this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
732 points (98.7% liked)

World News

36603 readers
1029 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

You use another standard when looking at whether I'm lying.

Yes, I'm using your standard when looking at whether you're lying, and I've determined you're lying.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

That's not how logic works, dumbass. That's not a thing. If you want to apply my standard, you have to apply it consistently.

What you're probably trying to do, very badly, is a reductio ad absurdum, where you show that accepting my position would lead to an absurd or self-contradictory conclusion. The problem is that my position doesn't lead to any absurd conclusions, so what you've done is assume my position, and then assume the opposite of my position in the same line of logic. Naturally, if you assume self-contradictory positions, then the result will be absurd, but that doesn't prove anything except that you don't understand how logic works. It's not self-contradiction if you have to flip back and forth between your standard and mine to get there.

But then, of course you don't understand logic because you operate on blind faith.