What number set are you talking about? The natural numbers?

I believe you meant the natural numbers, {0,1,2,3, ...}. For the sake of argument, lets assume that the natural numbers don't go on forever. Then there must be some largest number, n. But then n + 1 is a larger number, and n therefore can't be the largest number. This contradicts the assumption that the natural numbers don't go on forever, and no number can thus be the largest Q.E.D.

Side note, there exists finite number sets with a unique largest number.

You are the one who made me leave CD.

Your posts have been so sickenly arrogant and hateful as of late that I am actually in a worse mood logging off here than before logging in. Stop your conquest of proving idiocy of your fellow human beings, it serves absolutely no purpose, and will only leave you exhausted in a sour, painful mood and destroy whatever respect people have left for you on here. Do not fool yourself into believing that you are actually debating here. It's just a disguise you wrap around your petty power games.

I am not angry at you, I see no reason to. Goodbye.

That has to be the rudest while completely unproductive response I have ever gotten on CD.

Definitions aren't propositions. Therefore definitions don't have truth values and hence can't be valid or invalid. It's a misconception that a definition can be valid. A definition is not a proposition, it's not a statement about the nature of reality. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter how we define things. It just means that definitions don't have to make sense.

Do I have to accept the supposed truths of a definition? No, if I define horses as circular squares I do not suppose that a square can be circular (which would be it's intrinsic supposed truth). In fact, if I go along with the definition then it's possible to show that no horses can exist because the existence of a horse would be a logical contradiction.

So this definition is useless because we can show that there exists nothing that has the quality of being a horse (a circular square). But that doesn't stop me from defining horses in this way; I am not proposing that a horse exists. I am in fact not proposing anything. I am not saying that what we usually mean by horse lines up with what I am defining as a horse here.

Therefore, if I have proved that no horses (circular squares) exists I have not magically proved that no actual horse (four legged mammal) exists. I have simply showed that a horse with the qualities I have defined do not exists. So if I were to make a debate about religion, and if I define religion in a specific way and then make some proposition about religion defined in this particular way, then I am not necessarily proposing anything about religion-as-commonly-understood. I have simply proposed something about phenomenons with the particular qualities I have designated. In order to say anything about religion as commonly understood, then I have to make sure my definition lines up with what we understand as religion. That's how we judge whether a definition is useful, we judge it by the extent with which it lines up with what we mean.

January 20, 2009 - 8. november, 2016

Never forget  

I too believe the only difference is that it's morally wrong

There's of course differences, one important one being that if cannabalism makes people incredibly sick of continued for longer periods of time.

If wrong means impractical, and if peace of mind is desirable, then yes, there's something truly wrong with being closed minded. Keeping your mind closed means fighting off anything that challenges you, which undermines peace of mind. Since we are always encountering things that challenge what we think and believe, we will be in constant struggle. Therefore if our goal is to have peace of mind, then being closed minded is impractical, thus wrong.

The best argument against Winston Churchills legitimacy is similarly an ad hominem attack. This man was responsible for appaling crimes against humanity such as concentration camps in South Africa, and the Bengal Famine where a a number of people died roughly equal to the number of people who died in the Holocaust. But no one knows how to express his rascism better than Churchill himself.

""I do not admit… that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia… by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race… has come in and taken its place. " - Winston Churchill, 1937

Just leave already.  

I have made a reply to your dispute. I think it covers your points in this particular post. If you think that any of your arguments here haven't been adequately answered feel free to point it out.