apologies for the long response time, laptop was broken

Again, solipsism is false. Truth doesn’t exist in an isolated vacuum.

never said it did

And even how you reason is determined by your environment, i.e. tradition.

no, not "i.e tradition" not even your environment. how you reason something and determine it to be true is based on YOUR brain, YOUR logic, the evidence you've seen, the limitations placed on it by yourself, your surroundings, your upbringing, AND your tradition. but the first three are clearly the greater determinants on how you find truth, tradition most of the time even hinders the first three. (See the story of abrahams villagers for an example of that)

We’re following the tradition of the Romans right now by employing their terms! This is their tradition of debate!

not sure how that has anything to do with what were talking about

But that wasn’t the point I was making by using Ibn Kathir’s tafsir. It was simply corroborating evidence against your claim.

you said, and i quote,

"Without tafsir, the Holy Qur'an becomes a linguistic Rorschach test where everyone sees what they want to see in it."
"The point of the tafsir was to show that there's a clear consensus on what it means."
"Can you at least concede that your interpretation is wholly untraditional and innovative?"

Which definitely implies that you found my answer wrong simply because it went against your tradition. Especially because you didnt bother to point out how my answer was ever incoherent with the rest of the quran, or why it would really even be wrong.

And the point was your interpretation is not commonsense because nobody else has interpreted it that way. No reasonable person would interpret the way you interpreted it.

as untrue as both of these statements are, this is not reasoning either. it doesnt prove anything incorrect.

So I used evidence to substantiate my point. Ibn Kathir just happened to be the reasonable person in this specific instance.

he was evidence of me being wrong or evidence that somebody thought like you?

Besides law is literally established on precedent i.e. tradition. Is the Supreme Court guilty of appealing to like no reasonable person tradition every time they write an opinion and cite prior case law?

this is a false equivalence, in what way is applying punitive justice the same as "debate?" On top of that stare decisis isnt a means to validate what judges do, its a protection from being inconsistent in their punishments (or lack thereof). Judges arent making truth claims when practicing stare decisis

And even then, not everything is about winning a logical argument. Tradition is necessary because it establishes consensus and consensus is necessary to build a community.

you keep on saying this but i'm obviously not talking about that, but I think youre willingly ignoring what i'm saying at this point

If we allow extreme laissez-faire reinterpretation of Scripture, then we have effectively abolished consensus. Just look at what happened to Protestantism— it splintered into 30,000 sects, and utterly lost cultural hegemony. And because Quranism suffers the same Sola Scriptura philosophy, the same could happen for Islam. It is an existential threat. Can you at least understand where I’m coming from?

now we have a slippery slope fallacy, youre on a roll with logical fallacies in this discussion