The Town of Odyssey

I will post the analyses of these statements as soon as I can, but in the meantime I would like to clarify the purpose of this thread. It seems people are carefully choosing their words in an attempt to pose difficult statements to dissect. This is not the purpose of this thread. While you can continue to do that if you wish, the intent of this is not for you to try to stump me, it’s for you to allow me to help you. I’m not looking for statements that stand alone, there isn’t much point in analyzing those. I’m looking more for statements that form a foundation for a larger position you hold or argument you are trying to make, so you can determine if they are sound.

I wasn't trying to stump you, I'm just genually interested in knowing how you interpret different pardoxes (?), because many people have different view on how they should be answer.

However, I shall refrain from posting more of those.

That wasn’t directed at you, it was the more recent posters. But yours were also slightly off focus for a different reason. Like I said, this thread is for your benefit, not mine. It’s to help you analyze your positions. Wanting to explore and discuss mine is great, but is not quite on topic in this particular thread, That’s why I made this one.

I still want mine analyzed:

Woody wrote:Arizona > Peace Tea

does this fit in this thread or the other one?

That’s fine here, I’m still working on it is all.

The New York Giants are a better football team than the Green Bay Packers.


GO!

Woody wrote:Arizona > Peace Tea

If your statement is intended to demonstrate taste superiority, that would be a matter of personal preference and cannot be proven one way or the other. If you are intending to claim that one is a better business product, then that is a genuine comparison that could be made through sales figures. I am unable to find any figures on either company at the moment however, so I cannot say whether that aspect of your statement is true or false.

bookworm wrote:That’s fine here, I’m still working on it is all.

I guess he's busy with the raffle.

Monty wrote:My first pet was a small rabbit named Lola.

Come now Monty, you know better than that. Obviously I don’t have the information required to judge the truthfulness of your statement, it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim.

snubs wrote:bookworm is not always right.

When put in that open of a declaration, this statement is correct. No one can be right about absolutely everything. Since no one can know everything there is to know, one is simply unable to be constantly correct with 100% accuracy. However I do believe that, when dealing with subjects he is knowledgeable about, bookworm is right more often than he is wrong.

Arkán Dreamwalker wrote:Abraham Lincoln believed in white superiority.

Ether he missed me... Or he just hasn't gotten to me yet. Why do I think out loud on Forums?

I have not missed you, I am working on these in order posted when I have time.

I guess you don't have too much time then. That's alright, neither do I.

Wooton Z. Bassett wrote:Vita est rosa horta. Figuratively.

Because you added the word ‘figuratively’ this statement changes from an alleged state of being to a simile. Because of this, the truth of your statement would depend on each individual’s interpretation of the validity of the comparison.

Arkán Dreamwalker wrote:Abraham Lincoln believed in white superiority.

Only Lincoln himself knows what was truly in his heart, but we can attempt to determine it by observing his actions and statements. From those observations, it seems to be true that Lincoln did hold the belief that blacks and whites did not share equality. I’m not sure if white supremacy is technically the right category to place him in, but there was certainly a firm stance that blacks were intrinsically unequal to whites and that the gap between the two could never be overcome, nor should it be attempted to bridge it. Despite these beliefs however, Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery. He didn’t believe that the perceived lower status of blacks meant they should be treated as property, only that they should not be treated as equals.

The King James Version of the Holy Bible is the only inspired Word of God that we have today.

Sign Language is the easiest language to learn.

Blitz wrote:People can live for ever

This is too broad of a statement to properly analyze, but I’ll give some brief responses.
If intended to state the possibility of people living forever, the statement is neither false nor true as what the future holds is not yet known. That is, with centuries of scientific and medical study and advancements, it is conceivable that a procedure may be developed to prolong the lifespan indefinitely.
If intended to state that people currently can live forever, obviously the statement is false. No person has been observed living forever, therefore it has not happened yet, and using inductive reasoning it never will.
If ‘live’ is meant to be synonymous with ‘exist’ the statement opens many metaphysical doors that would take more time to explore than I care to invest because I’m sure you didn’t sincerely want that deep of an analysis. Simply put, the definition of existence would have to be established, after which one would have to assess under what circumstances that definition can be met.
One angle would be that of religion, in that some religions believe in a spiritual life that exists after this earthly one and in that sense the person would indeed exist or live forever. Other religions believe in reincarnation, in which case the future life is just as physical as the current one, and the person would live forever in a more recognizable manner than the former.
The spiritual aspects read more into your statement than I believe is necessary however. As you did not tailor your words to point in that direction, it is to be assumed that you simply meant that people as they currently are can live forever as they currently do, which for all intents and purposes of analyzing your statement is false.