In his post #125, Right Divider wrote:
Your reaction to that was to write:
Right Divider didn't write
nonsense; he
meant something in what he wrote. He affirmed a
proposition. No proposition is nonsense; every proposition is
meaningful. Every proposition is either true or false, and
whatever is either true or false is
not nonsense. Now, here's the proposition Right Divider is affirming:
[Every instance of lying] is [an instance of a person lying to a person].
Only an abject fool--someone devoted to irrationality--will be willing to say that that proposition is FALSE. Obviously,
you are aware of this, and, thus, you understand the embarrassment in which you'd necessarily involve yourself by claiming that Right Divider's proposition is FALSE. And yet,
you, obviously, must needs
hate to admit, publicly, that Right Divider's proposition is TRUE. So, you thought you would somehow help yourself by saying that Right Divider's proposition is NONSENSE. But,
that ploy's just now been exploded, and it
didn't help you. So, make yourself clear. Here, again, is the proposition:
Every instance of lying is an instance of a person lying to a person.
What do
you say of it? Is it TRUE or is it FALSE? It is one or the other, so
which do you say it is?
Here's a fun syllogism for you to react to:
Major Premise: Every instance of lying is an instance of a person lying to a person,
Minor Premise: Ananias' lying to the Holy Ghost is an instance of lying,
ERGO,
Conclusion: Ananias' lying to the Holy Ghost is an instance of a person lying to a person.
So long as both the Major Premise and the Minor Premise of this syllogism are true, the Conclusion MUST be true. As an heretic, you deny the Conclusion, obviously, so
which Premise do you deny (if not
both of them)?
