Do you really want to go through it again? For one, there is no real evidence. Air is SELF-EVDIDENT! We can feel it as wind, we can breathe it. Tornadoes are nothing but air, we can see those. That is how we know air is there. The only thing we have to go on for Mermaids and Mermen are old myths and legends, along with people's testimonies, which for all we know are lies.
I never said there was evidence. In fact, I specifically said, and I quote: “There are no documented proofs of physical mermaids”. Your fallacy is that you make this assumption that ALL people’s experiences are lies. Have you personally spoken with all of them and put them on a lie detector? I am not defending them, but that is a completely senseless statement and you can’t expect such to be taken seriously, right? “which for all we know are lies.” – I know crap, so do you, about the experiences of others.
I never said that you said there was evidence. Don't try to pin that on me. We don't know if statements can be lies or not. The confirmation of a new species on the Physical Plain is something big, which requires evidence. Normal claims not backed by anything cannot serve as evidence at all. They could be lies, we don't know for sure unless they have evidence to back them up.
I never said that you said there was evidence. Don't try to pin that on me.
Yes, this is exactly as you implied, I quote your saying “there is no real evidence.”
We don't know if statements can be lies or not.
So why did you say, I quote: “which for all we know are lies.”
Damn boy, you’re looking bad right now…..
“The confirmation of a new species on the Physical Plain is something big, which requires evidence.”
There are no documented proofs of physical mermaids, nor does evidence exist to support a theory of their existence, but this doesn’t merely change the simple belief that they could exist.
“Normal claims not backed by anything cannot serve as evidence at all.”
There are no documented proofs of physical mermaids, nor does evidence exist to support a theory of their existence, but this doesn’t merely change the simple belief that they could exist.
“They could be lies, we don't know for sure unless they have evidence to back them up.”
You already said they were lies, I quote: “which for all we know are lies.”….
And I already clarified your little point, my statement, which I quote:
“There are no documented proofs of physical mermaids, nor does evidence exist to support a theory of their existence, but this doesn’t merely change the simple belief that they could exist.”
1. When dealing in a logical argument, implications are misleading and are therefore not used. I never mean't to imply anything. That was a wider way of explaining it to others.
2. They could exist, but we don't have any evidence whatsoever, and there have been plenty of hoaxes. Scientifically, they physically do not exist.
3. Yes, you did clarify, good for you. I restated it for future reference. Apparently I am confusing to some, so unless otherwise specified, "exist" refers to the Physical Plain.
4. I said that they could be lies or they could be truth, but for all we know they could be either. We have no evidence to back them up whatsoever, so there is no certainty on the subject.
5. I am in no way saying they are lies by saying "for all we know they are lies.". The statement itself means that they could be, because we have no evidence to prove it's validity. The statement "for all we know" means that it is uncertain, and therefore cannot be used as evidence.
1. When dealing in a logical argument, implications are misleading and are therefore not used. I never mean't to imply anything. That was a wider way of explaining it to others.
You make open-implications in a lot of your posts. Do I need to quote them for you? Hypocrite.
2. They could exist, but we don't have any evidence whatsoever, and there have been plenty of hoaxes.
Exactly. Now you’re catching on, slowly but surely.
3. Yes, you did clarify, good for you. I restated it for future reference. Apparently I am confusing to some, so unless otherwise specified, "exist" refers to the Physical Plain.
I know I clarified, we don’t want to confuse the readers, do we?
4. I said that they could be lies or they could be truth, but for all we know they could be either. We have no evidence to back them up whatsoever, so there is no certainty on the subject.
Damn, you’re catching on pretty fast. Maybe with some more debates your mind could open up to Ying and Yang, completely? :O
5. I am in no way saying they are lies by saying "for all we know they are lies.". The statement itself means that they could be, because we have no evidence to prove it's validity. The statement "for all we know" means that it is uncertain, and therefore cannot be used as evidence.
Hey, I will quote you, and I will assume what the words mean, as per it’s English meaning, not what you say, after I quote you, debunk you, and expose you.
As much as you take them as that, they are not mean't for such a thing. If I do leave open implications, I apologize, take everything as it is mean't to.
They could indeed exist, on the Physical Plain, but they are not considered or labelled to be in existence due to the lack of evidence. Science therefore dubs them non-existant outside of the Astral Plain.
Yin and yang is based on the old idea of balance. Too much of a good thing is it's basic implication, but that only matters for physical things such as food. Too much food, you get fat. If the world is good and keeps oging like that due to something that keeps it like that, then whatever the cost, the thing causing such overwhelming righteousness isn't evil at all. It could be in somebody's opinion, but then again, that's what good and evil truly are; opinions.
Don't be a grammar nut. Even if you are going to be one, you should atleast understand what it is before trying to make a rebuttal. "For all we know" means uncertainty, a 20 year-old should know that. You can try to debunk anything I say, but there won't be any success because I am the one who is debunking things. I never claim anything's existence, that should be something else altogether. Exposing me is particularily pointless aswell as stupid,s eeing as how there is nothing to really expose. If anything you're the one who needs to be exposed, but that is for another day.
“ As much as you take them as that, they are not mean't for such a thing. If I do leave open implications, I apologize, take everything as it is mean't to.”
I’m glad that you’re apologizing to everyone for deliberately confusing us, thank you for being fair.
“They could indeed exist”
Yes, they do. I’m glad you are opening your mind and accepting this fact.
“non-existant outside of the Astral Plain.”
This is not true; can you quote your source? Science denies astral projection itself.
“You can try to debunk anything I say, but there won't be any success”
Yes there have, but I don’t want to be mean, I debunked your posts up there that you are apologizing for now.
“I never claim anything's existence”
Yes, you agree that they could exit too!
“Exposing me is particularily pointless aswell as stupid”
Nope! I have done it to you and you thanked me for it. I guess you don’t notice when it occurs.
