But then are you going to abide my directive about phrenology textbooks?
Or do you give it a miss because you know I am not the president?
IOW one can get thoroughly specious about what one claims or doesn't claim to know, but the field of action clarifies the question quite concisely.
One uses other information, of course.
That has never been denied, either directly or through implication, other than through your misunderstanding.
It still doesn't alter the fact that your initial dismissal was fallacious.
And you haven't addressed that.
Even after 11 pages of you spouting irrelevancies and misunderstanding what people write.
You've had ample opportunity to clarify whether you are or whether you are not willing to employ normative descriptions (of God? Of the president? Of cures/treatments for cancer? Etc) into the picture.
Everything indicates the latter.
I have no need to clarify it because it is an irrelevancy.
It's no surprise that you find your own antics untenable when re-presented in the guise of alternative scenarios.
:thud:
You're discussing an irrelevancy, Musika, seemingly based on a misunderstanding.
I'm really not sure how much clearer I can be about it.
I'm not going down that path.
I've made that clear to you as well.
If you wish to be so dishonest as to effectively make crap up about what people say, keep going on as if they have said it, and then think you're scoring a victory because you're showing them how crap that imaginary crap is... go for it.
If that's what gets you up in the morning, if that is who you are, be my guest.
Just be sure to turn the lights out when you leave.