I will expand

Quote:

---

"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL

---

If BTD imagines a scenario which contains x, is it absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains x in BTD's mind?

Yes. BTD's imagination is BTD's imagination. What is true for BTD is true for BTD.

90sBear said:

---

I will expand

Quote:

---

"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL

---

If BTD imagines a scenario which contains x, is it absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains x in BTD's mind?

Yes. BTD's imagination is BTD's imagination. What is true for BTD is true for BTD.

---

Yes, in your construction, it is absolutely true that my hypothetical scenario contains "x". This would be true for ALL scenarios, real or imagined. It would be absolutely true, PERIOD, regardless of whose mind it is in, or whose imagination conjured up the scenario. It is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, which makes it an absolute truth. This has already been proven to you, using the very sources that YOU brought up (If p, then p), and it is unassailable. If you can't see this, then there's nothing more that can be done for you.

I'm being honest - I think you have some sort of thinking problem that you should talk to someone about. At least show this thread to someone you trust and maybe they can help you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

I will expand

Quote:

---

"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL

---

If BTD imagines a scenario which contains x, is it absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains x in BTD's mind?

Yes. BTD's imagination is BTD's imagination. What is true for BTD is true for BTD.

---

Yes, in your construction, it is absolutely true that my hypothetical scenario contains "x". This would be true for ALL scenarios, real or imagined. It would be absolutely true, PERIOD, regardless of whose mind it is in, or whose imagination conjured up the scenario. It is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, which makes it an absolute truth. This has already been proven to you, using the very sources that YOU brought up (If p, then p), and it is unassailable. If you can't see this, then there's nothing more that can be done for you.

I'm being honest - I think you have some sort of thinking problem that you should talk to someone about. At least show this thread to someone you trust and maybe they can help you.

---

It would be absolutely true, but only for the person imagining it.


Do you agree that William actually transitioned into a woman in his hypothetical scenario? Or do you agree with Riley that William just thinks he can and you don't think that's possible?

Why do I have to agree with you that the man who weighs 150 pounds on Earth absolutely only weighs 150 pounds when he would weigh 6 times less if he was on the moon?

Quote:

---

This conversation stemmed from the previous thread where you stated, "If you weigh 150 lbs on earth at this specific moment in time, then you're saying that it isn't absolute truth that you weigh 150 lbs at this specific moment of time." To which I responded that, "you could be on the moon and weigh 6 times less" and you got upset because that wasn't part of your hypothetical scenario.

---

???? Do you not realize that if you change the scenario, then you're not answering the question about that specific scenario anymore?

That's like being asked, "Is it absolutely true that 1+1=2?" and you answering "No, because the 1's could be a 2's and then the answer would be 4".

HOW on earth can you not be understanding this? This is truly, truly mind-boggling.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

This conversation stemmed from the previous thread where you stated, "If you weigh 150 lbs on earth at this specific moment in time, then you're saying that it isn't absolute truth that you weigh 150 lbs at this specific moment of time." To which I responded that, "you could be on the moon and weigh 6 times less" and you got upset because that wasn't part of your hypothetical scenario.

---

???? Do you not realize that if you change the scenario, then you're not answering the question about that specific scenario anymore?

That's like being asked, "Is it absolutely true that 1+1=2?" and you answering "No, because the 1's could be a 2's and then the answer would be 4".

HOW on earth can you not be understanding this? This is truly, truly mind-boggling.

---

No, it's asking if a man who weighs 150 pounds on Earth absolutely only weighs 150 pounds when it is possible that he could be somewhere else and he would not weigh the same. I did not change the scenario at all.

That is an empirical fact.

In addition, if I CAN change the scenario in our conversation. That must mean the scenario not absolute when discussed among multiple people.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

I will expand

Quote:

---

"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL

---

If BTD imagines a scenario which contains x, is it absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains x in BTD's mind?

Yes. BTD's imagination is BTD's imagination. What is true for BTD is true for BTD.

---

Yes, in your construction, it is absolutely true that my hypothetical scenario contains "x". This would be true for ALL scenarios, real or imagined. It would be absolutely true, PERIOD, regardless of whose mind it is in, or whose imagination conjured up the scenario. It is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, which makes it an absolute truth. This has already been proven to you, using the very sources that YOU brought up (If p, then p), and it is unassailable. If you can't see this, then there's nothing more that can be done for you.

I'm being honest - I think you have some sort of thinking problem that you should talk to someone about. At least show this thread to someone you trust and maybe they can help you.

---

It would be absolutely true, but only for the person imagining it.

---

NO. This is the central problem with your thinking. It is quite unbelievable that you don't see the problem here. It really has piqued my curiosity.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

This conversation stemmed from the previous thread where you stated, "If you weigh 150 lbs on earth at this specific moment in time, then you're saying that it isn't absolute truth that you weigh 150 lbs at this specific moment of time." To which I responded that, "you could be on the moon and weigh 6 times less" and you got upset because that wasn't part of your hypothetical scenario.

---

???? Do you not realize that if you change the scenario, then you're not answering the question about that specific scenario anymore?

That's like being asked, "Is it absolutely true that 1+1=2?" and you answering "No, because the 1's could be a 2's and then the answer would be 4".

HOW on earth can you not be understanding this? This is truly, truly mind-boggling.

---

No, it's asking if a man who weighs 150 pounds on Earth absolutely only weighs 150 pounds when it is possible that he could be somewhere else and he would not weigh the same.

That is an empirical fact.

---

But even so, that isn't the question, right? The question wasn't what his weight would be if he were on the moon, it was if he were on earth? HOW do you not see what you're doing wrong?

"it's asking if a man who weighs 150 pounds on Earth absolutely only weighs 150 pounds" - you DO realize that you just changed the question, don't you??

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

This conversation stemmed from the previous thread where you stated, "If you weigh 150 lbs on earth at this specific moment in time, then you're saying that it isn't absolute truth that you weigh 150 lbs at this specific moment of time." To which I responded that, "you could be on the moon and weigh 6 times less" and you got upset because that wasn't part of your hypothetical scenario.

---

???? Do you not realize that if you change the scenario, then you're not answering the question about that specific scenario anymore?

That's like being asked, "Is it absolutely true that 1+1=2?" and you answering "No, because the 1's could be a 2's and then the answer would be 4".

HOW on earth can you not be understanding this? This is truly, truly mind-boggling.

---

No, it's asking if a man who weighs 150 pounds on Earth absolutely only weighs 150 pounds when it is possible that he could be somewhere else and he would not weigh the same.

That is an empirical fact.

---

But even so, that isn't the question, right? The question wasn't what his weight would be if he were on the moon, it was if he were on earth? HOW do you not see what you're doing wrong?

"it's asking if a man who weighs 150 pounds on Earth absolutely only weighs 150 pounds" - you DO realize that you just changed the question, don't you??

---

No. This is your exact quote:

"If you weigh 150 lbs on earth at this specific moment in time, then you're saying that it isn't absolute truth that you weigh 150 lbs at this specific moment of time."

I did not change a thing. I presented an empirical fact into the scenario.

But if I CAN change the hypothetical scenario within our conversation, it means the scenario isn't constant within our conversation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

I will expand

Quote:

---

"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL

---

If BTD imagines a scenario which contains x, is it absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains x in BTD's mind?

Yes. BTD's imagination is BTD's imagination. What is true for BTD is true for BTD.

---

Yes, in your construction, it is absolutely true that my hypothetical scenario contains "x". This would be true for ALL scenarios, real or imagined. It would be absolutely true, PERIOD, regardless of whose mind it is in, or whose imagination conjured up the scenario. It is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, which makes it an absolute truth. This has already been proven to you, using the very sources that YOU brought up (If p, then p), and it is unassailable. If you can't see this, then there's nothing more that can be done for you.

I'm being honest - I think you have some sort of thinking problem that you should talk to someone about. At least show this thread to someone you trust and maybe they can help you.

---

It would be absolutely true, but only for the person imagining it.

---

NO. This is the central problem with your thinking. It is quite unbelievable that you don't see the problem here. It really has piqued my curiosity.

---

Do you agree that William actually transitioned into a woman in his hypothetical scenario? Or do you agree with Riley that William just thinks he can and you don't think that's possible?

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

This conversation stemmed from the previous thread where you stated, "If you weigh 150 lbs on earth at this specific moment in time, then you're saying that it isn't absolute truth that you weigh 150 lbs at this specific moment of time." To which I responded that, "you could be on the moon and weigh 6 times less" and you got upset because that wasn't part of your hypothetical scenario.

---

???? Do you not realize that if you change the scenario, then you're not answering the question about that specific scenario anymore?

That's like being asked, "Is it absolutely true that 1+1=2?" and you answering "No, because the 1's could be a 2's and then the answer would be 4".

HOW on earth can you not be understanding this? This is truly, truly mind-boggling.

---

No, it's asking if a man who weighs 150 pounds on Earth absolutely only weighs 150 pounds when it is possible that he could be somewhere else and he would not weigh the same.

That is an empirical fact.

---

But even so, that isn't the question, right? The question wasn't what his weight would be if he were on the moon, it was if he were on earth? HOW do you not see what you're doing wrong?

"it's asking if a man who weighs 150 pounds on Earth absolutely only weighs 150 pounds" - you DO realize that you just changed the question, don't you??

---

No. This is your exact quote:

"If you weigh 150 lbs on earth at this specific moment in time, then you're saying that it isn't absolute truth that you weigh 150 lbs at this specific moment of time."

I did not change a thing. I presented an empirical fact into the scenario.

But if I CAN change the hypothetical scenario within our conversation, it means the scenario isn't constant.

---

From which thread did this comment originate?

Also, the question isn't whether the scenario is constant. The question is if the premise is true, then is it true. You keep getting this wrong.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

I will expand

Quote:

---

"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL

---

If BTD imagines a scenario which contains x, is it absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains x in BTD's mind?

Yes. BTD's imagination is BTD's imagination. What is true for BTD is true for BTD.

---

Yes, in your construction, it is absolutely true that my hypothetical scenario contains "x". This would be true for ALL scenarios, real or imagined. It would be absolutely true, PERIOD, regardless of whose mind it is in, or whose imagination conjured up the scenario. It is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, which makes it an absolute truth. This has already been proven to you, using the very sources that YOU brought up (If p, then p), and it is unassailable. If you can't see this, then there's nothing more that can be done for you.

I'm being honest - I think you have some sort of thinking problem that you should talk to someone about. At least show this thread to someone you trust and maybe they can help you.

---

It would be absolutely true, but only for the person imagining it.

---

NO. This is the central problem with your thinking. It is quite unbelievable that you don't see the problem here. It really has piqued my curiosity.

---

Do you agree that William actually transitioned into a woman in his hypothetical scenario? Or do you agree with Riley that William just thinks he can and you don't think that's possible?

---

No, I don't think he did. I don't accept the premise. That's one of your many problems in this argument - you don't see the difference between being asked if you agree with the premise, and being asked if the premise is true, then is it true (a tautology).

Okay, I found the question in the other thread. I did ask it that way, and in my question I obviously meant the question to be that you were on the earth at that specific moment in time. Here's me asking that question again, a couple of comments later:

"That's why you can't answer the question: If you weigh 150 lbs on earth at this specific moment, then is it absolutely true that you weigh 150 lbs on earth at this specific moment?"

So how would you answer it?

Mr. Clinton, do you have a question?

Yes. What is the definition of "if"?

ABC BEAR said:

---

Mr. Clinton, do you have a question?

Yes. What is the definition of "if"?

---

In any scenario, real or imagined, if in that scenario there is a stained blue dress, then it is absolutely true that in that scenario there is a stained blue dress.

A tautology, therefore a logical and absolute truth.

If Bill Clinton were 90's Bear: "No, it is not an absolute truth. Because in MY scenario that I'm changing it to - I did not have sexual relations with that woman....."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

I will expand

Quote:

---

"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL

---

If BTD imagines a scenario which contains x, is it absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains x in BTD's mind?

Yes. BTD's imagination is BTD's imagination. What is true for BTD is true for BTD.

---

Yes, in your construction, it is absolutely true that my hypothetical scenario contains "x". This would be true for ALL scenarios, real or imagined. It would be absolutely true, PERIOD, regardless of whose mind it is in, or whose imagination conjured up the scenario. It is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, which makes it an absolute truth. This has already been proven to you, using the very sources that YOU brought up (If p, then p), and it is unassailable. If you can't see this, then there's nothing more that can be done for you.

I'm being honest - I think you have some sort of thinking problem that you should talk to someone about. At least show this thread to someone you trust and maybe they can help you.

---

It would be absolutely true, but only for the person imagining it.

---

NO. This is the central problem with your thinking. It is quite unbelievable that you don't see the problem here. It really has piqued my curiosity.

---

Do you agree that William actually transitioned into a woman in his hypothetical scenario? Or do you agree with Riley that William just thinks he can and you don't think that's possible?

---

No, I don't think he did. I don't accept the premise. That's one of your many problems in this argument - you don't see the difference between being asked if you agree with the premise, and being asked if the premise is true, then is it true (a tautology).

---

William's hypothetical scenario (p): "Let's say I transition from being a man to a woman and then..."
William's (p) contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.
BTD's (p) contains (and I'm just spitballing here) someone you think is detached from reality who does something.
William's (p) does not = BTD's (p). The two of you do not agree on what the scenario contains.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

I will expand

Quote:

---

"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL

---

If BTD imagines a scenario which contains x, is it absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains x in BTD's mind?

Yes. BTD's imagination is BTD's imagination. What is true for BTD is true for BTD.

---

Yes, in your construction, it is absolutely true that my hypothetical scenario contains "x". This would be true for ALL scenarios, real or imagined. It would be absolutely true, PERIOD, regardless of whose mind it is in, or whose imagination conjured up the scenario. It is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, which makes it an absolute truth. This has already been proven to you, using the very sources that YOU brought up (If p, then p), and it is unassailable. If you can't see this, then there's nothing more that can be done for you.

I'm being honest - I think you have some sort of thinking problem that you should talk to someone about. At least show this thread to someone you trust and maybe they can help you.

---

It would be absolutely true, but only for the person imagining it.

---

NO. This is the central problem with your thinking. It is quite unbelievable that you don't see the problem here. It really has piqued my curiosity.

---

Do you agree that William actually transitioned into a woman in his hypothetical scenario? Or do you agree with Riley that William just thinks he can and you don't think that's possible?

---

No, I don't think he did. I don't accept the premise. That's one of your many problems in this argument - you don't see the difference between being asked if you agree with the premise, and being asked if the premise is true, then is it true (a tautology).

---

William's hypothetical scenario (p): "Let's say I transition from being a man to a woman and then..."
William's (p) contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.
BTD's (p) contains (and I'm just spitballing here) someone you think is detached from reality who does something.
William's (p) does not = BTD's (p). The two of you do not agree on what the scenario contains.

---

No, the disagreement is not on what the scenario contains, but rather whether the scenario reflects what is true or not.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

I will expand

Quote:

---

"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL

---

If BTD imagines a scenario which contains x, is it absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains x in BTD's mind?

Yes. BTD's imagination is BTD's imagination. What is true for BTD is true for BTD.

---

Yes, in your construction, it is absolutely true that my hypothetical scenario contains "x". This would be true for ALL scenarios, real or imagined. It would be absolutely true, PERIOD, regardless of whose mind it is in, or whose imagination conjured up the scenario. It is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, which makes it an absolute truth. This has already been proven to you, using the very sources that YOU brought up (If p, then p), and it is unassailable. If you can't see this, then there's nothing more that can be done for you.

I'm being honest - I think you have some sort of thinking problem that you should talk to someone about. At least show this thread to someone you trust and maybe they can help you.

---

It would be absolutely true, but only for the person imagining it.

---

NO. This is the central problem with your thinking. It is quite unbelievable that you don't see the problem here. It really has piqued my curiosity.

---

Do you agree that William actually transitioned into a woman in his hypothetical scenario? Or do you agree with Riley that William just thinks he can and you don't think that's possible?

---

No, I don't think he did. I don't accept the premise. That's one of your many problems in this argument - you don't see the difference between being asked if you agree with the premise, and being asked if the premise is true, then is it true (a tautology).

---

William's hypothetical scenario (p): "Let's say I transition from being a man to a woman and then..."
William's (p) contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.
BTD's (p) contains (and I'm just spitballing here) someone you think is detached from reality who does something.
William's (p) does not = BTD's (p). The two of you do not agree on what the scenario contains.

---

No, the disagreement is not on what the scenario contains, but rather whether the scenario reflects what is true or not.

---

Quote:

---

"if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"

---

William's hypothetical scenario contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.

BTD thinks William's hypothetical scenario contains someone who is detached from reality who then does something.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

I will expand

Quote:

---

"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL

---

If BTD imagines a scenario which contains x, is it absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains x in BTD's mind?

Yes. BTD's imagination is BTD's imagination. What is true for BTD is true for BTD.

---

Yes, in your construction, it is absolutely true that my hypothetical scenario contains "x". This would be true for ALL scenarios, real or imagined. It would be absolutely true, PERIOD, regardless of whose mind it is in, or whose imagination conjured up the scenario. It is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, which makes it an absolute truth. This has already been proven to you, using the very sources that YOU brought up (If p, then p), and it is unassailable. If you can't see this, then there's nothing more that can be done for you.

I'm being honest - I think you have some sort of thinking problem that you should talk to someone about. At least show this thread to someone you trust and maybe they can help you.

---

It would be absolutely true, but only for the person imagining it.

---

NO. This is the central problem with your thinking. It is quite unbelievable that you don't see the problem here. It really has piqued my curiosity.

---

Do you agree that William actually transitioned into a woman in his hypothetical scenario? Or do you agree with Riley that William just thinks he can and you don't think that's possible?

---

No, I don't think he did. I don't accept the premise. That's one of your many problems in this argument - you don't see the difference between being asked if you agree with the premise, and being asked if the premise is true, then is it true (a tautology).

---

William's hypothetical scenario (p): "Let's say I transition from being a man to a woman and then..."
William's (p) contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.
BTD's (p) contains (and I'm just spitballing here) someone you think is detached from reality who does something.
William's (p) does not = BTD's (p). The two of you do not agree on what the scenario contains.

---

No, the disagreement is not on what the scenario contains, but rather whether the scenario reflects what is true or not.

---

Quote:

---

"if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"

---

William's hypothetical scenario contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.

BTD thinks William's hypothetical scenario contains someone who is detached from reality who then does something.

---

Yes, we would be in disagreement as to what the hypothetical scenario, in truth, contains. In other words, I disagree with the premise - that the hypothetical scenario contains "x". Can you finally get it, please?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

I will expand

Quote:

---

"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL

---

If BTD imagines a scenario which contains x, is it absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains x in BTD's mind?

Yes. BTD's imagination is BTD's imagination. What is true for BTD is true for BTD.

---

Yes, in your construction, it is absolutely true that my hypothetical scenario contains "x". This would be true for ALL scenarios, real or imagined. It would be absolutely true, PERIOD, regardless of whose mind it is in, or whose imagination conjured up the scenario. It is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, which makes it an absolute truth. This has already been proven to you, using the very sources that YOU brought up (If p, then p), and it is unassailable. If you can't see this, then there's nothing more that can be done for you.

I'm being honest - I think you have some sort of thinking problem that you should talk to someone about. At least show this thread to someone you trust and maybe they can help you.

---

It would be absolutely true, but only for the person imagining it.

---

NO. This is the central problem with your thinking. It is quite unbelievable that you don't see the problem here. It really has piqued my curiosity.

---

Do you agree that William actually transitioned into a woman in his hypothetical scenario? Or do you agree with Riley that William just thinks he can and you don't think that's possible?

---

No, I don't think he did. I don't accept the premise. That's one of your many problems in this argument - you don't see the difference between being asked if you agree with the premise, and being asked if the premise is true, then is it true (a tautology).

---

William's hypothetical scenario (p): "Let's say I transition from being a man to a woman and then..."
William's (p) contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.
BTD's (p) contains (and I'm just spitballing here) someone you think is detached from reality who does something.
William's (p) does not = BTD's (p). The two of you do not agree on what the scenario contains.

---

No, the disagreement is not on what the scenario contains, but rather whether the scenario reflects what is true or not.

---

Quote:

---

"if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"

---

William's hypothetical scenario contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.

BTD thinks William's hypothetical scenario contains someone who is detached from reality who then does something.

---

Yes, we would be in disagreement as to what the hypothetical scenario, in truth, contains. In other words, I disagree with the premise - that the hypothetical scenario contains "x". Can you finally get it, please?

---

Then, for you, it isn't absolute truth that William's hypothetical scenario contains a man who has transitioned into a woman.

BTW, that sounds a lot like something I said in my second post in this thread:

Quote:

---

Whether or not a hypothetical scenario contains "x" is dependent upon both your imagination and my willingness to accept it. If there are conditions, there is no Absolute.

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

I will expand

Quote:

---

"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL

---

If BTD imagines a scenario which contains x, is it absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains x in BTD's mind?

Yes. BTD's imagination is BTD's imagination. What is true for BTD is true for BTD.

---

Yes, in your construction, it is absolutely true that my hypothetical scenario contains "x". This would be true for ALL scenarios, real or imagined. It would be absolutely true, PERIOD, regardless of whose mind it is in, or whose imagination conjured up the scenario. It is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, which makes it an absolute truth. This has already been proven to you, using the very sources that YOU brought up (If p, then p), and it is unassailable. If you can't see this, then there's nothing more that can be done for you.

I'm being honest - I think you have some sort of thinking problem that you should talk to someone about. At least show this thread to someone you trust and maybe they can help you.

---

It would be absolutely true, but only for the person imagining it.

---

NO. This is the central problem with your thinking. It is quite unbelievable that you don't see the problem here. It really has piqued my curiosity.

---

Do you agree that William actually transitioned into a woman in his hypothetical scenario? Or do you agree with Riley that William just thinks he can and you don't think that's possible?

---

No, I don't think he did. I don't accept the premise. That's one of your many problems in this argument - you don't see the difference between being asked if you agree with the premise, and being asked if the premise is true, then is it true (a tautology).

---

William's hypothetical scenario (p): "Let's say I transition from being a man to a woman and then..."
William's (p) contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.
BTD's (p) contains (and I'm just spitballing here) someone you think is detached from reality who does something.
William's (p) does not = BTD's (p). The two of you do not agree on what the scenario contains.

---

No, the disagreement is not on what the scenario contains, but rather whether the scenario reflects what is true or not.

---

Quote:

---

"if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"

---

William's hypothetical scenario contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.

BTD thinks William's hypothetical scenario contains someone who is detached from reality who then does something.

---

Yes, we would be in disagreement as to what the hypothetical scenario, in truth, contains. In other words, I disagree with the premise - that the hypothetical scenario contains "x". Can you finally get it, please?

---

Then, for you, it isn't absolute truth that William's hypothetical scenario contains a man who has transitioned into a woman.

---

Yes, because I disagreed with the premise, that his scenario contained "x" in the first place. The "if" part of "if p, then p" is what's being contested, not the logic.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

I will expand

Quote:

---

"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL

---

If BTD imagines a scenario which contains x, is it absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains x in BTD's mind?

Yes. BTD's imagination is BTD's imagination. What is true for BTD is true for BTD.

---

Yes, in your construction, it is absolutely true that my hypothetical scenario contains "x". This would be true for ALL scenarios, real or imagined. It would be absolutely true, PERIOD, regardless of whose mind it is in, or whose imagination conjured up the scenario. It is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, which makes it an absolute truth. This has already been proven to you, using the very sources that YOU brought up (If p, then p), and it is unassailable. If you can't see this, then there's nothing more that can be done for you.

I'm being honest - I think you have some sort of thinking problem that you should talk to someone about. At least show this thread to someone you trust and maybe they can help you.

---

It would be absolutely true, but only for the person imagining it.

---

NO. This is the central problem with your thinking. It is quite unbelievable that you don't see the problem here. It really has piqued my curiosity.

---

Do you agree that William actually transitioned into a woman in his hypothetical scenario? Or do you agree with Riley that William just thinks he can and you don't think that's possible?

---

No, I don't think he did. I don't accept the premise. That's one of your many problems in this argument - you don't see the difference between being asked if you agree with the premise, and being asked if the premise is true, then is it true (a tautology).

---

William's hypothetical scenario (p): "Let's say I transition from being a man to a woman and then..."
William's (p) contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.
BTD's (p) contains (and I'm just spitballing here) someone you think is detached from reality who does something.
William's (p) does not = BTD's (p). The two of you do not agree on what the scenario contains.

---

No, the disagreement is not on what the scenario contains, but rather whether the scenario reflects what is true or not.

---

Quote:

---

"if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"

---

William's hypothetical scenario contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.

BTD thinks William's hypothetical scenario contains someone who is detached from reality who then does something.

---

Yes, we would be in disagreement as to what the hypothetical scenario, in truth, contains. In other words, I disagree with the premise - that the hypothetical scenario contains "x". Can you finally get it, please?

---

Then, for you, it isn't absolute truth that William's hypothetical scenario contains a man who has transitioned into a woman.

---

Yes, because I disagreed with the premise, that his scenario contained "x" in the first place. The "if" part of "if p, then p" is what's being contested, not the logic.

---

Quote:

---

"if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"

---

So then your answer to this question, as it pertains to a conversation between multiple people, would be "No."

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

I will expand

Quote:

---

"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL

---

If BTD imagines a scenario which contains x, is it absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains x in BTD's mind?

Yes. BTD's imagination is BTD's imagination. What is true for BTD is true for BTD.

---

Yes, in your construction, it is absolutely true that my hypothetical scenario contains "x". This would be true for ALL scenarios, real or imagined. It would be absolutely true, PERIOD, regardless of whose mind it is in, or whose imagination conjured up the scenario. It is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, which makes it an absolute truth. This has already been proven to you, using the very sources that YOU brought up (If p, then p), and it is unassailable. If you can't see this, then there's nothing more that can be done for you.

I'm being honest - I think you have some sort of thinking problem that you should talk to someone about. At least show this thread to someone you trust and maybe they can help you.

---

It would be absolutely true, but only for the person imagining it.

---

NO. This is the central problem with your thinking. It is quite unbelievable that you don't see the problem here. It really has piqued my curiosity.

---

Do you agree that William actually transitioned into a woman in his hypothetical scenario? Or do you agree with Riley that William just thinks he can and you don't think that's possible?

---

No, I don't think he did. I don't accept the premise. That's one of your many problems in this argument - you don't see the difference between being asked if you agree with the premise, and being asked if the premise is true, then is it true (a tautology).

---

William's hypothetical scenario (p): "Let's say I transition from being a man to a woman and then..."
William's (p) contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.
BTD's (p) contains (and I'm just spitballing here) someone you think is detached from reality who does something.
William's (p) does not = BTD's (p). The two of you do not agree on what the scenario contains.

---

No, the disagreement is not on what the scenario contains, but rather whether the scenario reflects what is true or not.

---

Quote:

---

"if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"

---

William's hypothetical scenario contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.

BTD thinks William's hypothetical scenario contains someone who is detached from reality who then does something.

---

Yes, we would be in disagreement as to what the hypothetical scenario, in truth, contains. In other words, I disagree with the premise - that the hypothetical scenario contains "x". Can you finally get it, please?

---

Then, for you, it isn't absolute truth that William's hypothetical scenario contains a man who has transitioned into a woman.

---

Yes, because I disagreed with the premise, that his scenario contained "x" in the first place. The "if" part of "if p, then p" is what's being contested, not the logic.

---

Quote:

---

"if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"

---

So then your answer to this question, as it pertains to a conversation between multiple people, would be "No."

---

No, the answer would always be yes, because you're assuming the truth of the premise in "if p, then p". The number of people involved in the discussion is entirely irrelevant.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

I will expand

Quote:

---

"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL

---

If BTD imagines a scenario which contains x, is it absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains x in BTD's mind?

Yes. BTD's imagination is BTD's imagination. What is true for BTD is true for BTD.

---

Yes, in your construction, it is absolutely true that my hypothetical scenario contains "x". This would be true for ALL scenarios, real or imagined. It would be absolutely true, PERIOD, regardless of whose mind it is in, or whose imagination conjured up the scenario. It is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, which makes it an absolute truth. This has already been proven to you, using the very sources that YOU brought up (If p, then p), and it is unassailable. If you can't see this, then there's nothing more that can be done for you.

I'm being honest - I think you have some sort of thinking problem that you should talk to someone about. At least show this thread to someone you trust and maybe they can help you.

---

It would be absolutely true, but only for the person imagining it.

---

NO. This is the central problem with your thinking. It is quite unbelievable that you don't see the problem here. It really has piqued my curiosity.

---

Do you agree that William actually transitioned into a woman in his hypothetical scenario? Or do you agree with Riley that William just thinks he can and you don't think that's possible?

---

No, I don't think he did. I don't accept the premise. That's one of your many problems in this argument - you don't see the difference between being asked if you agree with the premise, and being asked if the premise is true, then is it true (a tautology).

---

William's hypothetical scenario (p): "Let's say I transition from being a man to a woman and then..."
William's (p) contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.
BTD's (p) contains (and I'm just spitballing here) someone you think is detached from reality who does something.
William's (p) does not = BTD's (p). The two of you do not agree on what the scenario contains.

---

No, the disagreement is not on what the scenario contains, but rather whether the scenario reflects what is true or not.

---

Quote:

---

"if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"

---

William's hypothetical scenario contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.

BTD thinks William's hypothetical scenario contains someone who is detached from reality who then does something.

---

Yes, we would be in disagreement as to what the hypothetical scenario, in truth, contains. In other words, I disagree with the premise - that the hypothetical scenario contains "x". Can you finally get it, please?

---

BTW, that sounds a lot like something I said in my second post in this thread:

Quote:

---

Whether or not a hypothetical scenario contains "x" is dependent upon both your imagination and my willingness to accept it. If there are conditions, there is no Absolute.

---

---

- If it's an imagined scenario, then of course it depends on the person who's imagining it, otherwise there's no scenario to begin with to reference. That goes without saying. If it's a written scenario or an actual, real life scenario, then it doesn't take anyone's imagination at all.

- Ultimately it does not depend on your willingness to accept whether a scenario contains "x" or not. If a scenario mentioned a cow, for instance, then the cow exists in the scenario regardless of whether you accept it or not.

- The difference with your William scenario is that within the "x" you're asserting another premise - that men can transition into a woman. If you were to just make "x" = man, then there's no denying that a man is in the scenario - a man is specifically mentioned. There is no other premise to accept that he is there in the scenario. However, if you make x = a man that has transitioned to a woman, now you're asserting within "x" the premise that men CAN transition to women, a premise you have to agree with in order to accept the premise entirely.

In other words, your William scenario is more of an example of this construction: if a hypothetical scenario contains x that asserts the premise y, then it is absolutely true that the scenario contains an x that asserts the premise y. So, if William's scenario contains a man, who it is being asserted has transitioned into a woman, then yes - it is absolutely true that his scenario contains a man, who it is being asserted has transitioned into a woman.

"If there are conditions, there is no absolute" - yes, and in this case the conditions are in the premise, as I've explained above. The question is NOT whether the premise is absolute.

"If a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then it is absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'"

This statement has been proven to be constructed in the form of "if p, then p".
"If p, then p" has been DEFINED as a tautology.
Tautologies are DEFINED as logical truths.
Logical truths are DEFINED as absolute truths.

You've been shown all this....even using the references that you yourself cited and asked for!!

WHAT IS THERE LEFT TO ARGUE?? This logic is as about as clear, definitive, and unassailable as anyone can ask for. Which of the above exactly are you contesting??

So to be clear, when you posted this hypothetical scenario in the previous thread:

Quote:

---

If two people start with the absolute premise that peanuts are $1 a pound and each of them have $10, how much is each able to buy? One can logically conclude that he can buy 10 pounds worth, while the other can logically conclude he can buy none, since he is deathly allergic to peanut dust and would die before he is able to take it to the register and buy it. Two different answers, both completely logical, both based on absolutes.

---

You're telling me I'm not allowed to point out that the peanut allergy kid was wrong and he could actually buy peanuts in any number of ways, but I AM allowed to point out that your premise is wrong in that the two people are not starting from exactly the same place.

Person 1 is starting from peanuts are $1 a pound and has $10 (x)
Person 2 is starting from peanuts are $1 a pound and has $10 (x) + he has a peanut allergy (y)

And all you really showed is what I said earlier in the thread that two people can start from two different places, use logic, and arrive at different conclusions as I demonstrated in my "The 5'9" man is tall" scenario.

90sBear said:

---

So to be clear, when you posted this hypothetical scenario in the previous thread:

Quote:

---

If two people start with the absolute premise that peanuts are $1 a pound and each of them have $10, how much is each able to buy? One can logically conclude that he can buy 10 pounds worth, while the other can logically conclude he can buy none, since he is deathly allergic to peanut dust and would die before he is able to take it to the register and buy it. Two different answers, both completely logical, both based on absolutes.

---

You're telling me I'm not allowed to point out that the peanut allergy kid was wrong and he could actually buy peanuts in any number of ways, but I AM allowed to point out that your premise is wrong in that the two people are not starting from exactly the same place.

Person 1 is starting from peanuts are $1 a pound and has $10 (x)
Person 2 is starting from peanuts are $1 a pound and has $10 (x) + he has a peanut allergy (y)

And all you really showed is what I said earlier in the thread that two people can start from two different places, use logic, and arrive at different conclusions as I demonstrated in my "The 5'9" man is tall" scenario.

---

I'm not going to move on to any other topic until you concede that in the matter of the original topic of this thread, I was right, and just as I said it's based on logic and truth, NOT because "I said so" as you were so fond of repeating.

If you can't do this, then there really is no point in continuing with you. It would show that any discussion on logic and truth with you would not be fruitful.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

So to be clear, when you posted this hypothetical scenario in the previous thread:

Quote:

---

If two people start with the absolute premise that peanuts are $1 a pound and each of them have $10, how much is each able to buy? One can logically conclude that he can buy 10 pounds worth, while the other can logically conclude he can buy none, since he is deathly allergic to peanut dust and would die before he is able to take it to the register and buy it. Two different answers, both completely logical, both based on absolutes.

---

You're telling me I'm not allowed to point out that the peanut allergy kid was wrong and he could actually buy peanuts in any number of ways, but I AM allowed to point out that your premise is wrong in that the two people are not starting from exactly the same place.

Person 1 is starting from peanuts are $1 a pound and has $10 (x)
Person 2 is starting from peanuts are $1 a pound and has $10 (x) + he has a peanut allergy (y)

And all you really showed is what I said earlier in the thread that two people can start from two different places, use logic, and arrive at different conclusions as I demonstrated in my "The 5'9" man is tall" scenario.

---

I'm not going to move on to any other topic until you concede that in the matter of the original topic of this thread, I was right, and just as I said it's based on logic and truth, NOT because "I said so" as you were so fond of repeating.

If you can't do this, then there really is no point in continuing with you. It would show that any discussion on logic and truth with you would not be fruitful.

---

I'm seeking clarification about what I'm allowed to object to when discussing hypothetical scenarios. You have been so instructive so far. Surely you can respond.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

So to be clear, when you posted this hypothetical scenario in the previous thread:

Quote:

---

If two people start with the absolute premise that peanuts are $1 a pound and each of them have $10, how much is each able to buy? One can logically conclude that he can buy 10 pounds worth, while the other can logically conclude he can buy none, since he is deathly allergic to peanut dust and would die before he is able to take it to the register and buy it. Two different answers, both completely logical, both based on absolutes.

---

You're telling me I'm not allowed to point out that the peanut allergy kid was wrong and he could actually buy peanuts in any number of ways, but I AM allowed to point out that your premise is wrong in that the two people are not starting from exactly the same place.

Person 1 is starting from peanuts are $1 a pound and has $10 (x)
Person 2 is starting from peanuts are $1 a pound and has $10 (x) + he has a peanut allergy (y)

And all you really showed is what I said earlier in the thread that two people can start from two different places, use logic, and arrive at different conclusions as I demonstrated in my "The 5'9" man is tall" scenario.

---

I'm not going to move on to any other topic until you concede that in the matter of the original topic of this thread, I was right, and just as I said it's based on logic and truth, NOT because "I said so" as you were so fond of repeating.

If you can't do this, then there really is no point in continuing with you. It would show that any discussion on logic and truth with you would not be fruitful.

---

I'm seeking clarification about what I'm allowed to object to when discussing hypothetical scenarios. You have been so instructive so far. Surely you can respond.

---

Irrelevant to the original discussion. Was I right that it is absolutely true that the scenario contains "x"?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

So to be clear, when you posted this hypothetical scenario in the previous thread:

Quote:

---

If two people start with the absolute premise that peanuts are $1 a pound and each of them have $10, how much is each able to buy? One can logically conclude that he can buy 10 pounds worth, while the other can logically conclude he can buy none, since he is deathly allergic to peanut dust and would die before he is able to take it to the register and buy it. Two different answers, both completely logical, both based on absolutes.

---

You're telling me I'm not allowed to point out that the peanut allergy kid was wrong and he could actually buy peanuts in any number of ways, but I AM allowed to point out that your premise is wrong in that the two people are not starting from exactly the same place.

Person 1 is starting from peanuts are $1 a pound and has $10 (x)
Person 2 is starting from peanuts are $1 a pound and has $10 (x) + he has a peanut allergy (y)

And all you really showed is what I said earlier in the thread that two people can start from two different places, use logic, and arrive at different conclusions as I demonstrated in my "The 5'9" man is tall" scenario.

---

I'm not going to move on to any other topic until you concede that in the matter of the original topic of this thread, I was right, and just as I said it's based on logic and truth, NOT because "I said so" as you were so fond of repeating.

If you can't do this, then there really is no point in continuing with you. It would show that any discussion on logic and truth with you would not be fruitful.

---

I'm seeking clarification about what I'm allowed to object to when discussing hypothetical scenarios. You have been so instructive so far. Surely you can respond.

---

Irrelevant to the original discussion. Was I right that it is absolutely true that the scenario contains "x"?

---

It is relevant because that was the first hypothetical scenario you gave me in that conversation regarding absolute truth and I just want to make sure that I have it all right.

Because of tautologies I cannot object that the peanut kid can't buy peanuts some how some way because you would keep editing the scenario to eliminate my ideas, but I CAN object to the premise itself in that the two people weren't starting from the same place. Do I have that right?

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

So to be clear, when you posted this hypothetical scenario in the previous thread:

Quote:

---

If two people start with the absolute premise that peanuts are $1 a pound and each of them have $10, how much is each able to buy? One can logically conclude that he can buy 10 pounds worth, while the other can logically conclude he can buy none, since he is deathly allergic to peanut dust and would die before he is able to take it to the register and buy it. Two different answers, both completely logical, both based on absolutes.

---

You're telling me I'm not allowed to point out that the peanut allergy kid was wrong and he could actually buy peanuts in any number of ways, but I AM allowed to point out that your premise is wrong in that the two people are not starting from exactly the same place.

Person 1 is starting from peanuts are $1 a pound and has $10 (x)
Person 2 is starting from peanuts are $1 a pound and has $10 (x) + he has a peanut allergy (y)

And all you really showed is what I said earlier in the thread that two people can start from two different places, use logic, and arrive at different conclusions as I demonstrated in my "The 5'9" man is tall" scenario.

---

I'm not going to move on to any other topic until you concede that in the matter of the original topic of this thread, I was right, and just as I said it's based on logic and truth, NOT because "I said so" as you were so fond of repeating.

If you can't do this, then there really is no point in continuing with you. It would show that any discussion on logic and truth with you would not be fruitful.

---

I'm seeking clarification about what I'm allowed to object to when discussing hypothetical scenarios. You have been so instructive so far. Surely you can respond.

---

Irrelevant to the original discussion. Was I right that it is absolutely true that the scenario contains "x"?

---

The thread title is Logic Discussion.

It is relevant because that was the first hypothetical scenario you gave me in that conversation regarding absolute truth and I just want to make sure that I have it all right.

Because of tautologies I cannot object that the peanut kid can't buy peanuts some how some way because you would keep editing the scenario to eliminate my ideas, but I CAN object to the premise itself in that the two people weren't starting from the same place. Do I have that right?

---

There is nothing left for you to squabble with, or anything that needs clarification. Everything needed to prove that it is absolutely true that the scenario contains "x" has been presented. If you can't or won't concede that I was right, then you aren't capable of having a discussion on logic, period.

We simply can not move on until you recognize this and concede. Until then, there will be no more responses from me.

Come on, you are always so gracious in conversation when discussing ideas. Surely you can be helpful here in applying everything you have been talking about to a hypothetical scenario of your own.

90sBear said:

---

Come on, you are always so gracious in conversation when discussing ideas. Surely you can be helpful here in applying everything you have been talking about to a hypothetical scenario of your own.

---

He is largely correct, you are largely wrong, but you do have him on the peanuts. I doubt you will see eye to eye, because you are both unwilling to admit where you are wrong. Hypothetical ability is what is implied in the question, not practicality or what is likely. If the kid might be put into a spaceship and exchange tender for peanut with robotic arms, allergies would not play into it. In order to be reasonable and not go down an endlessly hypothetical road, we simply assume the intent of the question is to only consider the variables presented. It is the only reasonable thing to do.

Porteroso said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Come on, you are always so gracious in conversation when discussing ideas. Surely you can be helpful here in applying everything you have been talking about to a hypothetical scenario of your own.

---

He is largely correct, you are largely wrong, but you do have him on the peanuts. I doubt you will see eye to eye, because you are both unwilling to admit where you are wrong. Hypothetical ability is what is implied in the question, not practicality or what is likely. If the kid might be put into a spaceship and exchange tender for peanut with robotic arms, allergies would not play into it. In order to be reasonable and not go down an endlessly hypothetical road, we simply assume the intent of the question is to only consider the variables presented. It is the only reasonable thing to do.

---

I am not largely correct, I am entirely correct. There is nothing for me to admit about being wrong on this topic. If you think so, then go ahead and state where in this thread you think I'm wrong. It's highly likely that you don't understand the context behind the peanut allergy question.