>>12682426I'm not misunderstanding you. Your insistence of pestering me with your minutia while not answering my questions about your pictograms shows that you are being stupid on purpose. You only want to pose questions that are already established as not having good answers and you refuse to answer my questions because then I could use whatever insufficient answer you provided as the answer for your similar question to defeat you with a rhetorical strategy. However, you refuse to answer the very questions you ask me because your intention is pester rather than to discuss. You are being stupid on purpose asking questions that people have been asking for hundreds of years:
>If experience is subjective, how can anything in experience be deemed objective?I don't care what the answer to that question is and it doesn't interest me. In my subjective opinion, it suffices that most of my readers will know what I mean if I say that I am demonstrating something ab initio. This is like how it suffices for you that most of your readers will know what "H" and "Y" are.
That fact you write about bachelors seems like you could call it first principle of institution of marriage without getting too much pushback. However, if you did call it that then someone like you could come along and say, "Nuh-uh," and you would have no way to disprove them.
