Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
Do we even need to go any farther than this? Marvin just destroys everything that he has been arguing for this entire time with a few words!
Marvin wrote:
No. Nothing is destroyed of my assertion.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Denial…
Marvin continued:
And,
Yes. We must go further BECAUSE Watchtower teaching EQUATES transfusion with eating.
Tears of Oberon responds:
That doesn’t have anything to do with the arguments that you are making. It is a completely different disussion from the one we are currently engaged in and you know it.
Marvin wrote:
Hence the proposition of:
--“using from blood is contrary to abstaining from eating blood when the use from blood is that of eating”
remains valid.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I will clarify Marvin’s statement by adding just two simple words, to let us see what is being used and what is being used from:
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!
“Eating a single member of whole blood would not be eating blood.”—Marvin Shilmer
Talking out both sides of his mouth again.
MARVIN 584
Marvin wrote:
Because I Say So
Tears of Oberon earlier writes:
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.
And that makes much more sense.
Marvin wrote:
What you write is tantamount to a person saying,
-- I abstained from your car because all I stole was the tires from your car.
Tears of Oberon responds:
“Whether a particular USE from a thing is contrary to abstaining from the same thing depends on THE TYPE of abstention that is required.”—Marvin Shilmer
In his actual argumetns, 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!
TYPE I = steal
TYPE II = use
(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.
Tears of Oberon removes the tires from off a car and then steals the car.
(removing) is a type of use.
Tears of Oberon has failed to abstain from using tires.
Tears of Oberon has failed to abstain from (not abstaining from) tires.
In the second example, Tears of Oberon actually abstained and failed to abstain from tires simultaneously, because there are two different types of abstention in play at the same time. This is exactly the same game that Marvin is playing with “eating” and “using.”
Marvin wrote:
To borrow a well-worn phrase, good luck selling that one!
Tears of Oberon responds:
Already sold sparky.
MARVIN 586
Marvin wrote:
Pendant Point
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
Speaking of terms in a conceptual sense doesn’t require the same rules of English grammar that using the same terms in raw language and with other entities involved requires.
Conceptual:
-- The concept of “use” is contrary to the concept of “abstain”
Real World:
-- Using X is contrary to [abstaining FROM] X.
Marvin continued:
Two things:
1. If the concept that words impart is lost the moment those words are introduced into a sentence then the word is useless. The reason words make it into vocabulary is precisely because those words impart a particular concept, and when that concept is needed in a statement THEN that word is used BECAUSE of the concept it imparts.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Marvin really is confused. Let me clarify for him:
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”!!
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:
2. Because the statement “using X is contrary to abstaining from X” is TRUE does not mean other sentence structures making different assertions using the same words of “use” and “abstain” are false because they express something different related to contrariness.
Tears of Oberon responds:
When you violate the rules of grammar and deceptively equate conceptual nouns with compound verbs, then yes your other sentence structures are false and invalid!
“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.
If you wish to communicate usage of a source, then simply state that X is a source!
In consistent verb form:
Using [source] X is contrary to abstaining from [source] X.
However, taking on the grammatically unnecessitated word “from” to the left sides means that you have to tack on a grammatically unnecessitated “from” to the right side as well!
In consitent verb form:
Using from [source] X is contrary to (abstaining from) from [source] X.
Using W from [source] X is contrary to (abstaining from) W from [source] X.
Go back to grade school English Marvin.
MARVIN 587
Marvin wrote:
Creating Illusion
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
When spoken of purely in conceptual terms, the word “from” following “abstain” is not grammatically required. But once the term stops being a mere concept and is brought into the real world and is applied to real entities, then it transforms into the compound term “abstain from.” The term “use” requires no such grammatical considerations.
Marvin continued:
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 responds:
But the ‘compound’ terms communicate different things Marvin!!
In verb form
Abstain from entity Y
Means
Do not use entity Y
In verb form
Do not use from entity Y
Means
Do not use X from entity Y
The ‘compound’ term “use from” pushes Y into the role of a source of what is actually used [= new variable X].
Marvin 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:
Yes Marvin, both assert SOMETHING, but that SOMETHING is not the SAME THING!!
Marvin wrote:
For you to deny “use from” as a compound term is to assert a false bifurcation of either “use” or “no use” suggesting there is no such a concept as “use from”. There IS such a concept as “use from”. The concept is used around the world by English speakers on a moment-to-moment basis as part of everyday speech and formal presentations.
Tears of Oberon responds:
And yet, Marvin still hasn’t shown that his precious “use from” actual MEANS the same thing as the verb+preposition “abstain from”!
MARVIN 588
Marvin wrote:
Translation Needed
Earlier I expressed the proposition:
-- Use from =/= abstain from
Tears of Oberon responded by writing:
I agree with the above.
--[use] from =/=[abstain from] from
--[use X][from Y]=/=[abstain from X][from Y]
Marvin continued:
If you AGREE with the proposition I stated then what is the point of your following propositions that state something different than the proposition you agree with? Have you misspoken or does the above manifest a logical contradiction in your thought?
Tears of Oberon responds:
All it means is that you lack the capacity (or honestly) to say that is actually being agreed with! Stop misrepresenting my words Marvin—just because I am writing on my blog instead of here, does not give you the right to cherry pick and mutilate my words with the hope that your cronies will not bother to visit my blog and check for themselves what I actually said!
Marvin wrote:
-- Use from =/= abstain from
-- Use from =/= abstain from from
The above are different propositions.
Tears of Oberon responds:
No, they are not different propositions—the terms are simply being used in different grammatical senses.
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:
My question is not asked in sarcasm; it is asked to understand what you mean. Based on what you write before and after the above it seems to me you DISAGREE with the proposition stated. Yet you say you AGREE. Please clarify.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Clarified and disagreed with.
MARVIN 589
Marvin wrote:
Purely Conceptual
Earlier I stated the two propositions:
--The abstract concept “use” is contrary to the abstract concept “abstain.”
--[Use] is contrary to [abstain from]
Of those two propositions I asserted “Both those statements are abstract. I agree with both.”
Tears of Oberon responds by writing:
Only one of those statements is stated in purely conceptual terms. I also agree with both.
Marvin continued:
Which of the two statements above is less than purely conceptual as a statement? Neither address a subject of use or abstention. Both state concepts.
Tears of Oberon responds:
But only the first one uses both terms as conceptual nouns! The second statement uses both terms as verbs! They have different grammatical requirements Marvin!
Marvin wrote:
Just saying one is “purely conceptual” does not make the other less than “purely conceptual”.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Either the terms are verbs or they are conceptual nouns. How you phrase your proposition depends on what part of speech you make the terms.
MARVIN 590
Marvin wrote:
Unanswered – Again
Earlier I proposed that “eat something from” is equivalent to “use from” 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”.
Tears of Oberon responds by writing:
And your proposal still makes no sense whatsoever.
Marvin continued:
With the following two questions I restate my question for you as simply as I can think it out for your sake:
-- Can I eat frosting FROM a cake without using FROM that cake to eat?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Equivocation and deception. Marvin is using two different TYPES of usage and two different TYPES of abstention in the same proposition. The answer(s) to the above question are:
A man may eat frosting from a cake and still abstain from cake if and only if “frosting” =/= “cake.”
A man may successfully abstain from eating from a cake but still fail to abstain from using from that cake, e.g., if he sells the cake instead of eating from it.
Therefore, a man may both abstain and fail to abstain from cake simultaneously.
Marvin wrote:
-- Can I eat frosting FROM a cake without using that cake to eat?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Improper and muddy sentence structure. The “to eat” part on the end is superfluous, and should be substituted in for the word “use.”
Can I eat frosting FROM a cake without (eating) that cake?
Answer: yes you can, if and only if “frosting” =/= “cake.”
And since you have already stated clearly that, “Eating a single member of whole blood would not be eating blood,” then it follows that (at least for Marvin Shilmer), eating a single member of a cake [=frosting] would not be eating that cake.
Marvin has answered his own question.
MARVIN 591
Marvin wrote:
Unanswered – Again II
Tears of Oberon responds:
Not being answered to Marvin’s personal satisfaction does not equate to having no answer given at all.
Marvin wrote:
Earlier I asked the question:
Can I “eat something FROM blood” WITHOUT “using blood” or “using from blood”?
Tears of Oberon responds by writing:
Counter Question: Can I “eat something FROM blood” WITHOUT eating blood? Yes or No?
-- Your answer is:_______
Marvin wrote:
Response: You have NOT ANSWERED the question asked of YOU.
Tears of Oberon responds:
And you did not answer the question asked of YOU because you know that doing so would expose your proposition for the deceptive and equivocative scam that it is! Use ONE type of abstention per proposition Marvin, not two!
Marvin wrote:
Answer: The answer to your question to ME depends on what objective value you assign to “blood” as a material.
Hence:
1. From an material anatomical perspective:
1a. Eating something from blood is not eating blood unless the thing eaten is either whole blood…
Tears of Oberon responds:
YES MARVIN! You finally get it! Good job!
Marvin continues:
…or at the very least a composition of multiple members of whole blood. Eating a single member of whole blood would not be eating blood.
Tears of Oberon responds:
All of that is merely opinion. A major constituent of a compound that has not begun the process of conversion through decomposition may still hold conceptual equality with the compound based on specific Criteria of Equivalence.
Marvin wrote:
1b. I cannot eat something from blood without using the substance known as blood.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Again, equivocation by use of multiple TYPES.
Marvin wrote:
2. From a material chemical perspective:
2a. Eating something from blood is not eating blood unless the thing eaten is whole blood.
Tears of Oberon responds:
So according to Marvin Shilmer, I may eat red blood cells and say that I have not eaten blood? His is a very strange view indeed.
Marvin wrote:
2b. I cannot eat something from blood without using the substance known as blood.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Equivocation through multiple TYPES.
Marvin wrote:
Now please answer my materially different question of:
Can I “eat something FROM blood” WITHOUT “using blood” or “using from blood”?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Stop equivocating and use a consistent TYPE throughout your proposition, and then I will consider answering.
MARVIN 592
Marvin wrote:
False Bifurcation
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
-- The concept of “not using” is contrary to the concept of “abstention.”
That is stated in conceptual terms, and is not applied to any real entity.
-- To not use X is contrary to abstain FROM X
That is stated in real world terms, and is applied to the real entity X.
Marvin wrote:
I agree with both the propositions above. But, again, the validity of those two propositions does not exclude the validity of:
-- To use [from] X is contrary to abstain FROM X
[I corrected Marvin’s statement for him here]
Tears of Oberon responds:
Both sides are valid on their own; but they become invalid when set equal to each other, because they are NOT equal to each other! When we simply substitute in “use” for “abstain from” on the right side, we obtain:
To use W from X is contrary to (not using) X
And since all entities in the universe have an understood source except God, then we may the following without changing the meaning of our proposition:
To use W from X is contrary to (not using) X from Y
And as I already wrote in my updated blog article, this type of proposition makes every entity in the universe equal to every other entity in the universe UNLESS W = X.
Marvin wrote:
In all your words the enthymeme you depend on includes a false bifurcation stating:
-- Either “use X” or “not use X” but no “use from X”
Tears of Oberon responds:
Yes Marvin, because “use W from X” communicates a DIFFERENT MEANING than “use X.” In the former, X is a source of something else that is directly used, while in the latter, X is the entity directly used.
Marvin wrote:
Because the concepts “use X” and “use X from Y” are valid does not mean the concept “use from Y” is not valid.
Tears of Oberon responds:
“Use from Y” is valid, but it is INCOMPLETE! Answer the question Marvin: use WHAT from Y?!
Marvin wrote:
False bifurcation is fallacy.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Accusations of false bifurcation when false bifurcations haven’t actually been used is fallacy.
MARVIN 593
Marvin wrote:
In a Sentence
Earlier I wrote:
In ordinary terms to “not use” is to “abstain”.
Tears of Oberon responded by writing:
Try using that ‘ordinary’ sense in a sentence Marvin, and give me the chance to laugh at you squirm.
In real world terms,“not using X” is to “abstaining FROM X.” Get real Marvin.
Marvin replied:
Okay. Since the “use” at issue is “eating” then my sentence reads thusly:
-- During Lent I do not eat from meat because during Lent I abstain from meat.
Tears of Oberon responds:
And once again (go figure), Marvin is making a mockery of the English language, and he is refusing to specify and be consistent with the TYPE of abstention! The proper statement reads:
During Lent I do not eat X from meat because during Lent I abstain from eating meat.
And yet, if X does not equal whole meat, then Marvin himself thinks that eating X from meat is not violating the command to abstain from eating meat.
“Eating a single member of whole blood would not be eating blood.”—Marvin Shilmer
Therefore, eating a single member of whole meat would not be eating meat, according to Marvin Shilmer.
Marvin wrote:
Here is another one:
-- In Eden I abstained from eating of the tree of knowledge by not eat from the tree of knowledge.
Tears of Oberon responds:
And again, he fails miserable to actually answer all three necessary questions:
1) What TYPE of usage and abstention?
2) What entity is the TYPE of either usage or abstention being applied to?
3) What is the SOURCE of the entity that the TYPE of either usage or abstention is being applied to?
Unlink Marvin Shilmer, the Bible actually answers ALL of these questions!
In Eden, I abstained from EATING [=type] the FRUIT [=entity] of the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE [=source] by not EATING [=type] FRUIT [=entity] from the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE [=source].
That is a complete statement Marvin.
Marvin wrote:
Here is another one:
-- In Eden I abstained from eating fruit of the tree of knowledge by not eat from the tree of knowledge.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I wonder why Marvin conveniently ‘forgets’ to mention exactly WHAT is being used FROM the tree of knowledge in the latter half?
In Eden, I abstained from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge by not eating FRUIT from the tree of knowledge.
That is a complete statement Marvin. Quit leaving things out, quit hiding things, and quit being deceptive.
Marvin wrote:
Do you need more sentences?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Sure, keep em coming. All that you are doing (especially by using the tree of knowledge example) is exposing your ‘strategy’ of ignoring and hiding necessary terms.
MARVIN 594
Marvin wrote:
More Sentences:
Tears of Oberon wrote:
*breaks out the Cheetos and the beanbag chair*
Marvin wrote:
-- In Eden I abstained from the tree of knowledge by not eating from the tree of knowledge.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Again, by letting us compare his statements to the complete statements in Genesis, Marvin exposes his propositions for the incomplete shams that they are.
1) Type of usage or abstention?
2) What is actually being used or abstained from?
3) What is the source of what is actually being used or abstained from?
Genesis answers all of these questions. Marvin intentionally does not. His statement should really read:
In Eden I abstained from EATING FRUIT from the tree of knowledge by not eating FRUIT from the tree of knowledge.
That is a complete statement, and actually communicates something.
Marvin wrote:
-- In Eden I abstained from fruit of the tree of knowledge by not eating from fruit of the tree of knowledge.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Using two sources on one side instead of just your usual one won’t help you Marvin. Your statement now means:
In Eden I abstained from the FRUIT of the tree of knowledge by not eating FRUIT from the FRUIT of the tree of knowledge.
Marvin wrote:
Need more?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Go for it Sparky.
MARVIN 595
Marvin wrote:
More Sentences II
Tears of Oberon responds:
Oh great, and I’m all out of Cheetos now too…
Marvin continued:
-- During Lent I abstain from meat by not eating from meat.
Tears of Oberon responds:
During Lent I abstain from Qing meat by not eating X from meat.
If we assume that the TYPE is consistent throughout (which might be dangerous with Marvin), then Q = eat.
During Lent I abstain from (eating) meat by not eating X from meat.
And once again, if X =/= meat then you could eat all of X from source meat that you want and still be abstaining from meat. Remember this little diddy?
“Eating a single member of whole blood would not be eating blood.”—Marvin Shilmer
Therefore, eating a single constituent [=X] of meat would not be eating meat, according to Marvin.
Marvin wrote:
More?
Tears of Oberon responds:
I would have to make a run to the store for Cheetos first…
MARVIN 595
Marvin wrote:
Got enough sentences yet?
All it takes is ONE!
Tears of Oberon responds:
You have given me a gigantic pile of words Marvin, but up to this point you have failed to effectively COMMUNICATE anything with them! All it takes is one complete sentence to COMMUNICATE!
MARVIN 597
Tears of Oberon responds:
In the previous responses, I have clarified myself suffiently 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 598
Merits no response
MARVIN 599
Merits no response
MARVIN 600
Tears of Oberon responds:
Irrelevant strawmen merit no responses. When the Witnesses say that they “abstain from blood,” it is within the context of the Bible and means “we do not eat blood.” They TYPE of abstention is “eat.” Marvin tries to weasel in different TYPES of abstention and claim that they Witnesses violate those different TYPES instead of the TYPE that they actually mean to use.
MARVIN 601
Same response as with post 600.
MARVIN 602
Marvin wrote:
A Question in Waiting
Tears of Oberon responds:
Or, the same question that has been answered 100 times now…
Marvin wrote:
Earlier I asked Tears of Oberon this 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?
Tears of Oberon responds by writing:
Your statement is equivalent to:
-- Can a Witness eat X from blood…?
The answer to this is exactly the same answer that I have been giving for 500 posts: If X =/= Y [blood], then eating X does not violate the prohibition on eating blood.
Marvin continued:
I want to be CLEAR in my understanding of your answer.
Is your answer a YES to the question asked?
Or,
Is your answer a NO to the question asked?
Tears of Oberon responds:
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:
If your answer is a NO, then why?
Tears of Oberon responds:
I gave my answer already and explained the reasoning behind my answer. Go read.
Marvin wrote:
If you are unwilling to say your answer above is either a YES or NO to the question asked, then why are you pretending to hold a discussion? Either state YES, or state NO with a reason WHY you say NO to the actual question asked. Poop or get off the pot!
Tears of Oberon responds:
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?
Tears of Oberon’s answer:
If WHAT you are actually eating from the source ‘blood” is not blood, then you have not violated the command to not eat blood.
If X =/= Y [blood], then eating X does not violate the prohibition on eating blood.
Clear as mud.
MARVIN 603
Merits no response
MARVIN 604
Marvin wrote:
Revamped Formal Argument
Refuted in a single sentence:
Tears of Oberon responds:
Wow, totally ignoring thousands of words of argumentation? That says quite a bit Marvin!
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon asserts:
Special Case (Y = X)
When the new term is added in, the role of “blood” changes.
Marvin wrote:
Because my premise speaks of no special case then Tears of Oberon’s attempted refutation is no more than destruction of a strawman.
My proposition is:
-- Use from X
Not
-- Use Y from X
Tears of Oberon responds:
Using [THINGS] from X = using W from X, where W can either be X itself or some constituent of X.
I am not going to keep trying to shove a stubborn mule towards the watering hole forever. It can just sit in its place and die of dehydration for all I care. If you can’t get this very simple point through your head even after having it explained to you for 500 posts, then you are hopeless. Go read some more.
Tears of Oberon.
Marvin wrote:
Because people CAN “use Y from X” does not mean people cannot “use from X”. The former speaks to WHAT is used and the SOURCE that it comes from. The latter speaks ONLY of the source which is employed to get whatever is or is not used.
Tears of Oberon responds:
If you are not using NOTHING FROM a source, then you are using SOMETHING from a source.
If people are not using NOTHING FROM X, then they MUST be using SOMETHING FROM X!
It is not “can,” it is MUST unless you are using nothing!
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, defines “source” as:
1. The point at which SOMETHING springs into being or from which it derives or is obtained.
Sources are sources for SOMETHING, not nothing!
MARVIN 605
Marvin wrote:
An Aside – Shocking Amusement
Tears of Oberon writes:
If Y = X, then the source of Y = the source of X.
Marvin wrote:
The source of Y neither changes nor is determined by WHAT Y is or is not. Either Y DOES come from given source or it DOES NOT come from a given source. To think otherwise is just plain folly. It is shocking to think a trained engineer could think as you suggest above.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Hint: Address what is actually said!
My full support for the conclusion was a very simple mathematical operation.
Statement in Context:
If we do allow Y to equal X, then we come to another interesting conclusion:
[entity Y] [originating from source Y] = [entity Y] [originating from source Z].
If we use simple division on our terms, then we find that:
[originating from source Y] = [originating from source Z].
Therefore:
If Y = X, then the source of Y = the source of X.
In laymen’s terms, If leaf 1 = leaf 2, then they have the same source of origin because they are the same entity! It is shocking to think that a trained doctor/lawyer/logician/everything else could not understand such a simple concept.
MARVIN 610
Marvin wrote:
Mate Into
Tears of Oberon responds:
I was referring to a chess term, i.e., checkmate in two moves. Is changing “two” to “into” a pun or something?
Marvin wrote:
Avoiding Circularity
Tears of Oberon responds:
Something Marvin has not accomplished yet…
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon,
I am glad to see a light bulb turning on for you, and it is about time! But what you speak of is a notion I have repeatedly tried to convey to you myself. The most succinct instance is probably my entry number 542.—(link)
That Witnesses use “things” from blood does not change the premise of dispute.
Tears of Oberon responds:
No, it isn’t. The TYPE of abstention in dispute (the only relevant type) is “eating.” Do Witnesses abstain from EATING blood?
As I already showed, “use” is not a valid TYPE of abstention, because it doesn’t say anything! It is akin to saying:
Abstain from not abstaining from.
Marvin wrote:
Of course Witnesses use things from blood.
Tears of Oberon responds:
But do they EAT blood? Yes or No? ____
Marvin wrote:
In fact they use a lot of things from blood. But whether this is an act contrary to abstaining from blood is the issue.
Tears of Oberon responds:
No, the “issue” is whether or not what the Witnesses EAT is contrary to the command to abstain from blood, where the TYPE of abstention is “eating.”
Marvin wrote:
It would be circular for me to simply say it is contrary to abstaining from blood; hence the need for a logical argument that is non-circular.
-- Using [things] from blood is contrary to abstaining from blood
-- IF
-- Not use = abstain
Tears of Oberon responds:
That IS circular Marvin!!! If “not use” = “abstain,” then the terms are interchangeable.
Not using things from blood means abstaining from things from blood.
Is equivalent to:
Abstaining from things from blood means abstaining from things from blood.
And what have you accomplished by this statement? All you are doing is saying the same thing twice! Additionally, you still have not specified what TYPE of abstention you are talking about!
Answer the question Marvin:
Can a person eat a constituent FROM blood and still abstain from eating BLOOD?
Yes or No? _______
Marvin wrote:
I do not argue that “using things from blood” is contrary to “abstain from blood” as premise in an argument.
Tears of Oberon responds:
You’ve been arguing exactly that for 600 posts now…we aren’t imbeciles Marvin.
Marvin wrote:
To do so would be circular.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I agree. What you have been doing is circular.
Marvin wrote:
I employ the premise of “not use = abstain” as a conclusion that supports a CONCLUSION that “using things from blood” is contrary to “abstain from blood”. This is because the abstract concepts of “use FROM” and “abstain FROM” are incompatible.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
I already dealt with this in my article and proved you wrong Marvin. You CANNOT begin with a balanced statement and work up to your premise. You would have to START imbalanced and REMAIN imbalanced! Go read:
http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2010/02/formal-abstention-argument.html
Marvin wrote:
We know Witnesses use FROM blood by having others use blood as a resource to mine and deliver what they want from blood.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Again, he is not actually saying anything. If we substitute in the values that Marvin has already agreed are equivalent, then we get:
We know Witnesses (do not abstain from) from blood by having others (not abstain from) blood as a source…
Is the same as saying:
Witnesses do not abstain from X from blood by having others not abstain from X from source blood.
And I agree with this statement. Witnesses do indeed fail to abstain from using minor fractions from blood. But minor fractions are not relevant to the issue, nor to the Apstolic Decree unless you prove that minor fraction = what is actually prohibited, i.e., blood!
Marvin wrote:
We know Watchtower claims Witnesses abstain from blood.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Yes, the Witnesses “abstain from blood” where the TYPE of abstention is “eating.” Thus, the statement MEANS:
Witnesses abstain from EATING blood.
Marvin wrote:
Hence the question: Is it abstaining from blood to use from blood?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Meaningless and circular statement. It is equivalent to saying:
Is it abstaining from blood to not abstain from X from blood?
Because of the extra “from” term, then Marvin would still need to prove that WHAT IS ACTUALLY USED from blood = blood.
Marvin wrote:
My answer is: How could it be any other way? How is it POSSIBLE to abstain FROM the substance known as blood without either USING blood DIRECTLY or having someone else do it ACTING IN YOUR STEAD? Either way you are USING blood when you USE FROM blood.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Now he is switching back to the form:
To use blood (either directly or through agency) is not to abstain from blood.
And again, this is a circular and meaningless statement. It is equivalent to saying:
To (not abstain from) blood (either directly or through agency) is not to abstain from blood.
Ok….duh! But until you actually bother to define what TYPE of abstention you are talking about, then the statement is merely repetitive and useless.
Marvin wrote:
The reason my argument is not circular is founded on “use =/= abstain” and that we know Witnesses do, in fact, use from blood by having others use blood as a resource to mine and deliver what they want from blood.
Tears of Oberon responds:
So once again, Marvin admits that he is using a strawman TYPE of abstention instead of the TYPE of abstention intended in the Bible and by the Witnesses! Both of those TYPES of abstention are “eating” Marvin!
Example of Marvin’s lunatic assertions:
Tears of Oberon visits his doctor for a checkup.
Tears of Oberon is paying the nurse to check his health, which includes a blood pressure test.
The nurse uses Tears of Oberon’s circulating blood to gage his blood pressure.
Tears of Oberon has used blood by agency.
Tears of Oberon has failed to abstain from blood.
Every Witness in the world fails to abstain from blood anytime that they have their blood pressure taken.
While technically true, what is the actual point of making a claim like that? Nothing!! That type of abstention has NOTHING to do with the Biblically intended TYPE of abstention, i.e., “eating.”
Teleologist said it perfectly back in post 578:
“But if "abstain from...blood" means to not eat blood, doesn't that affect your argument that "using from blood" is contrary to "abstaining from blood"? If a Christian abstains from eating blood and that is all Acts 15:29 requires as to the manner of abstention then it doesn't matter if they don't abstain from using blood in other ways, right? So if JW's are not eating blood when they take fractions then they are in compliance with Acts 15:29 and it doesn't matter that they use from blood when they pay an agent to collect, store, and fractionate it for them, right?”
Exactly. And Marvin even agreed with him!
“Right. If “abstain from blood” means “abstain from eating blood” then “using from is contrary to abstaining from” would be irrelevant as a proposition.”—Marvin Shilmer
And what did Marvin say even before that?
“Christians are obligated to abstain from blood just as Noah was obligated to abstain from blood. Noah was to abstain from EATING BLOOD…”—Marvin Shilmer
Marvin’s mouth must be shaped like an Octagon, because he is talking out eight different sides of it…
MARVIN 613
Marvin wrote:
Mate into III
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
Givens:
Q = use
use = not abstain
Marvin wrote:
I have no idea what the “Q” is all about. I don’t see it used anywhere.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
A very cute way to avoid the issue: just play dumb. Throughout the ENTIRE article, Q is used to denote the action that is taking place.
Use = action Q
Use = not abstain
Not abstain = action Q
Therefore, A person may fail to abstain from Qing only that which he actually Qs.
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
A person may fail to abstain from (using) only that which he actually (uses).
Marvin replied:
No. That proposition is not what my premise poses. My premise proposes that “abstain from” or “abstaining from” is an equivalent to “not use from” or “not using from”.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I don’t care whether it is YOUR premise Marvin. If the tautology I give is VALID, then your tautology cannot contradict it! If it does contradict my tautology, then one of the tautologies must be INVALID! And since you have already agreed that my tautologies are valid, then yours must be WRONG if the conclusion reached through it contradicts the conclusion reached by my tautology.
Marvin wrote:
The premise, though, does imply that it is impossible to abstain from something that one actually USES.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Meaningless and repetitive statement. Using the equivalence, “use” = “not abstain from,” we obtain:
The premise, though, does imply that it is impossible to abstain from something that one actually (DOES NOT ABSTAIN FROM).
And of what use is that statement? Of course you don’t abstain from something you don’t abstain from Marvin! Duh! It is just as Teleologist wrote:
“But if "abstain from...blood" means to not eat blood, doesn't that affect your argument that "using from blood" is contrary to "abstaining from blood"? If a Christian abstains from eating blood and that is all Acts 15:29 requires as to the manner of abstention then it doesn't matter if they don't abstain from using blood in other ways, right? So if JW's are not eating blood when they take fractions then they are in compliance with Acts 15:29 and it doesn't matter that they use from blood when they pay an agent to collect, store, and fractionate it for them, right?”
Your entire argument is irrelevant and unrelated to the actual issue Marvin. It is a strawman!
Marvin wrote:
In the case of Witnesses, to “use from blood” all the things they “use from blood” is possible ONLY by means of “using blood”.
Tears of Oberon responds:
Duh. But that has no relevance to the issue of whether they are in harmony with the Apostolic Decree.
Marvin wrote:
Either Witnesses have to “use blood” with their own two hands to mine what they want to “use from blood” or they have to pay others to “use blood” in their stead so they can “use from blood”. You don’t even bother to DENY this act of agency!
Tears of Oberon responds:
“But if "abstain from...blood" means to not eat blood, doesn't that affect your argument that "using from blood" is contrary to "abstaining from blood"? If a Christian abstains from eating blood and that is all Acts 15:29 requires as to the manner of abstention then it doesn't matter if they don't abstain from using blood in other ways, right? So if JW's are not eating blood when they take fractions then they are in compliance with Acts 15:29 and it doesn't matter that they use from blood when they pay an agent to collect, store, and fractionate it for them, right?”—Teleologist
As I said before, Witnesses fail to not USE blood every time they pay a nurse to take their blood pressure. Therefore, Witnesses fail to abstain from blood every time they pay a nurse to take their blood pressure. But how on earth that relates to the issue of the Apostolic Decree is beyond me!
Marvin wrote:
Tears of Oberon earlier wrote:
A person may fail to abstain from (not abstaining from) only that which he actually (does not abstain from).
And isn’t that interesting? Both these statements are technically the same thing, but the second one is useless and irrelevant, i.e., it doesn’t tell us anything or mean anything.
-- God: Adam! I give you this one command: abstain from not abstaining!
-- Adam: Ok……*confused*
-- God: Adam! I give you this one command: abstain from using!
-- Adam: Ok……*confused*
See the problem here?
Yes. I see the problem. You miss the point.
“Using from blood” is IMPOSSIBLE without “using blood,” and Witnesses admittedly “use from blood”.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
YOU miss the point Marvin! Nobody CARES about universal usage—they care about what TYPE of usage is intended by the Biblical text! Nobody CARES about universal abstention—they care about the TYPE of abstention as intended by the Biblical text! Nobody CARES that Witnesses fail to abstain from blood by getting a blood pressure test, even though the blood never even leaves their body! What MATTERS is whether or not the Witnesses abstain in the sense of “not eating” blood!
“But if "abstain from...blood" means to not eat blood, doesn't that affect your argument that "using from blood" is contrary to "abstaining from blood"? If a Christian abstains from eating blood and that is all Acts 15:29 requires as to the manner of abstention then it doesn't matter if they don't abstain from using blood in other ways, right? So if JW's are not eating blood when they take fractions then they are in compliance with Acts 15:29 and it doesn't matter that they use from blood when they pay an agent to collect, store, and fractionate it for them, right?”—Teleologist
MARVIN 615
Marvin wrote:
Of My Impression – Eating
My impression is the biblical requirement is to “abstain from [eating] blood”.
If that is true then it is certainly false to assert “to use from blood is contrary to abstain from eating blood” UNLESS the use is that of eating from blood.
Tears of Oberon responds:
I agree. What you have been writing for the past 600 posts has been falsely asserted because you were using TYPES of abstention that were in no way related to the actual Biblical text.
Marvin wrote:
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.
Does Tears of Oberon agree with either or both those restated propositions?
Tears of Oberon responds:
Marvin has already disagreed with himself, so what need do I have to disagree myself?
“Eating a single member of whole blood would not be eating blood.”—Marvin Shilmer
The proposition:
To eat ____ from blood is contrary to abstaining from eating blood.
Is equivalent to:
To eat X from blood is contrary to abstaining from eating blood.
Where X is either some constituent of blood or blood itself. If X equals a constituent, i.e., minor fraction, and not blood itself, then Marvin DISAGREES with his own proposition.
Tears of Oberon
No comments:
Post a Comment