expressed.
MARVIN 510
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon earlier writes:
I tip my hat to you Mr. Shilmer--you have been rambling on now for approximately 70(?) posts straight. Even my obsessive eyes started glazing over trying to wade through everything, and I once read 1000 pages of court transcript in one day.
I also admit, that it was probably my fault for not making things perfectly black and white to begin with. Even the slightest allowance for equivocation or ambiguity means disaster when debating with a sophist such as yourself. Therefore, I have revamped and changed my basic argument.
If there is anything that you mentioned in your recent posts that deals WITH THE SAME TOPIC, but which you feel the new argument does not cover, then please let me know.
Tears of Oberon
I spent considerable time wading through all the stuff you wrote. Early on when I suggested that not all of it needed reply, you asked that I reply anyway. Because a request like that I would want honor coming from me, then I treat others the same way. Hence I had no problem responding as you requested.
-- You began this thread of discussion.
Tears of Oberon responds:
You put out the argument under consideration in the first place; therefore you should have expected somebody to challenge you on it. It is on your head.
Marvin wrote:
-- It’s point is said to be refutation of a premise of mine.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Specifically on the topic of “abstention” yes.
Marvin wrote:
-- You hurled the most horrendous accusation of lying at me.
Tears of Oberon responds:
You hurled the most horrendous accusations of being ignorant and uneducated at me.
Marvin wrote:
-- You accused me of telling half-truth.
Tears of Oberon responds:
You have accused others numerous times of being “cowards” and “Watchtower worshippers.” What are the lyrics to that old George Jones song again?
“So don’t you point your finger at nobody,
cus heaven knows you ain’t no saint yourself!”
Marvin wrote:
-- Above you term is a sophist.
Tears of Oberon responds:
A sophist in modern terms is a captious or fallacious reasoner. You fit the description perfectly.
Marvin wrote:
-- You wrote reams of material and asked my response, which I granted.
Now after all you have said of me and asked of me, are you going to quit?
Tears of Oberon responds:
My new article accomplished exactly what you asked of me. I recoiled, scrapped my original argument and created a new argument that covered majority of the “reems upon reems” of material you provided in response to my “reems” of material.”
Marvin wrote:
What of all the accusations you hurled at me and that you then said required no reply?
Tears of Oberon responds:
What of you tossing my responses to post 295 out the window, along with ignoring my Third Form, along with not addressing my “fruit from the tree” argument?
Marvin wrote:
At every turn you have went out of your way to throw mud on me and direct personal insult at me. For sake of the subject I was willing to bear it.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Don’t go playing the saint on me Marvin. You dish out just as much as you take. How many times have you called ThirdWitness an idiot? How many times have you called the Witnesses “cowards and Watchtower worshipers”? How many times have you ridiculed those who do not have the level of formal education that you do? What you get, you earn Marvin.
Marvin wrote:
I don’t mind sharing myself, and I enjoy learning from others, including you. And, in this discussion I shared a good chunk of myself with you, and I learned things too. But I cannot endlessly tolerate rude behavior.
Tears of Oberon responds:
If we applied that same rule to you, then we would have stopped talking to you completely years ago.
Marvin wrote:
I expect you to answer every question I have asked of you in this discussion. It need not be right this moment. But I expect answers from you, and I expect those answer to be offered on this thread for benefit of readers who have diligently followed this discussion.
Tears of Oberon responds:
My new articles sufficiently cover that which you wrote prior to post 500. These responses sufficiently cover that which you have written after post 500.
MARVIN 520
Marvin wrote:
Earlier I wrote of a proposition by Tears of Oberon:
This does not represent my premise of dispute because my premise of dispute does not assert what is or is not eaten.
Tears of Oberon responded earlier by writing:
Once again, you are in denial Marvin. You are ASSERTING and have been ASSERTING that the Witnesses’ use of minor fractions FROM source blood means that they do not abstain from blood. That is the entire point of your argument! If your argument does not involve the Witnesses’ use of minor fractions at all, then it is irrelevant and pointless, and should be scrapped completely.
Marvin continued:
No. The premise you are disputing is in one argument and the premise you are disputing is in a completely separate and distinct argument.
Tears of Oberon responds:
So then, your argument has absolutely nothing to do with Witnesses and their use of minor fractions from blood at all? Ok then, your argument is completely pointless and irrelevant just like I said! If your argument has nothing to do with the Witnesses’ and their use of minor fractions from blood, then why should we even care?
Marvin wrote:
The premise in dispute does not assert ANYTHING about WHAT is used.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Then we have no reason to care about it do we?
Marvin wrote:
The premise in dispute ONLY addresses what is used FROM.
Tears of Oberon responds:
So it doesn’t actually address what is actually eaten….again, why should we care then? It is useless.
Marvin wrote:
Two propositions saying different things:
-- Tears using from Jane’s stew is contrary to Tears abstaining from Jane’s stew.
-- Tears using water from Jane’s stew is contrary to Tears abstaining from Jane’ stew.
Those two propositions state different things. The first conforms to my premise in dispute. The second does not. You keep asserting that the latter of the two propositions is the one in dispute when it is not.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Marvin is very lost and confused. I will help him.
Marvin’s statements are in exactly the same structurally—it is just that he leaves the first statement in the abstract, and chooses a value for X in the second.
Tears using X from Jane’s stew is contrary to Tears abstaining from using X from Jane’s stew.
Tears using [water] from Jane’s stew is contrary to Tears abstaining from using [water] from Jane’s stew.
Just because he chooses to leave the statement in the abstract, does NOT mean that the variable just magically goes away and loses all significance. If you choose no value for X, then you LEAVE IT as X. In effect, you have chosen a value by not choosing—the value is simply X!
Marvin wrote:
To be clear, though I would argue it is true that “using water from Jane’s stew is contrary to abstaining from Jane’ stew” that is true BECAUSE of the validity of a proposition saying “using from Jane’s stew is contrary to abstaining from Jane’s stew”.
Tears of Oberon responds:
And as I have been pointing out, NONE OF IT is valid in the first place, because it is not balanced!
Do not use X = abstain from X
Do not use = abstain from
Do not use = action Q
Abstain from = action Q
Stew = source Y
Water = X
Do not use water from stew = abstain from stew
QX from Y = QY
When reduced to abstract form, his argument makes no sense whatsoever. But since Marvin will surely cry “strawman,” (as he does with everything) then let’s reduce the argument he claims is so much different.
Using from stew is contrary to abstain from stew
Do not use from stew = abstain from stew
Q from Y = QY
And again, it has no balance, but we can see that it is actually the same argument as before, except with the X variable after the first Q ‘hidden’ (or in Marvin’s case, ignored).
Marvin wrote:
It defies all senses that you keep trying to convince yourself that the proposition in dispute is that which you want it to be rather than what it actually says.
Tears of Oberon responds:
It defies all senses that you keep trying to convince yourself that the proposition in dispute is that which you want it to be rather than what it actually says.
MARVIN 521
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
Because you do not bother to clarify what is eaten does not mean that NOTHING AT ALL was eaten. If NOTHING AT ALL was eaten, then your argument is pointless and irrelevant. If you are not asserting that NOTHING AT ALL was eaten, then you are asserting that SOMETHING was eaten! Take your pick from these two Marvin:
If nothing is “used”[eaten] than nothing was “used from”[eaten from].
Tears of Oberon responds:
If nothing is what is actually “used,” then you have used “nothing” [=X] from some unspecified source [=Y]. That source is not nothing—the source is something. Only what you use from that “something” source is nothing.
X = nothing
Y = unspecified source
use = action Q
[perform action Q on] [entity X] [originating from source Y]
[perform action (use) on] [entity (nothing)] [originating from source Y]
And once again, we see that my argument form works even for the case of “X = nothing.”
Marvin wrote:
Whether a particular USE from a thing is contrary to abstaining from the same thing depends on THE TYPE of abstention that is required.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Oh lord here we go…
Marvin wrote:
IF a particular TYPE of abstention is required and using from the thing to abstain from is a use that DOES NOT CONFORM to the TYPE of abstention required THEN THAT “use” is NOT contrary to abstain.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
I have a hundred dollar bill here for anyone who can decipher exactly what Marvin is going on about, and especially how it applies to using minor fractions from blood (which he apparently argues it has nothing to do with, but should still be debated over anyways…).
Marvin wrote:
ONLY IF “abstain” is left as an abstract concept does “use” become a contrary action to “abstain”.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
We do not work in an abstract, conceptual world Marvin—we work in the real world. Your type of “abstain” is irrelevant and useless if we actually wish to apply it to anything concrete in the real world.
Marvin wrote:
In its simplest form my premise says this:
-- use is not abstain
Tears of Oberon wrote:
“use” is not “mango” either. We could list off quite a few things that “use” IS NOT Marvin, but that doesn’t really help us with the issue at hand now does it?
Witty sarcasms aside, if he wishes to keep his above argument in the world of “concepts and abstractions,” then he needs write it as such.
The abstract concept “use” is contrary to the abstract concept “abstain.
Marvin wrote:
Or,
-- to use is not to abstain
Tears of Oberon responds:
The problem here is that Marvin takes the word “use” out of the abstract, conceptual world and makes it a definite action by virtue of the word “to.” However, Marvin does not bother to take “abstain” out of the abstract, conceptual world in like manner. If he did, then he would obtain:
to use X is not to abstain from X
If we pretend the variables do not exist (like Marvin does), then we get:
to use is not to abstain from
Marvin wrote:
Or,
-- using is not abstaining
Tears of Oberon responds:
Again, it all falls apart when we bring it into the real world and are forced to define exactly what is being used and what is being abstained FROM (notice the last word of the sentence before these parentheses). Marvin’s argument, in its current form, would go:
using X is not abstaining X
And that makes no grammatical sense. If you wish to bring it into the real world, then you have to abide by real world rules of grammar.
using X is not abstaining FROM X
Marvin wrote:
Restated as an equivalency:
-- Not use = abstain
Tears of Oberon responds:
In the real world:
Not use X = abstain from X
Not use = abstain FROM.
Marvin wrote:
Or,
-- Not using = abstain
Tears of Oberon responds:
Or in the real world:
Not using X = abstaining from X
Not using = abstaining FROM
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
If you are not asserting that NOTHING AT ALL was eaten, then you are asserting that SOMETHING was eaten! Take your pick from these two Marvin:
1. To eat NOTHING from blood is contrary to not eating NOTHING from blood.
2. To eat SOMETHING from blood is contrary to not eating SOMETHING from blood.
Which is your choice?_________
Marvin replied:
First, Apparently you do not realize that BOTH your propositions above are true as stated.
Second, Both those propositions embody the concepts of “abstaining from” and “using from”. In the context of this discussion:
--“eat nothing from” is equivalent to “not use from”
Tears of Oberon responds:
Again, our dear Marvin is getting either sloppy or delusional.
“nothing” is an assigned value for our X term, i.e., what is actually begin used. When we reduce Marvin’s statement to variables, then we get:
eat = Q
use = Q
eat = use (in this case)
nothing = X
QX from = not Q from
And his equation makes no sense (go figure). This is because he confuses the X value of “nothing” with a negative operator acting on the expression as a whole, i.e., “not.”
Marvin wrote:
--“not eat nothing from” is equivalent to “abstain from”
Tears of Oberon responds:
Marvin is just mutilating this beyond all recognition now. I have already established previously that
not use = abstain from
If we keep our assumption that eat = use for this case, then we get
not eat = abstain from
But since the term “nothing” is still present, and since it filling in the place for X, then we use the variable form:
not eat X = abstain from X
not eat (nothing) = abstain from (nothing)
And once again, we run into the problem of the extra “from” term. Marvin’s statement has an extra “from” on the left side, but nothing on the right.
Not eat (nothing) from = abstain from (nothing) _____
When we balance by adding the from to the right side, we get:
Not eat (nothing) from = abstain from (nothing) from
Marvin wrote:
--“eat something from” is equivalent to “use from”
Tears of Oberon responds:
And here Marvin destroys his own argument and agrees with everything that I have been saying. The term “something” is indefinite, and can be legitimately replaced with a simple variable:
“eat X from” is equivalent to “use from”
If, in this case only, we assume that use =eat, then we get
“use X from” is equivalent to “use from”
Remember all of the whining that Marvin did earlier about “strawmen”?
Marvin earlier wrote:
No. The premise you are disputing is in one argument and the premise you are disputing is in a completely separate and distinct argument. The premise in dispute does not assert ANYTHING about WHAT is used.
Because I added in the X after the word “use” and Marvin did not, he vehemently accused me of constructing strawmen. And yet, ironically enough, he just admitted that my ‘strawman’ is exactly equivalent to what he himself claims to be using!
Marvin wrote:
--“not eat something from” is equivalent to “abstain from”
Tears of Oberon responds:
Or in other words:
not eat = not use
not use = abstain from
not eat something from = abstain from
(abstain from) something from = abstain from
And once again, his equation makes no sense and has no balance.
Marvin wrote:
Third, and straight to the point, BOTH your propositions above conform to the concepts presented in my premise that “use from is contrary to abstain from”.
--To use is not to abstain
Tears of Oberon responds:
To use is not to abstain FROM
To use X is not to abstain from X
Marvin wrote:
--To not use is to abstain
Tears of Oberon responds:
To not use is to abstain FROM
To not use X is to not abstain from X
Marvin wrote:
--To abstain is not to use.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
To abstain FROM is not to use
To abstain from X is not to use X
Marvin wrote:
--To not abstain is to use.
Tears of Oberon responds:
To not abstain FROM is to use
To not abstain from X is to useX
Marvin wrote:
Do you agree or disagree with the foregoing four statements?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Disagree for the reasons already presented.
MARVIN 522
Marvin wrote:
Of my remark that would not waste time on Tears of Oberson’s “3.0 SECOND FORM”
Tears of Oberon responded earlier by writing:
See the absurdity here? I certainly do, but apparently it flies over the head of Marvin.
Marvin replied:
As I said before, I AGREE that your Form 3 is not a valid tautology.—
Tears of Oberon responds:
Closer and closer to the edge of the cliff he creeps…
Marvin wrote:
The reason I have no intention of wasting time addressing it is because that proposition DOES NOT MATCH the premise of mine in dispute.
Tears of Oberon responds:
And over the cliff he tumbles.
Marvin made the explicit statement earlier that
““eat something from” is equivalent to “use from””—Marvin Post 521
Or in abstract form, and assuming eat = use:
use X from = use from
If we make it negative, then we have:
no use X from = no use from
This Marvin has kindly admitted for us. Marvin has also made the claim that
“my premise says: -- No use from Y = abstain from Y”—Marvin Post 506
If we merely substitute in what Marvin has already agreed is equivalent, then we get:
No use from Y = abstain from Y
(No use X from) Y = abstain from Y
And what did I state that his argument was in my blog post? I said that his argument was:
(-)[Perform action Q on][entity X][originating from source Y]= (-)[perform action Q on][entity Y]
Marvin has stated clearly that
“I AGREE that your Form 3 [the form above] is not a valid tautology.”—Marvin Post 522.
If we take the agreed upon invalid tautology and put it into raw language, then we get:
(do not)[perform action (use) on] [entity X] [originating from source Y] = (abstain from) [perform action (use) on] [entity Y]
Do not (use) entity X from source Y = abstain from using entity Y
Do not use X from Y = abstain from using Y
Compare them both side by side—Marvin’s statement first, then my statement second:
Marvin: (No use X from) Y = abstain from Y
Oberon: Do not use X from Y = abstain from using Y
They are the SAME THING. And since Marvin has stated unequivocally that the second statement (Oberon’s statement) is INVALID, then he also agrees that his own statement is INVALID!
“I AGREE that your Form 3 [the forms above] is not a valid tautology.”—Marvin Post 522.
We have a classic case of Marvin refuting Shilmer.
MARVIN 523
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
No =(-)
Use = action Q
Abstain from =(-)
Marvin replied:
Use = not abstain
Not use = abstain
Use =/= abstain
Agree or disagree?
Tears of Oberon responds:
I agree only with the following:
Use = not abstain from use
Q = (-)(-)Q
Q = Q
Not use = abstain from use
(-)Q = (-)Q
Q = Q
Use =/= abstain from use
Q =/= (-)Q
You see Marvin, when you follow the established rules of a tautology that you have already agreed is valid, then everything naturally works out.
MARVIN 525
Marvin said:
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
No use from Y = abstain from Y
Marvin replied:
Yes! THAT is a proper presentation of my premise in dispute.
Tears of Oberon responds:
You just keep shootin’ yourself in the foot don’t you?
Marvin has openly accepted the form:
No use from Y = abstain from Y
Marvin as also accepted the equation (post 521):
“eat something from” is equivalent to “use from”
Which logically reduces to
use something from = use from
use X from = use from
No use X from = no use from
When we use the basic mathematical principle of substitution on the form Marvin accepted in this post, then we get:
(No use X from) Y = abstain from Y
Which is exactly the form that I presented in my blog, and which is exactly the form that Marvin himself called INVALID.
Marvin has again refuted Shilmer.
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon writes of that properly stated premise of mine:
Needs to be reduced to purely abstract form, assigning variables for actions, variables for nouns, and variables (or symbols) for the words that turn the phrase negative. If you would like to attempt this Marvin, then feel free. But if you will not, then I will for you.
No =(-)
Abstain from =(-)
Abstain from = No
Use = action Q
Y = some entity
(-) Q from Y =(-) Y
Q from Y = Y
Use from Y = Y
You succeed in distancing your own argument from my tautologies Marvin, however, you fail in actually making your argument more valid! In trying to distance yourself, you make your own argument even more imbalanced and invalid.
Use from Y = Use from Y
Use from Y =/= Y
Marvin replied:
No.
The actions are “use” and “abstain”.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Sorry, but you already accepted Forms 1 and 2 as VALID; and those VALID tautologies use the variable assignments as given by myself above. When you go around changing the variable assignments, you tamper with an already valid tautology and destroy its validity. Therefore, your changes in variable assignments are rejected.
“I AGREE that your Form 1 and Form 2 are valid tautologies”—Marvin Post 507
Marvin wrote:
“Not” or “no” is an operator in the proposition to say which of those actions occur.
Tears of Oberon responds:
“Abstain from” is an operator in the proposition to say that action Q did not occur. It serves the same function as “no.” Again, you have already accepted this as being valid, so don’t go trying to fix something that isn’t broken. Use the rules and the variable assignments that you have already agreed work.
“I AGREE that your Form 1 and Form 2 are valid tautologies”—Marvin Post 507
MARVIN 526
Marvin wrote:
Earlier I asked Tears of Oberon whether he agreed or disagreed with this proposition:
-- No use from Y = abstain from Y
Tears of Oberon responds by writing:
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Yes, I do disagree…
Marvin replied:
To disagree with the proposition above has this unavoidable consequence:
Tears of Oberon responds
*throws a new bag of popcorn into the microwave*
Marvin continues:
In proper sentence form it would THEN be true to say, “Jane did not use from blood so Jane did not abstain from blood.”
I am not sure how Tears of Oberon can hold such a wrongheaded view as to think that “not use” is not another way of saying “abstain”.
Tears of Oberon responds:
*sigh* You are once again assigning positions to me that I have never actually held Marvin. What I DID SAY in my responses would turn your ridiculous statement into:
Jane did not use X from blood so Jane abstained from using X from blood.
I would also agree with the following:
Jane did not use X so Jane abstained from X
Those two statements are my REAL position Marvin. In the end, the ultimate source does not matter—you only fail to abstain from what you actually use!
Marvin wrote:
Either “use = abstain” is true or it is not.
Tears of Oberon responds:
use =/= abstain from use
Q =/= (-)Q
Marvin wrote:
Either “not use = abstain” is true or it is not.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
not use = abstain from use
(-)Q = (-)Q
Q = Q
Marvin wrote:
Either “use =/= abstain” is true or it is not.
Tears of Oberon responds:
use =/= abstain from use
Q =/= (-)Q
Marvin wrote:
Either “not use =/= abstain” is true or it is not.
Tears of Oberon responds:
not use = abstain from use
(-)Q = (-)Q
Q = Q
Marvin wrote:
Which is it, Tears of Oberon?
Tears of Oberon responds:
You have your answers above.
MARVIN 528
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
My new articles sufficiently cover that which you wrote prior to post 500. These responses sufficiently cover that which you have written after post 500.
Marvin replied:
No. Your former statement is false.
In particular your former statement is false in relation to my responses to your insinuation and outright accusation of lying on my part! That you feel as though your accusations of a moral nature should be left unresolved BY YOU in the face of countering information, speaks to your own morality.
At the very least I expect direct responses from you of these two entries of mine:
Entry 338:—(link)
Entry 340:— (link)
Tears of Oberon responds:
No.
The DPA/Advance Directive issue has been addressed in my new article, and the points contained within posts 338 and 340 no longer have any relevancy in the face of this new article. I will not waste my time refuting irrelevant points.
http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2010/02/advance-directive-allows-blood.html
Tears of Oberon
MARVIN 530
Marvin wrote:
Cousin
Earlier I wrote of the premise Tears of Oberon addresses as though it is the one in dispute:
The premise you are disputing is in one argument and the premise you are disputing is in a completely separate and distinct argument.
Tears of Oberon responded by writing:
So then, your argument has absolutely nothing to do with Witnesses and their use of minor fractions from blood at all? Ok then, your argument is completely pointless and irrelevant just like I said! If your argument has nothing to do with the Witnesses’ and their use of minor fractions from blood, then why should we even care?
Marvin continued:
Because the premise of dispute is not the premise you want it to be does not mean the premise is completely unrelated to Witnesses acceptance of things from blood. This does not change the specific argument in question, and its primary premise.
If you want to address my premise then do so. It is:
“To use from is contrary to abstain from”
Tears of Oberon responds:
Remember what I said earlier about you using my premise as your own, but then turning right back around and pretending that you never said anything because you take us all for “inadequate” imbeciles?
You wrote, “it to be does not mean the premise is completely unrelated to Witnesses acceptance of THINGS from blood”—Marvin Shilmer
On one hand, you refuse to acknowledge the obvious in your own premise, i.e., that you are really talking about using minor fractions from blood. On the other hand, you state that you actually are talking about “THINGS” from blood. You are trying to be on both sides of the fence at once! Here is a very simple exercise Marvin: replace “things” with “minor fractions” and you get exactly what I’ve been saying! Stop denying the obvious, and stop denying reality just to keep from having to admit that you are wrong!
Dialog between Marvin and Tears: A Summary of the Debate So Far
Tears of Oberon: see that ball there Marvin, it is blue.
Marvin: I don’t see any ball.
Tears of Oberon: but it is right there Marvin, look *points to the ball in the middle of the floor*
Marvin: liar, there isn’t any ball there. Quit making things up *kicks the ball away*
Tears of Oberon: but you just kicked the ball Marvin! How can you kick something that isn’t there?
Marvin: I didn’t kick anything…
Tears of Oberon: *goes and picks up the ball* Look Marvin, it is right here! *throws ball at Marvin’s head* What did you just get hit in the head with?!
Marvin: I didn’t get hit with anything. What are you talking about?
Tears of Oberon: ………….
I have great patience Marvin, but it is not unlimited. If your only response continues to be “not it’s not,” ever after you contradict yourself with your own statements numerous times, then I will end this discussion.
MARVIN 531
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon earlier writes:
Witty sarcasms aside, if he wishes to keep his above argument in the world of “concepts and abstractions,” then he needs write it as such.
-- The abstract concept “use” is contrary to the abstract concept “abstain.”
Marvin replied:
Exactly. Use and abstain are contrary to one another.
Thank you for finally saying the words!
Tears of Oberon responds:
Why don’t you try reading what I actually said instead of ripping my points out of context like you do with every Watchtower publication that you touch?
I wrote immediately after that statement:
The problem here is that Marvin takes the word “use” out of the abstract, conceptual world and makes it a definite action by virtue of the word “to.” However, Marvin does not bother to take “abstain” out of the abstract, conceptual world in like manner. If he did, then he would obtain:
to use X is not to abstain from X
If we pretend the variables do not exist (like Marvin does), then we get:
to use is not to abstain from
[Marvin’s abstract, conceptual form] all falls apart when we bring it into the real world and are forced to define exactly what is being used and what is being abstained FROM (notice the last word of the sentence before these parentheses). Marvin’s argument, in its current form, would go:
using X is not abstaining X
And that makes no grammatical sense. If you wish to bring it into the real world, then you have to abide by real world rules of grammar.
using X is not abstaining FROM X
Did you acknowledge any of this Marvin? No, you did not.
Marvin wrote:
If use is contrary to abstain then,
-- use from is contrary to abstain from.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Since you are attempting to bring your abstract concepts into the real world and make them relevant, then you have to abide by real world rules of grammar.
[Use] is contrary to [abstain from]
[Use Y] is contrary to [abstain from Y]
[Use] from is contrary to [abstain from] from
[Use X] from Y is contrary to [abstain from X] from Y
Marvin wrote:
Do you agree or disagree with the following proposition:
-- To NOT use from is to abstain from
Tears of Oberon responds:
Again, it is real world vs Marvin’s fantasy world of “concepts and abstractions.”
To NOT [use] is to [abstain from]
To NOT [use Y] is to [abstain from Y]
To NOT [use] from is to [abstain from] from
To NOT [use X] from Y is to [abstain from X] from Y
MARVIN 532
Marvin wrote:
Earlier I wrote:
“eat something from” is equivalent to “use from”
Tears of Oberon responded by writing:
And here Marvin destroys his own argument and agrees with everything that I have been saying. The term “something” is indefinite, and can be legitimately replaced with a simple variable:
Marvin wrote:
Not unless it is possible to “eat something FROM X” WITHOUT “using from X” or unless it is possible to “use something from X” without “using X”.
You avoid this.
Tears of Oberon responds:
The answer to that has been sitting, ignored by you, in my blog for days—you just avoid it. Go read.
You cannot use [something] FROM X without using that SAME [something] FROM X.
You cannot use W from X without using W from X.
That is really common sense now isn’t it?
Additionally, it has already been shown to be possible to use something from X without using X.
Using [meat] from source [plant] =/= failure to abstain from using [plants]
Using [oil] from source [dinosaur] =/= failure to abstain from using [dinosaurs]
MARVIN 533
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
not eat = not use
not use = abstain from
Marvin replied:
No.
--“not use = abstain”[“not” is only an on-off switch, an operator]
Tears of Oberon responds:
No. In completely abstract terms:
not use = abstain FROM using
not use X = abstain from using X
(-)QX = (-)QX
1 = 1
Marvin wrote:
--“use = not abstain”[“not” is only an on-off switch, an operator]
Tears of Oberon responds:
No. In completely abstract terms:
use = not abstain from using
use X = not abstain from using X
QX = (-)(-)QX
QX = QX
1 = 1
Marvin wrote:
--“not eat X =/= not use” BECAUSE “eat” is ONLY one form of “using”
Tears of Oberon wrote:
My agreed upon valid tautology does not suffer from such equivalency weaknesses, because I have reduced everything to variables. “Eat” and “use” are simply set equal to the action Q.
But because you refuse to reduce your argument to completely abstract terms, it is susceptible to language-specific equivalency issues like the above. Try to reduce your premise to all variables Marvin, and you will find that it doesn’t work, and will consequently have to change it and end up with the same thing that I did.
MARVIN 535
Marvin wrote:
Earlier I presented the following propositions to Tears of Oberon with a question:
-- Use = not abstain
-- Not use = abstain
-- Use =/= abstain
Agree or disagree?
Tears stated neither agreement nor disagreement.
Tears of Oberon responds:
You obviously do not read very well then Marvin. I went through and responded to each point one at a time. My exact responses (respectively) were:
Use = not abstain from use
Q = (-)(-)Q
Q = Q
Not use = abstain from use
(-)Q = (-)Q
Q = Q
Use =/= abstain from use
Q =/= (-)Q
Again, go read.
Marvin wrote:
I restate my request:
AGREE of DISAGREE?
Which is it, Tears of Oberon
Tears of Oberon responds:
Try reading the answers that were actualy given before asking a second time.
Tears of Oberon
MARVIN 536
Marvin wrote:
Earlier I stated to Tears of Oberon
-- The actions are “use” and “abstain”.
Tears of Oberon responds by writing:
Sorry, but you already accepted Forms 1 and 2 as VALID
Marvin replied:
I said your Forms 1 and 2 were valid tautologies. I did not say your Forms 1 or 2 accurately represent THE tautologous premise in dispute.
In my premise of “to use from is not to abstain from”
-- The actions are “use” and “abstain”.
--“not” is only an operator to say which of the actions is “on or off,”“positive or negative”.
Tears of Oberon responds:
If you wish to remove the negative function of “abstain from”, then your premise is still invalid and unbalanced.
Not use from = abstain from
Not use X from = abstain from X
QX from = QX
And it makes no sense. You need to drop the “from” on the left side (as I have been saying).
Not use = abstain from
Not use X = abstain from X
QX = QX
1 = 1
Not use from = abstain from from
Not use X from = abstain from X from
QX from = QX from
MARVIN 537
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon earlier writes:
“Abstain from” is an operator in the proposition to say that action Q did not occur. It serves the same function as “no.”
Marvin replied:
You admitted earlier that “The abstract concept ‘use’ is contrary to the abstract concept ‘abstain’”.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I also stated earlier, and you ignored earlier, that “not use” is only contrary to “abstain” when it is left within the abstract, conceptual world. When we bring it into the real world and apply the actions to actual object, then we are bound by real world rules of grammar.
Marvin wrote:
Hence in terms of word meaning we have:
-- use =/= abstain
Tears of Oberon responds:
Hence in terms of real world application we have:
use =/= abstain from
use X =/= abstain from X
Marvin wrote:
-- not use = abstain
Tears of Oberon responds:
not use = abstain from
Marvin wrote:
-- use = not abstain
Tears of Oberon responds:
use = not abstain from
Marvin wrote:
If these are true then the following are also true:
-- use from =/= abstain from
Tears of Oberon responds:
(use) from =/= (abstain from) from
Marvin wrote:
-- not use from = abstain from
Tears of Oberon responds:
not (use) from = (abstain from) from
Marvin wrote:
-- use from = not abstain from
Tears of Oberon responds:
(use) from = not (abstain from) from
Marvin wrote:
Questions for Tears of Oberon:
Abstain means refrain. Agree or disagree?
Tears of Oberon responds:
As abstract, conceptual terms they are synonyms yes.
Marvin wrote:
Abstain from means refrain from. Agree or disagree?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Agree.
(Abstain from) X = (refrain from) X
QX = QX
1 = 1
Marvin wrote:
Abstain from X means refrain from X. Agree or disagree?
Tears of Oberon responds:
see previous answer.
Marvin wrote:
Use is contrary to refrain. Agree or disagree?
Tears of Oberon responds:
In conceptual, abstract terms yes. But in real world terms, i.e., when objects are involved and are acted upon, then:
(Use) X is contrary to (refrain from) X
Marvin wrote:
Use from is contrary to refrain from. Agree or disagree?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Dissagree.
(Use) X from is contrary to (refrain from) X from
Marvin wrote:
Use from X is contrary to refrain from X. Agree or disagree?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Dissagree, because you deceptively changed the role of X in this new premise to a source of something that is used, rather than what is actually used.
(Use) W from X is contrary to (refrain from) W from X
Where W is the equivalent of the X terms in all your previous questions.
MARVIN 538
The points presented by Mr. Shilmer have no bearing on the validity of the article written at my blog, and thus merit no response.
The points from the article on my blog still stand unaddressed and unrefuted.
http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2010/02/advance-directive-allows-blood.html
Tears of Oberon
No comments:
Post a Comment