I don't need to respond to this drivel. I explained my point, I'm sorry you can't see it.
Person A creates an argument.
6 sources say Person A is a complete fucking moron.
Person B is now skeptical of person A's argument.
Person A calls him a dumb fucktard.
Person B calls them a dumb fucktard.
etc. etc.
Ok, here's how it went down:
Post 1:
Easiest paradox:
I always lie.
Initial reply:
Not really a paradox. You could draw from it that you only lie some of the time, and this is one of those occasions.
This argument is correct, and it's the argument that you finally accepted 4 pages later, once I edited it into the Wikipedia page.
Your response:
It is a paradox. It's one of the best-known paradoxes. Always is an absolute, you could infer no such thing from it.
You are falling into a false dichotomy, thinking that the speaker must always lie or must never lie, and missing the possibility that he's lying now, but tells the truth at some other times.
Second reply - raist explains in more detail:
But if you're lying about always lying you could lie some of the time and still tell the truth some of the time. It's bullshit. Think about the exception. If i don't lie all the time, i could lie some of the time, like in the statement "I always lie". You just make the assumption that if I don't lie all time I tell the truth all the time. There is no circular reasoning in that case. Think for once.
There you have it. In the first two responses you got after you first made your false claim, someone explained why you were wrong. He didn't cite sources, because he didn't need to cite sources - he explained your error himself.
Thereafter followed four pages of you denying that you had made a mistake, finally admitting it, and then denying that anyone provided evidence you had made a mistake. Apparently, to you, "evidence" means internet sourced of questionable quality, because if someone on the forums tells you why you're wrong, you don't listen, but if someone quotes a webpage with the exact same explanation, you finally accept it.
The moral of the story:
When six sources (one, in this example, since the rest of your sources said nothing of the sort) say that someone is wrong, and common sense says that she's right, you should follow your common sense, and not the sources. Especially if the sources are webpages created by invisible-pink-unicorn-knows-who, and an encyclopedia which anyone and their mother can edit.
That, and the fact that you are a complete fucking dolt.