3 ms·
I wasn't asserting that it was true, and it seems that you want to argue with someone who both thinks that "it" is true and has a different definition of it fro
by perl4ever 6y ago
I wasn't asserting that it was true, and it seems that you want to argue with someone who both thinks that "it" is true and has a different definition of it from what I was using, in context.
It's a morass I'm uninterested in getting into.
- zepto 6y agoOnce again you violate the spirit of the group with ad hominem. I agree your original comment used the conditional ‘if’ about the truth of fixed intelligence. Such a proposition naturally invites examination of whether the conditions are in supported by evidence, which is all I am doing. I am curious if you have a definition of intelligence that sheds light on your original argument. I have no stake in what truth you believe. However I think your argument is clearly incorrect. As you suggest, I could be basing my conclusion on a different definition to the one you are using. But if you won’t produce a clarifying definition, you can’t reasonably make claim to be operating under any principle of cooperation.