humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 31, 9:45 pm, David Schwartz wrote:

> > And don't forget to reaffirm your other two conclusions. I'll look
> > forward to seeing these answers tomorrow, and I'll try my best
> > not to be dense about it.
>
> I would appreciate that, but you have failed yet again. You still
> think I'm saying that the Sun is not really larger than the Earth.

I could have failed at nothing because you answered none of the
questions. Give me a chance not to be dense, willya?

There are the two outstanding statements for you to affirm. In the
post to which you are responding, I asked...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IOW, could you fill in the blanks in the following sentence...

"I think it's fair to say that ___________________ , as
_______________________ conceived them, DOES exist.

That should help make your point clearer, I think.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now quit telling me what I'm thinking and tell us what
YOU'RE thinking. Fill in the damn blanks so we can
see your usage, and affirm or retract those two nutty
statements, especially the one about nothing making
the sun a unit with properties such as size in the
absence of consciousness.

Your responses to me have all been exclusively of an
ad hominem nature, pretending that my faults will
somehow lend sensibility to what you're writing. Well,
that's wrong---only YOU can lend sensibility to that,
and I'm admittedly highly skeptical that you will.

And if you're left with simply nothing but ad hominem,
then at least pick real faults of mine instead of just
making them up out of thin air. There's got to be one
or two to find, if you look really carefully!


jk