A new body every five years.
No, you generically stated everything is subjective/open to subjective interpretation. Please demonstrate how this applies specifically to my eclipse examples I gave, I because I don't see how it does.Fortigurn wrote:I have already explained this.Blob wrote:Please point to why my initial eclipse examples are subjective or open to subjective interpretation.
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky
- Vygotsky
I did more than that, I gave an example.Blob wrote:No, you generically stated everything is subjective/open to subjective interpretation.Fortigurn wrote:I have already explained this.Blob wrote:Please point to why my initial eclipse examples are subjective or open to subjective interpretation.
Ok:Please demonstrate how this applies specifically to my eclipse examples I gave, I because I don't see how it does.
I can define 'the first' here as 'the first which will occur', or 'the first which will be visible'.The first lunar eclipse of 2006 is a deep penumbral event best visible from Europe and Africa. First and last penumbral contacts occur at 21:22 UT and 02:14 UT (Mar 15), respectively. The whole Moon will lie completely within the penumbral shadow from 23:18 UT to 00:18 UT (Mar 15).
I can define 'visible' a 'visible with the naked eye', or 'visible only with optical aids'.
I can define 'Europe' as 'anywhere in Europe', or 'only specific areas in Europe', and I can do the same with Africa.
I can define '2006' as '2006 AD/CE', or '2006 BC' or some other dating system.
Then of course, the strange word 'Mar' occurs in no English dictionary of which I am aware, and could mean absolutely anything.
There's plenty of room for ambguity here.
So pedantry it is, Fortigurn. I'm afraid that is most unconvincing of you.I wrote:In what sense are my examples subjective? (The only way I can see this could be so is by resorting to philosphical pedantry
BTW do you apply the same pedantry to biblical prophecy?
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky
- Vygotsky
What's pedantic about that? I mean come on, you didn't define half the terms. What's 'Mar' supposed to be for goodness' sake?Blob wrote:So pedantry it is, Fortigurn. I'm afraid that is most unconvincing of you.I wrote:In what sense are my examples subjective? (The only way I can see this could be so is by resorting to philosphical pedantry
No, but atheists do, and I am totally certain that you would also.BTW do you apply the same pedantry to biblical prophecy?
By the way, just so you know I'm not being completely pedantic, you do realise that here in Taiwan it's not the year 2005, it's the year 94? Look on official documents, and you'll see this for yourself.
As an example, the birthdate recorded on my national health card is the year 62. I was in fact born in 1973.
As an example, the birthdate recorded on my national health card is the year 62. I was in fact born in 1973.
I would not deliberately refuse to acknowledge the meaning of the words, no.Fortigurn wrote:No, but atheists do, and I am totally certain that you would also.BTW do you apply the same pedantry to biblical prophecy?
You were not expressing genuine confusion or doubt, but being completely pedantic.By the way, just so you know I'm not being completely pedantic, you do realise that here in Taiwan it's not the year 2005, it's the year 94?
Can you honestly say you have genuine doubt or confusion as to what the predictions are saying and when it will occur?My example does demonstrate that you can't propose a date which will be universally recognised as a reference to the precise time to which you refer.
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky
- Vygotsky
Thank you. We shall see.Blob wrote:I would not deliberately refuse to acknowledge the meaning of the words, no.Fortigurn wrote:No, but atheists do, and I am totally certain that you would also.BTW do you apply the same pedantry to biblical prophecy?
I wasn't expressing genuine confusion or doubt, no. I was supplying the example for which you asked - an example of how your 'prediction' could be read subjectively.You were not expressing genuine confusion or doubt, but being completely pedantic.By the way, just so you know I'm not being completely pedantic, you do realise that here in Taiwan it's not the year 2005, it's the year 94?
No, but that wasn't my point. Someone in Taiwan could, very easily.Can you honestly say you have genuine doubt or confusion as to what the predictions are saying and when it will occur?My example does demonstrate that you can't propose a date which will be universally recognised as a reference to the precise time to which you refer.
I was hoping for a genuine example and had already stated pedantry is possible.Fortigurn wrote:I wasn't expressing genuine confusion or doubt, no. I was supplying the example for which you asked - an example of how your 'prediction' could be read subjectively.
Yes they could, I see your point.No, but that wasn't my point. Someone in Taiwan could, very easily.
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky
- Vygotsky
I gave you a genuine example.Blob wrote:I was hoping for a genuine example and had already stated pedantry is possible.Fortigurn wrote:I wasn't expressing genuine confusion or doubt, no. I was supplying the example for which you asked - an example of how your 'prediction' could be read subjectively.
Thank you. I am prepared to offer you a prediction without a date. I am prepared to offer it to you and have you evaluate the language for subjectivity. How does that sound?Yes they could, I see your point.No, but that wasn't my point. Someone in Taiwan could, very easily.