$18,000 worth of OSAP for this ......

Penguin Advocate: ....if the penguins tell me to do it this way, I believe them. They would never lead me astray....NEVER!

Live Juicy: But you see, penguins don't have thumbs and therefore do not know the advantage of computers because of that singular fact. Had they thumbs, one could give them slightly more credability. You can't trust a penguin without thumbs - you don't know their ulterior motive

PA: Penguins do not have thumbs. Well....that is what they believe or wish to believe. I understand that the evidence implies and 'strongly' support that penguins do not have thumbs. However! that may not be the case. Emperical evidence is flawed- the foundation of science. Science does not prove anything... only explains (to a degree).
MATH proves.
Long story short, your wrong. W-R-A-N-G!

Live Juicy: Mathematically - for instance, if you were to pick up a penguin in your hands and take his... wing ? ... into your hand - you could count and easily discover the severe lack of phalanges...the "pollex" in particular. So, i do believe YOU are wrang, good sir!

PA: My question is, how are you so sure that your senses do not deceive you?
How are you so sure that their is truth in your methodology? Moreover, how do you buld a case upon such a weak foundation of knowledge? surely all your pillars will fall with ease....

Live Juicy: I must say you put up a good argument, however the only problem, or minor discrepancy, that i see in it is that if you do not trust your own senses, what do you trust? surely something out there must exist that you trust and that makes a strong "foundation" as you so lovingly call it because, after all, this world DOES exist, and without a methodology that is generally accepted, if i may call it that, surely we would get nowhere? If you can follow my train of thought, that is...

PA: I laugh and chuckle

Live Juicy: lol

PA: A strong foundation is based upon logic. A prio ri is where the foundation is built and A post rio ri evidence can be used as evidence to perhaps tickle the mind.....

Live Juicy: So how do you argue that penguins have thumbs?

PA: Simply in this manner
...

1) One is unable to justify that penguins do not have thumbs.
One is unable to seek truth when one argues in the following manner: " IT IS THE CASE THAT PENUINS DO NOT HAVE THUMBS"

HOWEVER!

2) One is able to effectively argue that "it is the case that penguins SEEM to have thumbs".

....Where the former is putting forth the soudness of the argument on a unjutifiable argument and the latter is putting forth the possibility that it may be justified as a belief.

3) Therefore, taking upon the former as the standing argument for debate is worth a chuckle and hence, is not needed for much further reflection. Whereas, the latter is able to provide a concrete argument which bears fruit.

Live Juicy: And now, this fruit that it bears, is it generally percieved that it seems to have thumbs? my god you argue well lol .

PA: "and now, this fruit that it bears, is it generally percieved that it seems to have thumbs?" <-- that made no sense. How do arguments have thumbs?
now your just crazy

Live Juicy: lol it does in my head

PA: LOL

Live Juicy: Sometimes you hurt my head a lil there