Oh and back to the reason for this article- Flurge- (in reference to a person) a person who believes they are superior to others by wealth, social status, or narcissism(a flush) who makes others want to vomit or defecate(purge).

Stop eating the feces the media is feeding you(even if it is disguised with sprinkles by CNN), it is bad for you. There are a lot of bad diseases in feces.

People should vote for who they think will do the best for the country. For me that is McCain and Palin.

Oh and to the other “D” just because someone misspells their words does not negate their argument. eEleeTist jURck.

Let me see, there is Chris Matthews who gets a tingle up his leg every time he hears Obama(man crush…or is it more?)

Then, there is Olberman who is Obama’s little whore.

Then all of the news personalities that were so ridiculously biased that even Saturday Night Live did skits about their bias towards B.O.

You see, the difference about Hannity is that he is a commentator NOT a “news” person and Fox makes a clear distinction about doing news as compared to commentary as ALL true journalists were taught to do in Journalism 101 (the other news agencies USED to do this, but they gave it up to become Dem party hacks)

Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that?

Of course I agree with the need for evidence being necessary to prove one’s point or convert another to one’s point of view. I’m really not sure why the question of providing evidence was brought up with me since I don’t recall ever questioning that anywhere…is there something that makes you think I did? If so, please let me know and I will retract that immediately.

I never disputed the need for evidence and I do definitely agree with you that sljh requires a very high level of “evidence” (and I would submit, even evidence of some kind that at times seems to change with her mood).

Of course this leads us to the question of what should be considered valid evidence (e.g. is it seeing something first-hand and/or deductive or inductive logic and/or expert testimony and/or….?)

As to the proof of her contradicting herself, I do not at all agree with you that it is a paradox (again, any university logic class whether taught by a liberal or conservative teaches students that the very thing sljh did is “absolutely” – HA HA – contradictory).

I believe that provides me all the evidence I need to logically as well as by the authority of those great minds to state emphatically that she is definitely committing to a self-contradiction on her main point.

BTW – I do like your Descartes/McDonald’s quip…I’ll need to remember that one!

You are partially correct about the statement “there are no absolutes/ultimates”, when you call it self-contradictory, but to be more accurate it is a paradox. The use of the word “no” in the statement implies zero, none, nothing, the ultimate opposites of “something” for lack of a better word. Refer back to my statement about existence/non-existence, it’s the same thing. So, to state “there are no (whatever)” describes the “absolute” absence of that (whatever). That makes that part of the sentence describe the absolute absence of anything that follows. When it is followed by the word “absolute” the paradox is created.

It’s very similar to the old “lie/truth” paradox. I’m sure you know it. I tell you that everything (an absolute) I say is a lie. Then I tell you that I’m lying. Birth to another paradox.

When I was a child my dad said that something, I forget what, was the exception that proves the rule. I struggled for a couple of days on that one.

sljh is correct on her main theme of requiring solid or valid proof to back up the claims and statements people make, but she takes it too far. I think she raises the bar too high for what could be accepted as legitimate proof or evidence.She approaches reductio ad absurdum by eliminating evidence that can’t be proven to EVERONE’S satisfaction. You are correct in your claim that without accepted truths or constants, all would collapse and we’ld all go insane. Constants that we unconsciencely accept are things like gravity, the earth rotating, fire is hot, water is wet, and so on. When pilots are on trial for incompetence, there is no need to bring in a physicist to describe how the earth’s gravitational pull caused the 747 to plummet to the earth when it ran out of fuel at 30,000 feet.

sljh is correct to warn that everthing we read or hear may not be true, but she comes close to implying that everything we read or hear is NOT true, or cannot ever be proven as such. I have no way to proove that tomorrow my hammer will not turn to gelatin, I won’t be able to convince a “flat earther” that the world is round, and there are still people that believe that we’ve never been to the moon.

Tig, you are correct in your arguments. You are wrong to dismiss outright sljh. Her basic point is that valid evidence be supplied to back up any claims. That is correct on her part. She is wrong to set the standard for accepted truths far to high to ever be satisfied. The proper way to have settled the dispute would have been to establish mutually agreed upon standards for proof and evidence. That is what courts attempt to do. I wish we could hold our media to similar standards. Lately, the left wing media would make Goebbels proud.

Descartes walks into a MacDonalds and orders a Big Mac and a Coke. When asked if he wants fries with his order he says “I think not”, and he disappeares.