User Name

While i love the threats about eating s*** because of a discussion on a message board on the internet, that's kind of the point. As tools become advanced, more and more "facts" are disproven, and more opinions appear on subjects. The problem is, that for a statement to be absolute, it needs to 100% discredit any other opinion on the subject, and that's nearly (noticed i said nearly) impossible to do in any subject. As for death, some will say "life after death" and "reincarnation" exist. You can't prove either are lies, so the "death is death" statement is a relative fact. As for the rest of the example, what is now defined as "orbit" may be refered to as something else in a couple of years, rendering the definition obsolete, and the fact as well. Does the definition of "gas" stay or change with the evolution of technology? You can't prove or disprove either.

Keep trying.

He's slow compared to in-his-prime Juan Pierre. He's light-speed fast compared to me. Example of relativism. Science has also dedicated itself to understanding the different avenues of "how s*** works", which are not absolute. Funny thing about your science example, a lot of things science calls "facts" now are modifications of things that were "facts" before and were proven wrong. And some of those absolute "facts" you call now will likely be dispelled in the coming years. It's a never-ending cycle.

Doesn't seem like it.

And you fail yet again, because your absolute truth is absolutely wrong.

That's why "the exception proves the rule" in its logical application, provides support for the "no absolutes" rule. Even the "rule" is relative. Because there is no real objectivism (as you have so aptly pointed out in your example, everything is mired in opinion or POV) everything is relative to the eye of the beholder. A classic example of this is "1 +1" theory: To a mathematician, 1 +1=2, but to a farmer, when pairing up animals 1 + 1, may equal 3 or 4 new animals. So in their relative application, is either wrong? Absolutisms cannot be proven correct. Take the example posted by my friend above here: "Andrew Miller is a stinky Major League Pitcher": To some, the fact that he is a Major League player signifies that he's "good enough" to be a Major Leaguer, ergo, not "stinky".That is their viewpoint, and you may see it as flawed, but is it wrong? As for left-handed example, is it physically impossible for him to throw right-handed? If it isn't (and it isnt') then that's also a relative truth. I will admit, that if there's a sound argument to counteract the "no absolutes" theory is the Logical Absolutes theory, and their usual example of "something cannot bring itself into existence", but then again, even that is debatable because of the uncertainty regarding the creation of the universe. The law of non-contradition, however, seems a lot more applicable to the situation, given that the multiple POV aspect of Non-absolutism seems to contradict that ule.

That's extremely true.

I'd be comfy with him throwing it to Shoppach, but not to Salty.

Until he throws it with a man on third and the run scores haha.

If he can harness that speed, then we're talking about much better possibilities for production.

Iglesias is fast.

Science also supports the lack of absolutism. Just FYI. Also, even if you were to go by the literal definition of Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, then you're saying that the exception strengthens the rule. The rule is that absolutisms are never correct.

Or you didn't read the post. Theory of relativism: Because there is no true "objectivity" (everything is affected by opinion, or perception, one way or the other) there are no absolute fallacies or absolute truths. In other words, there are no absolutes, therefore, absolutes are never correct. "Basic logic".

Thanks, now i can sleep.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you and Boomer didn't fully read the example he posted, for reference. The misnomer happens because the literal interpretation of the phrase: "The exception tests the rule" can't be used, by itself, to prove the lack of absolutism. But as many before have done, and will continue to do, when trying to prove relativism, the phrase applies (misnomer and all) because it can (and has been) interpreted that the rule can be proved because the exception exists. Giovanni Torriano expressed it best in his 1666 compilation of proverbs: "The exception gives Authority to the Rule." The problem here happens because the application in legal terms (An exception that does not mean the law is abolished from here on) as Cicero initially said, and where the phrase is initially from is not the same as the logical application of it. In other words, the "misnomer" happens because there is a legitimate second interpretation of the phrase. But hey, Cecil Adams. Oh, and "School's out".

The main difference between Joba and Bard is body type and injury history. Joba was always an injury-prone fat slob, while Bard has a good pitcher's frame and has always been generally healthy. It's a pretty big difference.

It's not petty semantics. You stated clearly he would "never be good". That was my only point of contention. Your words, not mine.

Apparently a lot of people flunked "Logic 101" here, because Cecil Adams (whoever that is) forgets the precept: "There are no absolute truths or fallacies" given the non-existence of "true objectivity", aka theory of relativism. I understand and admit that the general usage in the English language has its extent of rhetoric and is to an extent, "misused", but the general application, in this case, (as it pertains to absolutism) holds water. But hey, the scholars here on Talksox must be right, so i rescind my argument. Oh, wait: \o/ and :)

Or a staple of logical thinking. Whichever you like better.

That's the exception that proves the rule.

You disputed the possibility several times earlier in the thread. This is an example of that. Absolutes are never correct. Unlikely as it may be, the possibility exists, which is my point. Also, Joe Mauer's career high in Home runs is 28.