So why do men have nipples?

[Gracchus]

So, let's take the first step: do you think a Ph.D. (or equivalent) is the highest academic degree a human can receive? Could a person with a Ph.D. claim that he or she has the highest degree of education human being can offer?

You are very picky on the step one of my explanation. I guess that means you do not intend to proceed. Sigh, smart young people like to demonstrate that they can argue almost on anything. But, they do not understand what is the purpose of argument. And they, in most cases, get lost in their own arguments.

If you like to continue, give me a better (a more focused) reply. Otherwise, you may read my conversation with Gracchus.

On step one of your "explantion" you explained nothing. You asked a question.

So, if I had a Ph.D. degree, I do can claim that I have received the highest education mankind can offer.

And you are right, even I have a Ph.D., I still cannot claim that I have the highest education, which a person could "receive". That is why most people with Ph.D. are still learning after receiving the degree. We can still count this post doctor level of learning as a process of education.

The step two is a little complicate. Let's use a school class to illustrate:
In a class of 50 students, not everyone would get the same grade for the course. However, there could be a number of students who received grade A in the class. Can those who get grade A claim that they have received the highest education on the subject in the class?

If we gathered 50 people with Ph.D. and gave them 30 years to learn. At the end of the 30th year, could we evaluate them so that some of them can claim that he or she have received the highest degree of education on the earth?

On step two of your "explanation", again, ou explained nothing. You asked another question.

Evidently, you hope to make us commit to some specific answer to one of your ambiguous questions, so you can show how foolish we are.

In short, you want us to construct a strawman for you to destroy.

I commend your economy of effort, but I must discommend your honesty. Of course, you might deceive anyone who didn't know Socrates, or Jesus.

I request again: Answer your questions as you think they should be answered and make your point.

 

[juvenissun]

On step one of your "explantion" you explained nothing. You asked a question.



On step two of your "explanation", again, ou explained nothing. You asked another question.

Evidently, you hope to make us commit to some specific answer to one of your ambiguous questions, so you can show how foolish we are.

In short, you want us to construct a strawman for you to destroy.

I commend your economy of effort, but I must discommend your honesty. Of course, you might deceive anyone who didn't know Socrates, or Jesus.

I request again: Answer your questions as you think they should be answered and make your point.

You are wrong. I did much more than just ask question. I explained things (which can be taken as an answer to my previous question) and it is followed by a new question at the end. The new question is based on the explanation I just made, and it will push the discussion to the next step. If you do not agree with my explanation, then we should talk about it before I proceed to give an answer to my new question. For example, TheLowlyTortoise made a one-line comment. I responded because it is a good one.

If you have no comment to my explanation and do not have any idea to the answer of my question, that is fine. Simply say I don't know (have no idea) and ask me to continue. I don't like it, but I might continue. But, if you do not think and do not show appreciation, then I would stop. On this line of thought, Hespera could not take it at the step 1, so I stopped to talk to her. As I expected, she is totally lost on what I said on step 2. I don't blame her, but that is where the discussion should stop.

 

[Tomk80]

Right. Yeah. The guy obviously doesn't have a PhD in English, so he must not have a PhD in anything. Ooh, and personal attacks! Real mature and constructive.

That's not what I was saying. My point was that his obsession of being "most educated" by pointing to his degree is a clear indication that he is not that well educated. Otherwise he should know better.

If you can't think outside of the box and understand what he's getting at, regardless of his 'syntax errors,' that's your own fault.

So maybe you can explain to me what he is getting at? Because I really haven't the faintest idea.

 

[Hespera]

You are wrong. I did much more than just ask question. I explained things (which can be taken as an answer to my previous question) and it is followed by a new question at the end. The new question is based on the explanation I just made, and it will push the discussion to the next step. If you do not agree with my explanation, then we should talk about it before I proceed to give an answer to my new question. For example, TheLowlyTortoise made a one-line comment. I responded because it is a good one.

If you have no comment to my explanation and do not have any idea to the answer of my question, that is fine. Simply say I don't know (have no idea) and ask me to continue. I don't like it, but I might continue. But, if you do not think and do not show appreciation, then I would stop. On this line of thought, Hespera could not take it at the step 1, so I stopped to talk to her. As I expected, she is totally lost on what I said on step 2. I don't blame her, but that is where the discussion should stop.

Translation:

Juv said that he has the highest degree of education that any human being could possibly have.

That is obviously impossible, so since he cant explain it, he tries to put his problem off on me, so as to say the discussion should stop.

It probably should. Everyone knows the original statement was ridiculous.