Demonstrations, not problems. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

SpanishMatMaster -> Demonstrations, not problems. (12/18/2011 3:33:07 PM)

I have presented no problem. I presented demonstrations. And AFAIK nobody has shown any refutation. That's all.

I insist on my willingness to learn. If somebody thinks that he/she can refute me, by all means, try. But try in a correct way for a demonstration: Object a premise or a step, concretely, and with rational arguments.



mnottertail -> RE: Demonstrations, not problems. (12/18/2011 3:38:15 PM)

2+2=4 is not a conviction. It is a certainty.  Same as the fact that there is no way to express the color green (to download that information to you with absolute and perfect knowledge and certainty (that for lack of a better word at the moment), I can give you a couple examples and hope you catch on, and then some 20 years down the road we meet and I point to something and say, would you call that green?  you may say, well more of a  puce really, nevertheless.........

certain patterns are immutable.



Politesub53 -> RE: Demonstrations, not problems. (12/18/2011 3:42:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

I have presented no problem. I presented demonstrations. And AFAIK nobody has shown any refutation. That's all.

I insist on my willingness to learn. If somebody thinks that he/she can refute me, by all means, try. But try in a correct way for a demonstration: Object a premise or a step, concretely, and with rational arguments.




What a pile of dung, anyone who has demonstrated anything to you is now on "hide" me included.

You cant have any sort of premise while you are using terms like "we must", that takes it from a premise to you demanding certain facts are true.

I know I am hidden but you may be peeking. [8|]



mnottertail -> RE: Demonstrations, not problems. (12/18/2011 3:44:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

I have presented no problem. I presented demonstrations. And AFAIK nobody has shown any refutation. That's all.

I insist on my willingness to learn. If somebody thinks that he/she can refute me, by all means, try. But try in a correct way for a demonstration: Object a premise or a step, concretely, and with rational arguments.




What a pile of dung, anyone who has demonstrated anything to you is now on "hide" me included.

You cant have any sort of premise while you are using terms like "we must", that takes it from a premise to you demanding certain facts are true.

I know I am hidden but you may be peeking. [8|]


Theres a leg up for you, cuz I feel so bad about that last thrashing we gave you lads in '76.  My bit for apologizing.



Politesub53 -> RE: Demonstrations, not problems. (12/18/2011 3:46:33 PM)

Thank you Ron, if he moves you to hide you can stay at my place for a bit.......[8D]



tazzygirl -> RE: Demonstrations, not problems. (12/18/2011 3:48:28 PM)

His ego wont allow him to hide that many people.



mnottertail -> RE: Demonstrations, not problems. (12/18/2011 3:50:42 PM)

LOL, I just couldn't go with this whole Wittgensteinian narrowing of permissible rules such that the OP wins by demonstration of a constructed tautology is a tautology and you may not argue outside it concept, so I have stayed the fuck out of this one, and you can see how bored I must be, 007.

Whassup wit yer, mate? OI?



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Demonstrations, not problems. (12/18/2011 4:10:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
LOL, I just couldn't go with this whole Wittgensteinian narrowing of permissible rules such that the OP wins by demonstration of a constructed tautology is a tautology and you may not argue outside it concept, so I have stayed the fuck out of this one, and you can see how bored I must be, 007.
That almost made me read the OP again. But no, better not.



GotSteel -> RE: 22 pages of dick thumping (12/18/2011 4:10:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Without getting into a huge discussion of it, the flaw that I see lies in the binary logic and construction of the problem as SMM has presented it. This (binary) approach has been subjected to a thorough critique by a number of commentators.

I usually find there are more than 2 ways of looking at any one issue.

Happy Xmas! [:D]

There's not just the one flaw, his arguments full of them, it kind of reminds me of swiss cheese.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Demonstrations, not problems. (12/19/2011 1:22:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
2+2=4 is not a conviction. It is a certainty.
You think so? Me too. We both think so. Yep.
We think so.
Thoughts are fallible, isn't it?
So... If you like, simply go to my summary, choose the first premise you disagree with on [C] or the Appendix, and let us speak about it.
Best regards!



crazyml -> RE: Demonstrations, not problems. (12/19/2011 1:50:33 AM)

Tell me that your argument doesn't depend on 2+2=4 being in any way uncertain.



Kirata -> RE: Demonstrations, not problems. (12/19/2011 1:56:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
2+2=4 is not a conviction. It is a certainty.
You think so? Me too. We both think so. Yep.
We think so.
Thoughts are fallible, isn't it?
So... If you like, simply go to my summary, choose the first premise you disagree with on [C] or the Appendix, and let us speak about it.

Nobody needs to go anywhere. The false premise is right here. We don't just "think" 2 + 2 = 4. It's true by definition.

Have you ever considered that your belief in this defense against the possibility of super beings controlling your mind might be the work of super beings deluding you so they can control your mind without you knowing it?

Just askin, yanno.

K.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Demonstrations, not problems. (12/19/2011 5:03:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
Tell me that your argument doesn't depend on 2+2=4 being in any way uncertain.
That was for me? Here is the summary: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3964797 .

I would not like to obey your orders. As a matter of principle (I am dom [:D]) and because "in any way" is too vague.

However, I make you a special offer, only for you - substitute if you like, in http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3964797 , "2+2=4" with "I have a nose".



crazyml -> RE: Demonstrations, not problems. (12/19/2011 5:29:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
Tell me that your argument doesn't depend on 2+2=4 being in any way uncertain.
That was for me? Here is the summary: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3964797 .

I would not like to obey your orders. As a matter of principle (I am dom [:D]) and because "in any way" is too vague.


It was a really simple question, and your unwillingness to answer it is not a sign of your dominance, it is a sign of your weakness.

If your argument depends on there being any uncertainty over 2+2 equalling 4 then it fails. It fails absolutely, without a scintilla of doubt.

quote:



However, I make you a special offer, only for you - substitute if you like, in http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3964797 , "2+2=4" with "I have a nose".



I don't like, it's a fucking stupid analogy.



SpanishMatMaster -> K.O. (12/19/2011 6:04:28 AM)

1. No, it is not a simple question in this context because later you can abuse of the clause "in any way".
2. No, it is not a sign of weakness to reject a vague clause.
3. It a sign of stupidity to concentrate on a joke.
4. My argument depends on its premises, but you, me and anybody can change them in a way the argument still works.
5. Your "objection" is false.
6. Your language in unacceptable.
7. It was not an analogy, it was a proposal of substitution. Apparently you do not know what is an analogy.

Seven errors in just three short paragraphs! Congratulations, sucker, but as you are unable to discuss without insults... bye.

[sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif]

Cool! Some other victim around...? I mean... he...



mnottertail -> RE: K.O. (12/19/2011 6:38:48 AM)

There is nothing vague about 2 + 2 = 4.  It doesnt say sometimes is like, it doesnt say may be judged as by some people or is approximately akin to, or any other nebulous quasi-reality.

There is this thing called causality that absolutely (you can have it we think, we are dreaming or we are fucking stupid) cuts off all ethereal discourse on the matters.

If you die, and so far, since the beginning of our memories everybody dies, save none, and you chose to say we don't know what the reality is here...  we only think of this stinking, rotten, putrified, non breathing, dull, worm infested chap as having went to a better place, then your quandry is to explicate the 'perceived' difference in states without impinging in any wise on these unrealities.   How very zen of you, you may put your sandals on your head and run away by explanation, been done before......

But since we are, to a man, all deluded that we can differentiate between 4 and say 3, the common humanity will think this forever, and call it true, and you as one crying in the wilderness will (this is a forecast and may not be real either just a thought) NEVER convince humankind to alter their delusion on this matter.

One might even hope that you wouldn't 'think' you can.



crazyml -> RE: K.O. (12/19/2011 6:39:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

1. No, it is not a simple question in this context because later you can abuse of the clause "in any way".


Too complicated for you, not too complicated for a child of 7.

quote:


2. No, it is not a sign of weakness to reject a vague clause.


Fair enough... you're either too stupid to comprehend, or too cowardly to address the question. Either way.... your argument aint great.

quote:


3. It a sign of stupidity to concentrate on a joke.


What on earth are you referring to?

quote:



4. My argument depends on its premises, but you, me and anybody can change them in a way the argument still works.




If your premises depend on the possibility of 2+2 equalling anything other than 4 then your argument sucks

quote:



5. Your "objection" is false.



You don't even know what my objection is.

quote:


6. Your language in unacceptable.


Oooooh..... did someone lose track of the daddy pants?

Two whom is my language unacceptable? If the only people I'm offending are fuckwitted jackasses then I'm willing to live with that!

quote:




7. It was not an analogy, it was a proposal of substitution. Apparently you do not know what is an analogy.



Your reading comprehension is poor - I was referring to the nose analogy - Which is.... well imagine the biggest, steamiest, smelliest pile of shit you possibly can, then add some.


quote:



Seven errors in just three short paragraphs! Congratulations, sucker, but as you are unable to discuss without insults... bye.

[sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif]

Cool! Some other victim around...? I mean... he...


Oooh seven errors in a single post! Congratulations, sucker.....



seekerofslut -> RE: Demonstrations, not problems. (12/19/2011 6:53:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

And AFAIK nobody has shown any refutation.



"AFAIK".  Yes, you're the only one. You stand alone.

[sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif]
SMM, I'd recommend you stop [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif] as you've been [sm=anger.gif] enough.



GotSteel -> Hiding Spanish (12/19/2011 8:18:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
If your argument depends on there being any uncertainty over 2+2 equalling 4 then it fails.


His 2+2 argument is an elaborate conspiracy theory (though I don't think he understands how elaborate it would have to be) where all of the methods, externally and internally, by which we are able to determine that 2+2=4 have been compromised in a consistent manner by an external intelligence. It isn't any better than the nose argument though it's also not that much worse.

Thing is the argument goes way down hill from there, even if you grant him that we can't be sure that 2+2=4 and all the other faulty stages of his argument what he ends up producing is still just an appeal to desire. He tries to frighten us into buying into an invalid use of Occam's Razor by threatening us with uncertainty.

When I proved that Occam's Razor couldn't be used that way all he had to respond with was profanity.



mnottertail -> RE: Hiding Spanish (12/19/2011 8:30:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
If your argument depends on there being any uncertainty over 2+2 equalling 4 then it fails.


His 2+2 argument is an elaborate conspiracy theory (though I don't think he understands how elaborate it would have to be) where all of the methods, externally and internally, by which we are able to determine that 2+2=4 have been compromised in a consistent manner by an external intelligence. It isn't any better than the nose argument though it's also not that much worse.

Thing is the argument goes way down hill from there, even if you grant him that we can't be sure that 2+2=4 and all the other faulty stages of his argument what he ends up producing is still just an appeal to desire. He tries to frighten us into buying into an invalid use of Occam's Razor by threatening us with uncertainty.

When I proved that Occam's Razor couldn't be used that way all he had to respond with was profanity.



But even if there was an outside mindnumbing influence, they would have to mesmerize us into seeing 4 things where there were 8, or 3, or 27. Which in our world when we see only 4 we call them 4, all the time and in every case. Then the extremely vexacious question is at hand, and this should be investigated by all,  what did they do with the other things, and how did they do it?

Oh, its a fuckin conundrum alright.



Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375