Alright, so you like more direct, I see, well I will try to shorten a little bit my thoughts then:

>>6975
>Also, his long winded three point argument about as you seem to agree with me is quite literally nothing but "nah, don't bother".

I will point out later why I have brought up those points because I wanted to know what you considered towards the matter. The "don´t bother" part comes because I am not actually going for a duel though.

>But its not a contradiction, as a contradiction is two statements that can't be true at the same time, and if they were, it would be a paradox. Once you understand that the ringing in your ears is actually a sound created by your ears, it stops being a paradox to you.
>Maybe English isn't his first language but before he starts trying to use obscure words and definitions he should try to be clear and concise first.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/paradox

So, your valid definition of paradox is that there can be two statements which should be true if it´s false or in reverse. To me, contradiction and paradox are synonyms even though not all paradoxes imply that they are false all the time (they can actually become true, unlike the word contradiction). Paradox is a rhetorical device used for a statement that is self-contradictory but both opposite elements are interrelated and there could be resolution. Now, if you want to look at the details and dive into its logistical problem, that might require a few posts discussing the philosophical application that said term implies.

But everywhere I look, both words mean that both statements are conflicting between each other.


>I like that nobody is challenging me on him using irony wrong as well, which is a much more common word with only one definition. If you're going to talk like a professor, I'll slap you with a book.