[Tares]

I never could. Just when I thought I'd wrangled things around to some area of agreement I'd find myself faced with jumping through those two slits again, as if the previous conversation never took place. It appeared to be more argument for the sake of argument than actually trying to communicate something worthwhile. When I asked point blank if fallacies were valid and the answer came back 'no' I realized the impossibility of the situation and did something I rarely do, gave it up as futile. First I watched PH go through the same wrangling, (but I know he had followed what I had gone through so he knew what he was getting into and must have some purpose in mind) and then noticed you entrapped.

If you could, would you provide a link to these discussions? I had my own on this very thread, starting here. Of historical note (for this thread), post #614, which was part of that discussion, launched the blame Scripture for the Holocaust discussion.

[LogicWings]

If you could, would you provide a link to these discussions? I had my own on this very thread, starting here. Of historical note (for this thread), post #614, which was part of that discussion, launched the blame Scripture for the Holocaust discussion.

Uhh, how do I link to a single post like that, never done that before. The interesting part starts between donh & beavus at 1201, at 1257 I open my big yap commenting to beavus on 1253. You can follow it from there.

[LogicWings]

If you could, would you provide a link to these discussions?

I'm sure you don't need it, but just in case and to make sure I can do it correctly. here.

[donh]

I never could. Just when I thought I'd wrangled things around to some area of agreement I'd find myself faced with jumping through those two slits again,

I don't know about the rest of the discussion (and I do agree that what we have been wrangling about come to not very much about which we were at odds after all), but you did not put the 2-slit discussion to sleep with the claim that "someday we'll understand better". That is remarkably feeble. If the law of identity is ubiquitous, than you don't have to hold your head just right to see it working in a properly constructed domain of discourse.