It is not "MY" fundamental logic, it IS fundamental logic. I can't help you, I don't have the patience.
You read into things that don't exist. I said you were picking apart the Hot Peppers because that is what you did, picked apart, analyzed, dissected, examined what ever. There was no indication that I was implying a good or bad attribute to picking apart. Your word by word microscopic examinations are dizzying. On Aug 23, 11:43 am, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 23, 9:19 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It doesn't say "Billy Bob has an ulcer, therefore Hot Peppers do not > > have any nutritional value", I don't understand how you think like > > that, it's fundamental logic. > > It might be your fundamental logic but not mine. I don't know which is > correct yet. I see it as an unfair comparison. > You took the phrase "good for" and applied it unfairly, without a > clear definition. For if Billy did not have an ulcer would peppers > be good for him? Now "good for" has changed due to circumstance. > We have not defined "good for" properly yet. > > > You pick apart the Hot Peppers when that is not the issue. > > You seem to view "picking apart" as an undesirable. I don't. I think > it is extremely imortant in order to understand something. > > >The > > > nutritional content of the peppers is aside from the question "are > > they good for everyone?". > > You haven't said WHY they are good for "anyone" yet. I suggested it > might be due to some ingredient that has benefits. We have to agree > on the full definition first. Just as an example, if we injected > Billy with the "ingredient" (if that is the reason why it is "good" > for anyone) instead of eating it, which might be the only reason it is > "not good" for Billy, you would have made a "deceiving" statement. > Does that make any sense? > > > A chili pepper might be good for Juan but it might not be good for a 2 > > week old baby. > > I am saying there are completely "valid" relative arguments. I am no > concerned with those. > > > We can't change an "absolute truth" with relativism. Fire is hot and > > it burns, so one cannot say "Fire doesn't burn me only you". > > There is a gell that is used in special effects. You can be set on > fire with it (for a while) so is your statement > really universally true? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
