Points you can't argue against?

[crudus]

The sky as it appears to a non-color blind human being is blue. This can be observed and proved correct in a repeatable experiment.

No it can't. Mainly because "blue" (the word) is ingrained into our heads when we are little and have no baring on what the color is. We have been taught that the sky is blue without learning it for ourselves. So, your "blue" (the color) could look like my "orange" (the color) and we would both say it is "blue"(the word).

 

[Twilight_guy]

The sky as it appears to a non-color blind human being is blue. This can be observed and proved correct in a repeatable experiment.

This works under the assumption that all people have the same colour, for the colour blue. There is no way of proving/testing such a problem. This issue works on subjectivity, and the need for your statement to be an objective truth.

Blind people, aren't colorblind, however the sky isn't blue to them. You also failed to factor time of day, and which sky it is.

I knew I'd get a wise-ass like you commenting on this post. Okay fine, everything is subject to human interpretation and thus can be argued. We would need a non-human interpretation that is a constant truth in order to argue it, unfortunately we can't get that because there is only human observation.

Edit:

The sky as it appears to a non-color blind human being is blue. This can be observed and proved correct in a repeatable experiment.

No it can't. Mainly because "blue" (the word) is ingrained into our heads when we are little and have no baring on what the color is. We have been taught that the sky is blue without learning it for ourselves. So, your "blue" (the color) could look like my "orange" (the color) and we would both say it is "blue"(the word).

See above... smart alec.

 

[crudus]

The sky as it appears to a non-color blind human being is blue. This can be observed and proved correct in a repeatable experiment.

This works under the assumption that all people have the same colour, for the colour blue. There is no way of proving/testing such a problem. This issue works on subjectivity, and the need for your statement to be an objective truth.

Blind people, aren't colorblind, however the sky isn't blue to them. You also failed to factor time of day, and which sky it is.

I knew I'd get a wise-ass like you commenting on this post. Okay fine, everything is subject to human interpretation and thus can be argued. We would need a non-human interpretation that is a constant truth in order to argue it, unfortunately we can't get that because there is only human observation.

We aren't "wise-asses" we just read up on Kant. And before you say "a machine" remember that it was programed by man to tell it what blue is first which would skew the results.

 

[Mikaze]

Nazi and Stalin's regimes were bad, what with killing millions of people and all. If you try to argue against it, you have no respect for human life.

In some aspects they where good.

See, I totally argued against you.

For the most part their intentions were pure, they just went about it the wrong way. Hitler wanted to create a 'perfect race', one in which there would be no disease, he just went about it the wrong way by killing anyone and everyone he percieved to be 'diseased'.

Stalin was trying to create a communist nation. Now, as much as I hate communism, it has some inherent positives as an ideal, it just doesn't work with humans. To quote one of my friends (who was probably quoting someone else), "Right idea, wrong species."

 

[Abengoshis]

The sky as it appears to a non-color blind human being is blue. This can be observed and proved correct in a repeatable experiment.

This works under the assumption that all people have the same colour, for the colour blue. There is no way of proving/testing such a problem. This issue works on subjectivity, and the need for your statement to be an objective truth.

Blind people, aren't colorblind, however the sky isn't blue to them. You also failed to factor time of day, and which sky it is.

I knew I'd get a wise-ass like you commenting on this post. Okay fine, everything is subject to human interpretation and thus can be argued. We would need a non-human interpretation that is a constant truth in order to argue it, unfortunately we can't get that because there is only human observation.

We aren't "wise-asses" we just read up on Kant. And before you say "a machine" remember that it was programed by man to tell it what blue is first which would skew the results.

I'm going to thank you for leading me to his works. And for raising a the point of computers pre-emptively as I should have thought to do.

However I must still say that you are right, not the "wise-ass" because no matter what colour you interpret "blue" to look like in your mind, it is still scientifically "blue" because it has a shorter wavelength that, say, red. It doesn't matter if you interpret it as orange or pink, it's still blue because of the wavelength. Also no matter what colour you interpret it to be you would still have labelled it blue and would still say the sky is blue, even if your blue looked like my green.

 

[Abengoshis]

You can't spell slaughter without laughter

you can if you're dyslexic... slotter

damn, ummm how bout you can't spell oh without an 'o'? huh beat that dyslexia

au

This, and "eau".

 

[blankedboy]

When someone says 'MAC IS ROX AND U CANTS DENI IT', there's no point in arguing.

 

[1nsignia]

Rape is bad.

Agreed, not funny either

 

[ERadical]

The sharpness of a pencil.

How about a magic trick?

You sir win

OT: The Sun is hot

 

[Mozared]

I've actually thought about this matter some time ago, and came to the conclusion that you can come up with something as long as you define it well enough. For example, a poster a few posts above this one says "the sky is blue" - I could argue that by stating that I'm Dutch and I don't do "blue", only "blauw". Or by stating that I called what you guys call "blue", "pinkapoppel".

If you change the original point however, to "The majority of the English speaking beings on this planet will answer "blue" to the question "which colour is the sky?"" it becomes a lot harder to find a loophole. One could probably find one for that sentence, but then again I haven't gone as far as to completely defining every word I use in my original statement in utmost detail.

Then again, ironically enough, your definition of 'argue' plays a role here as well. Random internet dictionary [http://esl.about.com/od/intermediatevocabulary/p/word323.htm] defines argue as "to offer reasons for or against something", which would remove a damn load of options - saying "I disagree" or "It can't be proven" isn't "offering reasons for or against something". If you go with the site's other definition of "to dispute; to disagree", however, literally ANYTHING can be argued against. Whatever you state, I can disagree with it, how stupid that might be.

 

[CancerDog]

My girlfriend.

This

 

[Dorschbert]

water is wet,
sky is blue,
women are mysterious

 

[Buizel91]

Nothing rhymes with orange....




Does it? 0.o

Nothing rhymes with silver either.

or purple =D

(nurple dosnt count cause it isnt a word...just a cool sound =D )

OT: that its Christmas in 2 days =D...seriously that cannot be argued.

or that Katie Price is a transsexual Barbie doll

 

[CouchCommando]

The existence of God can neither be proven nor dis-proven.

Science can't prove that all the laws they come up with are not created by a divine being.
If a 'God' was revealed to humanity it could not be proven that it truly is a God, as any effects could be a hallucination or whatnot.

the existence of a unicorn cannot be proven nor dis-proven

Oh yeah? Then what about this footage!?

AWW yeah!!! what you going to say to that photographic evidence!!!

Proof!