Dim, dim, dim. A race of truth-tellers could also easily create confusion, by saying true but irrelevant things. A race of liars simply needs to say the negation of whatever they want to communicate. Dim.

Of course truth can come from an unreliable source. By definition, an unreliable source is one in which there is very little correlation between the fact that the source has asserted a proposition, and the proposition's validity (a race of Liars has perfect negative correlation. A race of Randoms has 0 correlation.) Now your definition of a closed mind is one that asserts all propositions from an unreliable source to be false, apart from those that are obviously true. This is just someone who has confused 0 correlation with negative correlation. About the hypothetical race of Liars. I think it is possible to establish truth from someone who always lies. The test is to see if we could find the answer to any question. As an example, suppose we want to know what the Liar had for breakfast. If we just ask him "What did you have for breakfast?" that wouldn't help because he could just say "I had Ely Cathedral for breakfast" and we've learnt next to nothing useful, because, as you say, there are unlimited possible untruths he could spout. But we can be more cunning than that: suppose I said to him "Consider the shortest possible description of what you had for breakfast. Is the first letter of that description an 'A'?" If he says "No" we know it begins with 'A', and we move on to the second letter of the description. If he says "Yes" we know it must begin with B...Z so we ask him "Is the first letter a B?" and so on. Do you agree I could establish what he had for breakfast by adopting that approach? Clearly it is applicable to other questions.

Still boring.

She misspelled cocoon.

Are you? I'll hazard a guess you're not openminded regarding the proposition that some races, sexes, and religions ARE in fact inferior to others. Q: What evidence would you require to convince you that a race, sex, etc is inferior? Q2: Could such evidence conceivably exist?

I don't believe you'd accept or even consider any information we offered you, despite that you don't know our real races, sexes, or religions. Anyway, you certainly haven't done it before. This conversation is beyond dull. Pointless, too.

Dovina: Two people who agree on something are an incrowd. zodiac: Two people who agree on something are the same person. Dovina: That's not what I actually said. zodiac: Whatever, I was exaggerating. What you actually said is wrong, too.

I'm going to say, "Did you write this poem for anyone other than yourself?" You're going to say, "No." And I'm going to say, "What a load of crap." I'm tired of this. Can we talk about something else?

Who are you agreeing with?

I repeat: Spinoza is a goob. Everybody knows about Spinoza.

I believe there is a lot wrong with right-wing fundamentalism. For instance, I believe it made you say "their" instead of "there", and consistently punctuate like an epilept.