Earlier quoted context omitted.
Happy to engage if you state the evidentiary bar that would change your mind.
Are you familiar with Hitchens's razor ?
No sorry. If I don't look it up then I can feel justified in dismissing it without evidence.
Who Are Xi’s Enemies?
21–30 of 32 posts
Re: Who Are Xi’s Enemies?
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you familiar with Hitchens's razor ?
No sorry. If I don't look it up then I can feel justified in dismissing it without evidence.
You made an assertion that everything is politics, without providing any evidence. Every time someone repeats that nonsense they get called out, refuse to back it up with any shred of evidence, and then have a cute response.
Like clockwork.
Re: Who Are Xi’s Enemies?
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
No sorry. If I don't look it up then I can feel justified in dismissing it without evidence.
You made an assertion that everything is politics, without providing any evidence. Every time someone repeats that nonsense they get called out, refuse to back it up with any shred of evidence, and then have a cute response. Like clockwork.
Simply state the evidentiary threshold that would change your mind and I'll be happy to provide it. I've been down this dialog tree so many times before.
Also be happy to remind you to have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. :)
Re: Who Are Xi’s Enemies?
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
You made an assertion that everything is politics, without providing any evidence. Every time someone repeats that nonsense they get called out, refuse to back it up with any shred of evidence, and then have a cute response. Like clockwork.
Simply state the evidentiary threshold that would change your mind and I'll be happy to provide it. I've been down this dialog tree so many times before. Also be happy to remind you to have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. :)
You haven't provided any evidence at all. So more than zero would be a start.
Re: Who Are Xi’s Enemies?
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simply state the evidentiary threshold that would change your mind and I'll be happy to provide it. I've been down this dialog tree so many times before. Also be happy to remind you to have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. :)
You haven't provided any evidence at all. So more than zero would be a start.
Politics is a critical lens with which to view the world. That's what I mean when I say everything is political. Politicization is a process. Do you wish for me to go back ad infinitum with you giving me topics, and I attempt to politicize each one? I'm guessing here that is a waste of your time and mine because we'll be arguing whether I'm sufficiently politicizing each topic to reach your standard. That's what I mean when I ask for your evidentiary standard.
Re: Who Are Xi’s Enemies?
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven't provided any evidence at all. So more than zero would be a start.
Politics is a critical lens with which to view the world. That's what I mean when I say everything is political. Politicization is a process. Do you wish for me to go back ad infinitum with you giving me topics, and I attempt to politicize each one? I'm guessing here that is a waste of your time and mine because we'll be arguing whether I'm sufficiently politicizing each topic to reach your standard. That's what I me…
You're just restating the same thing you already said, without providing any evidence. You're stating a belief, no different than "God is in everything" or "God is everywhere". It's an empty tautology, if everything is political, then the word is without meaning.
So "God is everywhere" is also a lens with which to view the world. It's based on the same amount of evidence.
Re: Who Are Xi’s Enemies?
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politics is a critical lens with which to view the world. That's what I mean when I say everything is political. Politicization is a process. Do you wish for me to go back ad infinitum with you giving me topics, and I attempt to politicize each one? I'm guessing here that is a waste of your time and mine because we'll be arguing whether I'm sufficiently politicizing each topic to reach your standard. That's what I me…
You're just restating the same thing you already said, without providing any evidence. You're stating a belief , no different than "God is in everything" or "God is everywhere". It's an empty tautology, if everything is political, then the word is without meaning. So "God is everywhere" is also a lens with which to view the world. It's based on the same amount of evidence.
You can look at anything scientifically, therefore science has no meaning. At this point you're arguing just to argue.
Re: Who Are Xi’s Enemies?
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're just restating the same thing you already said, without providing any evidence. You're stating a belief , no different than "God is in everything" or "God is everywhere". It's an empty tautology, if everything is political, then the word is without meaning. So "God is everywhere" is also a lens with which to view the world. It's based on the same amount of evidence.
You can look at anything scientifically, therefore science has no meaning. At this point you're arguing just to argue.
See above.
Re: Who Are Xi’s Enemies?
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can look at anything scientifically, therefore science has no meaning. At this point you're arguing just to argue.
See above.
You can just say you don't have an evidentiary threshold. No one is going to hold it against you. It just means no one will want to engage with you because you're implicitly admitting that you didn't reason your way into your position so there's no way to reason you out of one.
Re: Who Are Xi’s Enemies?
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
See above.
You can just say you don't have an evidentiary threshold. No one is going to hold it against you. It just means no one will want to engage with you because you're implicitly admitting that you didn't reason your way into your position so there's no way to reason you out of one.
I've had enough of the "prove god doesn't exist" discussions with fanatics over the years to know where this is going, but since I'm bored on a flight I'll indulge you. A random galaxy formed billions of years ago, how was that political?