Y eso con que se come?
In Spanish, it is an old saying: literally it means: “So how do you eat that (whatever the subject is) with?” Symbolically, it means that the listener already understands what someone is trying to tell them, and it refers then to what eventually any logic talk has to follow some day to be relevant: what then?
When the discussion goes the way of Liberal, the facts can indeed be on his side, but there is always the real world.
Oh, that “little” detail! :smack:
I have arrived to the conclusion a long time ago that the truths Liberal and others talk about do make sense in the terrain of logic, but they are in a similar plain as quantum mechanics vs. the world of regular physics, one has to go to the atomic level to see quantum effects, similarly one can go to logic to find true syllogisms, but just like the communists found, having the “truth”, doesn’t amount to much if it cannot be applied in the world we have to deal with. (Frankly, ignoring that total nuts can grab your ideas and use them for evil, should convince every future creator of ideologies to add always a chapter of what not to do with the new truths found).
It maybe intellectually honest to accept those “truths” but it would be dishonest not to see the limitations in the real world. For example: the Swifters against Kerry used a similar tactic to convince a good deal of the American people of their version of the “truth”. The problem was that evidence appeared later to show how way of the mark they were. The trouble here is: if we then concentrate on Liberal’s logic, no evidence can ever show their syllogisms are false, since logically speaking, they did not lie (often). Nevertheless, the result is exactly like lying, many people then got convinced that something was there against Kerry. However, a lot of what the Swifters said against Kerry was said in a way to precisely avoid falsification (equivocate), or in other words: impossible to deny, but also impossible to prove, so one can “honestly” say they have the “truth”. (And even then they overreached when items referred by them were found to be false).
However, the real world intervenes: partisan connections then denied were found to be there, contradictions on their positions, the fact that it was Judicial Watch that took the case to the Navy and not the Swifters (they should have done that ages ago if truth was on their side, but they already knew the record supported Kerry, they did not knew that there was more evidence in Kerry’s favor that they had not access to though). So, in the end, it was just an exercise in character assassination, we will soon see if they succeeded in the real reason: to prevent Kerry from becoming president. But, defeating Kerry will make what they said against him the “truth”? Maybe in Liberal’s and in some logical universes it is the truth, but when their “truth” is misleading (a big lie when considering the context), one has to see that two positions will not always have the same value; and no syllogism that is “true”, in specific quarters, can have all the answers for our world.
How precious. You cannot bring yourself to capitalize the word even when it begins a sentence. Forgive me if I suspect an agenda. At any rate, you are describing a very odd sort of existence. Very subjective. I presume that a person who does not grock the concept of the square root of 2 may declare that it does not exist since he can’t hold it “in his head” and your own head is of no benefit to him. And I may say that you don’t exist simply by denying that I perceive you. Isn’t that a bit like the child who believes that when he hides his eyes behind the sofa no one can see him?