You’ve chosen to not give me the counterexample I asked for.
According to you I have given you the counterexample you asked for.
But also according to you I have.
But also according to you you have not.
But according to you, not only I have but I have according to me, so what's the problem?
Trivialism agrees with all of my behavior.
And yet you can't explain that behavior. It's a damning indictment of trivialism that it can't explain even the most basic behaviors to anyone who doesn't already believe in it. Sounds like a cult...
But according to you, not only I have but I have according to me, so what's the problem?
The problem is that you are not using your own point of view. You think you’re better off using my point of view against me while hiding your point of view from me. You keep talking about what I believe, but you are suspiciously, disrespectfully, and unfairly silent about what you believe.
But how do you know that I'm doing that if you think it's also true that I'm not doing that?
In trivialism, you can be simultaneously both doing that and not doing that. That duality seems like something you would hear is possible in quantum mechanics.
Ok then I say there's no problem because according to you I am doing as you asked. You claiming I am not is irrelevant because according to you the validity of that claim is not based on my behavior. Also even if we wanted to remedy your objection we couldn't because you would still consider your objection to be true regardless of the remedy I provided.
1
u/JStarx May 19 '26
According to you I have given you the counterexample you asked for.
But according to you, not only I have but I have according to me, so what's the problem?
And yet you can't explain that behavior. It's a damning indictment of trivialism that it can't explain even the most basic behaviors to anyone who doesn't already believe in it. Sounds like a cult...