|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 8, 2022 22:14:17 GMT
1. Unity is the connection of parts. 2. Parts necessitate a separation.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 11, 2022 20:52:19 GMT
Fire / Water Are Not Paradoxes, Never In The Single Modicrum Of Human Existence Does Anyone Ever Say Fire / Water = Paradox. Fire and water are opposites as they cancel each other out, the unity of said opposites is steam. That Does Not Make A Paradox, It's A Function That Is Natural, Not Everything That Is Contradicting Is A Paradox, That Definition Of Paradox You Got Off The Internet Is A Real Shame.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 16, 2022 21:26:21 GMT
Fire and water are opposites as they cancel each other out, the unity of said opposites is steam. That Does Not Make A Paradox, It's A Function That Is Natural, Not Everything That Is Contradicting Is A Paradox, That Definition Of Paradox You Got Off The Internet Is A Real Shame.Then you are making up your own definition and if that goes then anything else goes as well.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 17, 2022 2:10:22 GMT
That Does Not Make A Paradox, It's A Function That Is Natural, Not Everything That Is Contradicting Is A Paradox, That Definition Of Paradox You Got Off The Internet Is A Real Shame. Then you are making up your own definition and if that goes then anything else goes as well. No, What You Read Is A Made Up Definition For Paradox, It Can't Be True If It States What Reality Does Not Reflect.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 17, 2022 22:10:40 GMT
Then you are making up your own definition and if that goes then anything else goes as well. No, What You Read Is A Made Up Definition For Paradox, It Can't Be True If It States What Reality Does Not Reflect.The definition exists thus is part of the fabric of reality. If your definition is correct then a contradiction ensues in the respect the dictionary definition exists as well.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 17, 2022 23:25:46 GMT
No, What You Read Is A Made Up Definition For Paradox, It Can't Be True If It States What Reality Does Not Reflect. The definition exists thus is part of the fabric of reality. If your definition is correct then a contradiction ensues in the respect the dictionary definition exists as well. Nope, "Fabric Of Reality" And "Idiot Human Writing Idiot Definition" Are Not The Same Thing. The Stupidity Of A Person Writing A Terrible Definition For "Paradox" Has Nothing To Do With The Fabric Of Reality, You And That Idiot Are Both Wrong.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 17, 2022 23:50:34 GMT
The definition exists thus is part of the fabric of reality. If your definition is correct then a contradiction ensues in the respect the dictionary definition exists as well. Nope, "Fabric Of Reality" And "Idiot Human Writing Idiot Definition" Are Not The Same Thing. The Stupidity Of A Person Writing A Terrible Definition For "Paradox" Has Nothing To Do With The Fabric Of Reality, You And That Idiot Are Both Wrong.And your justification of you being right is strictly ad-hominums. The definition exists whether you accept it or not, however you must accept it given we are part of the pattern of reality.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 18, 2022 0:29:25 GMT
Nope, "Fabric Of Reality" And "Idiot Human Writing Idiot Definition" Are Not The Same Thing. The Stupidity Of A Person Writing A Terrible Definition For "Paradox" Has Nothing To Do With The Fabric Of Reality, You And That Idiot Are Both Wrong. And your justification of you being right is strictly ad-hominums. The definition exists whether you accept it or not, however you must accept it given we are part of the pattern of reality. Actually, Professors Use Idiot Themselves, So If You're Going To Get Soft Over Me, You Should Address The Professors First.
And Actually, My Justification Is: You And An Idiot Are The Only Ones On This Planet Misconstruing The Word "Paradox".
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 23, 2022 18:24:45 GMT
And your justification of you being right is strictly ad-hominums. The definition exists whether you accept it or not, however you must accept it given we are part of the pattern of reality. Actually, Professors Use Idiot Themselves, So If You're Going To Get Soft Over Me, You Should Address The Professors First.
And Actually, My Justification Is: You And An Idiot Are The Only Ones On This Planet Misconstruing The Word "Paradox".Then you do not accept the pattern of reality as it is considering this definition is part of the pattern.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 24, 2022 17:31:40 GMT
Actually, Professors Use Idiot Themselves, So If You're Going To Get Soft Over Me, You Should Address The Professors First.
And Actually, My Justification Is: You And An Idiot Are The Only Ones On This Planet Misconstruing The Word "Paradox". Then you do not accept the pattern of reality as it is considering this definition is part of the pattern. 1. If Definition States Something, That Something Must Be Proven True, Or Said Statement Cannot Be Regarded As True.
2. DEFINITION Written States Anything That Is Opposite Is A Paradox By Clearly Poor Wording, But This Is Simply Not True.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 1, 2022 21:34:12 GMT
Then you do not accept the pattern of reality as it is considering this definition is part of the pattern. 1. If Definition States Something, That Something Must Be Proven True, Or Said Statement Cannot Be Regarded As True.
2. DEFINITION Written States Anything That Is Opposite Is A Paradox By Clearly Poor Wording, But This Is Simply Not True.The definition of paradox I provide exists. The definition you provide exists. Both existences contradict thus contradiction exists. As existing, contradiction that is, this existence is part of all existence by the very nature that any part of existence exists within the whole of existence otherwise it would not be a part.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Dec 2, 2022 4:59:30 GMT
1. If Definition States Something, That Something Must Be Proven True, Or Said Statement Cannot Be Regarded As True.
2. DEFINITION Written States Anything That Is Opposite Is A Paradox By Clearly Poor Wording, But This Is Simply Not True. The definition of paradox I provide exists. The definition you provide exists. Both existences contradict thus contradiction exists. As existing, contradiction that is, this existence is part of all existence by the very nature that any part of existence exists within the whole of existence otherwise it would not be a part. The Definition Exists, But Its Existence Is In Vain As It Is Not Only Poorly Worded, It Ultimately States Something That Isn't True.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 8, 2022 22:40:42 GMT
The definition of paradox I provide exists. The definition you provide exists. Both existences contradict thus contradiction exists. As existing, contradiction that is, this existence is part of all existence by the very nature that any part of existence exists within the whole of existence otherwise it would not be a part. The Definition Exists, But Its Existence Is In Vain As It Is Not Only Poorly Worded, It Ultimately States Something That Isn't True.There is no vanity in the totality of existence given everything is connected.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Dec 8, 2022 23:40:02 GMT
The Definition Exists, But Its Existence Is In Vain As It Is Not Only Poorly Worded, It Ultimately States Something That Isn't True. There is no vanity in the totality of existence given everything is connected. You Can Either Make A Fool Of Yourself Ad Nauseum By Standing By A Definition That Is Not Correct, Or You Can Redeem Yourself By Admitting That The Definition Is Poorly Worded, As It Suggests What The Rest Of The World Disagrees With, Fire + Water = Steam Is NOT A Paradox, It's A Function; A Paradox Is An Advanced Abstract Of Far More Complex And Reality-Bending Phenomenon.
If Your Definition Was True, It Would Hold True Across The Planet, But It Does Not; If I Asked Any High-Profile Professor About Fire + Water Making Steam Being A Paradox, They Would Refer To It As Absurd And Ludicrous As It Is Globally Rendered Untrue, And Nothing Suggests It Is A Paradox As A Paradox Is More Complex Than Your Definition, Thus A False Interpretation Of What A Paradox Is.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 30, 2022 19:13:17 GMT
There is no vanity in the totality of existence given everything is connected. You Can Either Make A Fool Of Yourself Ad Nauseum By Standing By A Definition That Is Not Correct, Or You Can Redeem Yourself By Admitting That The Definition Is Poorly Worded, As It Suggests What The Rest Of The World Disagrees With, Fire + Water = Steam Is NOT A Paradox, It's A Function; A Paradox Is An Advanced Abstract Of Far More Complex And Reality-Bending Phenomenon.
If Your Definition Was True, It Would Hold True Across The Planet, But It Does Not; If I Asked Any High-Profile Professor About Fire + Water Making Steam Being A Paradox, They Would Refer To It As Absurd And Ludicrous As It Is Globally Rendered Untrue, And Nothing Suggests It Is A Paradox As A Paradox Is More Complex Than Your Definition, Thus A False Interpretation Of What A Paradox Is.If truth is defined by that which "would hold true across the planet" then many of your writings, as evidenced by those who disagree with them, are false. If truth is that which "would hold true across the planet" then by default there is no truth as everything has its thesis and antithesis. The definition of paradox which I promote is not my own, others agree with it.
|
|