TurquoiseB: > It's the exact same act as Willytex's, and > run for exactly the same reason... > Not exactly.
Actually, the purpose of my posts are to get people thinking about what they believe, or not. Most of the time, their epistemological and metaphysical statements will be found to be false or contradictory, because any theory, when taken to extremes, will be found to be self-contradictory. This dialectical method was used very effectively by Socrates. The idea is to identifying and eliminate those hypothesis that lead to obvious contradictions. In other words, get your debating opponent to say what he believes, without him really thinking about it, and then to ask a series of questions that make those ideas appear to be unsupportable by logic; to show that their reasoning is metaphysical, and to demonstrate the logical fallacy of clinging to false views. > She's trying to provoke an argument and get > someone to focus their attention on her and > argue with her... Maybe so, it seems to work in your case! But what you call 'argument' is to Judy a 'debate', which you are obviously losing. <snip>
