Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 10:25 pm
I don't know if I should even bother reading your post.
Well if you don't know, then who does?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 10:25 pm
You insult my background and appear to be merely a noise maker PRETENDING he knows the subject.
Why do you feel insulted by a rejection of your expertise/authority?
I am not making any knowlede-claims here. I am only expressing myself.
I am expressing myself by writing meta-circular evaluators which (in turn) evaluate formal expressions.
Why is my self-expression insulting you?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 10:25 pm
I am not wasting time on those who NEVER agree to anything one says and who disagrees to the NORMAL representatives of the subject matter.
How ironic! The very reason I disagree with you is BECAUSE you keep appealing to normatives. Did you even pay attention in Philosophy class?
Didn't they teach you about the is-ought gap?
I reject your normal and substitute my normal.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 10:25 pm
To prove otherwise REQUIRES
you demonstrate that you are a real person so that you can
risk your reputation for any claims you make AGAINST OTHERS (like myself here) WITH SUCH A DEGREE of volatile accusations against another's particular background.
Huh! Nobody is accusing you of anything. Why are you using such inflamatory language?
I am dismissing you - yes.
I am negating your axioms - yes.
But I am certainly not accusing you of anything.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 10:25 pm
I don't mind you doubting me about something; I DO mind being undermined in such a way that denies my own credibility on this subject when it is the
conventional norm with respects to logic.
You have no credibility in my eyes. Your appeal to the
conventional norm is an Argumentum ad populum. And you get bonus points for irony. You are using a logical fallacy to justify your expertise in Logical normatives.
You keep appealing to axioms you can't justify.
Perhaps your identity feels threatened because you believe in the identity axiom?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 10:25 pm
I already asked you to merely EXPLAIN your presumed "objective evidence" of which you won't provide.
And if you keep lying like this - I hope you lose your credibility further. The evidence is an objective evaluator, a domain-specific language in which the expression "P == P" evaluates to False.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 10:25 pm
Your lack of willingness to do that suffices to let me know that I'm wasting my time with you.
Your continued insistence that I am unwilling to do what I have already done makes you look delusional.