View Full Version : Debate: lixluke interviews sisyphus__ about truth
Moderator note: Participants in the debate are lixluke and sisyphus__. Other members may discuss the debate in the discussion thread, here.
Hi, this is a debate in the professional debate forum and I had intended to lye down the rules first.
Rule 1:
It is a conversation/interview of me by lixluke about his claims of knowledge. Therefore, there may be no talk related to the interview personally between us, and instead is debated more in random fashion.
Rule 2:
lixluke may ask any question desired, and may procede with interview however he decides to do so.
Rule 3:
lixluke must agree to the interview.
Rule 4:
sisyphus__ must agree to the interview.
The goal of the interview is understanding his claims which are misunderstood, and my disagreements are now interviewed.
I agree to the interview lixluke, do you.
lixluke
12-17-08, 09:38 PM
OK.
Question #1:
Is there anything you do not understand about the explanation I provided regarding what knowledge and belief are and how they relate/work?
OK.
Question #1:
Is there anything you do not understand about the explanation I provided regarding what knowledge and belief are and how they relate/work?
Hi lixluke.
You know man I changed my subtitle mainly for our debate / discussion here today.
There is a lot that I don't understand because there's a lot that doesn't add up, is not very clear to me, but I think it could, But I don't see how.
I would be interested hearing your thought about how truth works without someone criticizing you.
So in answer yes. There is things that I don't understand because I can't relate the meanings in the best way.
:shrug:
Rule 5:
Discussion must be sensitive to feelings of other person in question (in this case only the person being interviewed and perhaps the interviewer indeed also.) However discussion amongst the others may proceed as according to the other rules established already.
lixluke
12-17-08, 09:59 PM
Question 2:
It is important to approach everything without presumption. There is no reason to presume subjectivism. There is no reason to presume anything before approaching material.
The information I provided only applies within the parameters of logic. I even state the importance of not presuming logic on rule#1.
Thus here are 2 posts that I made with lots of information on the subject matter. I tried to make them as clear as possible so that people can understand it.
Posts:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2121067&postcount=192
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2121067&postcount=193
What is not clear/what doesn't add up?
Question 2:
It is important to approach everything without presumption. There is no reason to presume subjectivism. There is no reason to presume anything before approaching material.
The information I provided only applies within the parameters of logic. I even state the importance of not presuming logic on rule#1.
Thus here are 2 posts that I made with lots of information on the subject matter. I tried to make them as clear as possible so that people can understand it.
Posts:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2121067&postcount=192
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2121067&postcount=193
What is not clear/what doesn't add up?
I kind of agree with you... Were it not for my state of mind... Actually I've been very active today, but that doesn't change things.
I agree with you logic is important- I haven't found it much use but see that it has a great one when used rightly. I am not fully aware of it as I have seen so many definations. It seems to get complicated at deeper levels. But I assume you mean logic to mean,
"This is true."
"This (X) is also false."
This is illogicial.
Logical or "logic" seems to work in many ways, all of which are clear to us. Agreed?
And as I say repeatedly over and over again, Logic and this Forum do not always mix, the forum is debated by some of the greatest minds in the world just about it, and still they can make little sense of it.
It's therefore my task to tackle the manner in an appropriate way.
But that is a lot of information (about your post#1) for me to digest. I would suggest that it does, but requires scrutinety. Perhaps truth is more interesting than many people would admit and silly arguements are insane.
I guess that you'd say, when you say truth is independant of human observation, this leads one to wonder about the concreteness of the information you're presenting.
This is my opinion only.
The reason it doesn't add up is that it is crude, even vicious attack to the foundations of knowledge. The rule after the one stating that truth is indepenant is my one in question.
The reason it doesn't add up is that it has to agree with other people.
Stating ... eh. It does make sense I suppose at first when carefully reading it, but requires a lot of focus.
Let's see let me go on.
~~~~
Reading your knowledge rules (honest here), they do sound good but one asks, What's the point?
And I would ask you, to show me what someone has disagreed with you that way we can find out if your quality of sci-forums needs fixin'.
To put it bluntly, there's good quality but a lot of disagreement....
Now to ask me about the validy of your position would be a different matter. Your sentences are very flawless almost without much disagreement to be noticed.
Publishing it or provoking it on a forum which inspires heat, is probably what causes the most trouble.
:)
So I answered you, please continue with athe discussion that way the tape recoreder doesnt' run out of batteries!
I understand the below as the heat of sciforums by the way..............................
“ Originally Posted by lixluke
I did make an explanation. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean I did not explain it. ”
You can obviously convince yourself, but it's clear to everyone else that you did nothing of the sort.
An explanation is the reasoned support of a conclusion through the use of a valid argument.
All you did was to supply a few assertions.
No matter how many times you pedantically assert the notion that you've formulated an explanation, the fact is, there was none provided in this thread.
Good luck.
lixluke
12-17-08, 10:54 PM
Understanding the truth is very important. The information I presented allows us to do so. I have explained how knowledge works. Understanding of exactly how knoweldge works is very important in any topic.
The purpose in everything is always truth. Understanding truth. Arriving at truth. I'm not talking about conversations about our favorite color or fun things we did today. I'm talking about understanding of the world around us. Pursuit of knowledge/truth/understanding. In order to do so, and discuss any such topic, it is very important to understand how knowledge works.
The overall goal in any discussion is to arrive at the truth. A person might say X is true. Another person may agree/disagree and provide more insight/feedback. The original person might clarify or whatever. Regardless, each person has the same purpose of arriving at the truth. Truth is everything. Truth is the whole point.
It is completely impossible to fulfill the purpose of discussion without operating within the parameters of logic. It is very important to understand how knowledge works in order for people to understand their relationship with the truth. The problem is that discussions are riddled with misconception of how knowledge works. Thus I present information in order to make it as clear as possible how knowledge works.
You cannot presume that truth has to agree with people. It doesn't have to in order to be true. Agreement has absolutely no effect on truth. You have truth. Then you have human perception of the truth. Truth is not dependent on perception. Perception is dependent on truth.
There is nothing more solid and concrete than truth being independent of observer. If truth was dependent on observer there would be no solidity in anything. Truth changes according to the whims of the majority. This of course is impossible in logic. Within the parameters of logic, truth cannot and is never dependent on the observer. This fact is exactly what makes truth concrete.
Sheesh slow down this is an interview here its not like I'm gonna understand a full book in 2 seconds!
Let me think for a second. Gotta go pour some tea.
Back matie, give me a second and I'll answer you..
Understanding the truth is very important. The information I presented allows us to do so. I have explained how knowledge works. Understanding of exactly how knoweldge works is very important in any topic.
The purpose in everything is always truth. Understanding truth. Arriving at truth. I'm not talking about conversations about our favorite color or fun things we did today. I'm talking about understanding of the world around us. Pursuit of knowledge/truth/understanding. In order to do so, and discuss any such topic, it is very important to understand how knowledge works.
Hi, you have valuable insights and suggestions.
Thank you.
I usually try to unfortunately understand absolute truths, certain truths, particular truths.
Do you agree, that everyone is different is a truth?
I remember a very long time ago. I was interested in what I would call "Systematics". And I wrote something quite similar to what you wrote using the same "incompleteness" (there's usually going to be incompleteness anyway but does it matter).
Maybe its possible to assign some truths to some qualities.
Kant calls this "a-prori".
I guess its ok for him to do that because it sets a "limit" or restriction or something-however you would call what I present here, its my belief that there is no a-priori unless you first classify or categorize, "A-priori".
What I disagree with is the statement that you're discussing absolute truth in a procritic invironment.
It's not like I disagree with you. I just don't believe, that truth is independant of anything. An "absolute truth" realm. Or something. It just isn't fully explained anyway.
He's just a guy just like us I am hearing some background noise and I'm talking to it sorry lixluke. :D Yeah though like I'm saying good points.
lixluke
12-18-08, 12:13 AM
Hi, you have valuable insights and suggestions.
Thank you.
I usually try to unfortunately understand absolute truths, certain truths, particular truths.
Do you agree, that everyone is different is a truth?
What? It is logically impossible for truth to be dependent on the observer. There is no logical reason to presume that truth is relative. Absolute truth is a logical necessity. It is invalid within the parameters of logic for truth to be relative.
Truth cannot be apprehended other than through logic. Logic is practical. A discussion can go nowhere and is completely pointless unless it abides by logical parameters. There is no practical purpose for discussion outside of logical parameters. There is no purpose in approaching truth as relative. There is no point in approaching any subject matter under a logically invalid presumption. Knowledge works according to logic and absolute truth. Everything works logically according to logic and absolute truth. It is absolutely true that truth is not relative. It is logically valid that truth is absolute. Why then insist on defying all reason and logic, and abiding by irrational subjectivism of truth being relative?
It's been said that truth isn't absolute and independant of the observer, Luke. I don't want to talk about that because I :
is no logical reason to presume that truth is relative. Absolute truth is a logical necessity. It is invalid within the parameters of logic for truth to be relative.
Truth cannot be apprehended other than through logic. Logic is practical. A discussion can go nowhere and is completely pointless unless it abides by logical parameters. There is no practical purpose for discussion outside of logical parameters. There is no purpose in approaching truth as relative. There is no point in approaching any subject matter under a logically invalid presumption. Knowledge works according to logic and absolute truth. Everything works logically according to logic and absolute truth. It is absolutely true that truth is not relative. It is logically valid that truth is absolute.
A lot of what you're saying is true and insightful but on the verge of insane as I was trying to mention.
I can't accept luke that objective truth is independt of observer... I can't accept that.... uh.... dear lord. I am yelled at for being irrational. Sheesh, sorry. But I still disbelieve with some of your statements. Even if they are true somehow.
We agree, mr audience member, but lix and i's discussion is different when compared with your postings.
I do that sometimes... sheesh..
We're interviewed here, and have voices in our brains.
lixluke
12-18-08, 01:33 AM
It's been said that truth isn't absolute and independant of the observer, Luke. I don't want to talk about that because I :
A lot of what you're saying is true and insightful but on the verge of insane as I was trying to mention.
I can't accept luke that objective truth is independt of observer... I can't accept that.... uh.... dear lord. I am yelled at for being irrational. Sheesh, sorry. But I still disbelieve with some of your statements. Even if they are true somehow.
What is on the verge of insane is not logical universlism. What is on the verge of insane is irrational subjectivism.
The question still remains. Why then insist on defying all reason and logic, and abiding by irrational subjectivism of truth being relative? Why accept insanity/irrationality over sanity/rational logic/reason?
It's the only position which makes me happy?
I forget to mention, that subjectivity is undefined here. I usually prefer a position of truth over a position of creation. Not to say that creation is in itself false, -
By the way to defend my position if you may....
My subjectivity isn't insane it's true. It isn't on the verge of insanity either. I put up with hardley any peoples stress and yet I suffer. It isn't insane. It's simply stating that "I see no objective truths which are able to be called objective by me at this point, and so I don't care for them too much! Also, it is true that it is all a little bit wacky, and leads to a clear mind."
So I keep an open mind for the most part.
I usually prefer discussions where one side isn't losing dramatically while I'm acting foolish to defend the errors.
They have been spotted out.
I prefer discussions of quality, acceptability, etcetera. Everyone is different- but you can create anything.
What is on the verge of insane is not logical universlism. What is on the verge of insane is irrational subjectivism.
The question still remains. Why then insist on defying all reason and logic, and abiding by irrational subjectivism of truth being relative? Why accept insanity/irrationality over sanity/rational logic/reason?
I don't know.
I'm not doing anything irrational anyway. And it is irrational to claim you know everything- especially universal truth being independant from you.
I would mention it again though that you have quite a few great ideas in it (your system that is). That being that if truth somehow is "seperate" from the individual then there is a lot indeed of truth to be found (somehow).
Come on, come up with a good response!
The only truth there is (just a suggestion) is that truth is dependant upon the observer.
Refute.
lixluke
12-18-08, 08:14 AM
Subjectivism is the claim that truth depends on the observer. The claim that truth is not absolute. This claim is false within the parameters of logic. Outside of logic, you make any statement you want. Either way, nothing can be discussed or debated if operating outside of logic. Anything anybody says is true ouside of logic. Thus nothing means anything. It is impossible to have discussions with irrationalists.
As for insanity, it is the claim that truth is relative that is insane. It does not apply within logic. Using circular reasoning that it makes you happy does not answer the question. Why does it make you happy? What is the logical purpose of using irrationalism of approaching truth?
I stated from the beginning that everything I explained only applies within the parameters of logic. It makes you happy to operate outside of logic? You can make anything you want true if you disregard logic. Thus there is no purpose for discussion. Furthermore, you claim that there is no truth? You cannot discuss anything without logic. You cannot arrive at conclusions without logic and objectivity of truth.
Wrong. The claim that truth is absolute, is stark-raving mad, utterly loony, and ultimately meaningless, like most of the things you post.
There is no such thing as "logic" in your mind, or in anything you've posted. You have no idea what logic is.
You have never answered any question, and you aren't going to start answering any. It's a waste of time asking you anything, because you don't know what a question is, either. You have no cause to ask anything, you aren't expecting any answers, are you? Why ask questions if you know all there is to know?
All you appear to know is how to keep repeating the same meaningless, illogical arguments, that you can't explain.
Hello voices I hear I defend myself aganist the person interviewing me thank you for your support.
lixluke
12-18-08, 01:47 PM
Two rational and non-deluded people are sitting across from each other, with a book on a table to one side of them.
One of them says, sincerely, 'the book is to my right.'.
The other says, sincerely, 'the book is to my left.'.
Both are true statements, and objective. If one knows the speaker's location, one can then calculate the direction of the book, without actually being that person - or without even being in that person's location.
If one of these persons says, sincerely, 'My favourite colour is green', that is objectively true as well. It is objectively true that their favourite colour is green. Nothing in the statement implies that everyone's favourite colour is green. It is a very, very petty objective truth, but is one nonetheless.
If a third person walks into this scenario and says, sincerely, 'A magical flying teapot created the universe and loves everyone', then they are objectively false. But could this be said to be, at least, subjectively true? No. Whilst the subjective does indeed relate to perspective, it is insufficient to override the nature of truth being actual and non-contradictory. It is therefore absurd to say that 'it is true for you', if one is not describing a fact or condition which could be objectively phrased, ie, 'John Smith is in pain'; 'Jane Bloggs is in love', etc.
Note that saying 'John Smith believes in a magical flying teapot which created the universe and loves everyone' is also objectively true - since it includes the word, 'believes' - to disconnect the observation from the claim.
This is 100% correct.
lixluke
12-18-08, 01:50 PM
1. Within the parameters of logic, truth is absolute. When operating within the parameters of logic, truth cannot be relative. This is obvious. Zaps description above is very clear and obvious.
2. There is no reason to discuss anything or apporach anything outside of the parameters of logic. You cannot draw conclusions.
This is 100% correct.
We're aware of that. Ok.
But I had intended only to say now that, I have been informed (by some voices so to speak) that this is supposed to be a task of cracking the shell.
It perhaps is I who should be doing the interview, however seeing your questions raised aganist me is just as easy when you ask a question I answer it or something.
So, I'll try to answer a nearly unanswerable post right now. lol.
And in it I will refer to the use of logic in arriving at certain principals. I see it that this is easy. If your logic can say "this is true" then there is something fishy going on do you see what I mean?
I was trying to do this in a way which is acceptable to you. And that's what I'ma gonna do....
Subjectivism is the claim that truth depends on the observer. The claim that truth is not absolute. This claim is false within the parameters of logic. Outside of logic, you make any statement you want. Either way, nothing can be discussed or debated if operating outside of logic. Anything anybody says is true ouside of logic. Thus nothing means anything. It is impossible to have discussions with irrationalists.
Wait just a second, is anyone else able to get any in-put from you?? Or is it just us from you. Seriously. Now regardless. What you're approaching on is something very tempting for us all to show how you're wrong- you know that.
It's my belief, that you're entirely wrong- but have some claims to support.
Why can't you stop there, is my question?
Must you really insist on claiming "the claim that truth is not absolute.": I understand that. Truth is not absolute. Or whatever...
What about, some of the other things you said. They're all equal in this regard.
Every other person obviously, has a lot of belief in subjectivism; because it's true and it works.
It isn't like it isn't true.
Or something....
I'm going to give you a simple example to show you what I mean. And since you're interviewing me you must respond to me otherwise I will throw a brick at your face.
Before that, I understand that you present a viable meathod for arriving at truth.
Can you please explain this truth to me.
Remember I am an ignorant retard and cannot process the ammount of information you are capable of holding.
lixluke
12-18-08, 02:35 PM
Subjectivism is false. It is the false claim that truth is not absolute. Truth is absolute. Subjectivism does not work. At least not within the parameters of logic. I have asked many questions in the past few posts that you have not answered. All the while completely avoiding operation within the parameters of logic.
What question have you asked, pretty dead boy?
lixluke
12-18-08, 06:04 PM
The question is, why have you overlooked pervious posts instead of answering the questions I posted? Either find them and answer them, or get lost. All you are doing is trolling and name calling. It is clear you are not interested in actual productive discussion.
Well, I don't think this site has much of anything which isn't all that worth discussing your discussion here included.
I can maintain and try to see if theres anything of value though in what you're saying.
So you want me to find your questions?
Why then insist on defying all reason and logic, and abiding by irrational subjectivism of truth being relative?
Why then insist on defying all reason and logic, and abiding by irrational subjectivism of truth being relative? Why accept insanity/irrationality over sanity/rational logic/reason?
Are these your questions, my master?
Just say yeah or no I guess.
I'm not disabiding by anything. I'm defying no rules of logic, no universal truth (which is the exact opposite of what you're doing), and not not producing any productive activity. I do nothing irrational other than a bit of entertainment sometimes (this) and see you as claiming I'm something enitrely different.
There is no logical truths, in my opinion. That's a pretty big threshold you're carrying around on your shoulders. If you purposely twist my intent with this message then you will be advoided. And you will probably get away with it because you are like that.
Everything I've said in this thread, has been to show your character and what you believe in. I've found nothing real productive.
You see, I am sisyphus.... You keep forgetting that. You understand next to nothing (sic) (and important clarification) of my reality.
And it is not objective or disabiding by anything.
lixluke
12-18-08, 06:40 PM
Everything I've said in this thread, has been to show your character and what you believe in. I've found nothing real productive.
This means all you are interested is in image, and have no interest in actual discussion of material. I on the other hand ONLY discuss material, and have no regard to showing people's characters or hold no relevance to character of anything other than material and material alone.
You cannot discuss material with somebody who is not interested in discussing material. Who's only purpose for everything they have said in a thread is to show character of people within discussion.
This means all you are interested is in image, and have no interest in actual discussion of material.
Wrong. I thought you'd do better than that.
It isn't about image at all, it's about people claiming that they "own" something and it gets a hell of a lot deeper than image so don't pretend you're on to anything here.
I on the other hand ONLY discuss material, and have no regard to showing people's characters or hold no relevance to character of anything other than material and material alone.
Ok, well what about the material I've presented and my post before you continued with ranting instead of debating?
You cannot discuss material with somebody who is not interested in discussing material. Who's only purpose for everything they have said in a thread is to show character of people within discussion.
Material, I am interested in. It's a wealth of material you're presenting, and when I counter it with my beliefs they appear worthless.
Notice the bolds by the way.
lixluke
12-18-08, 06:56 PM
Wrong. I thought you'd do better than that.
It isn't about image at all, it's about people claiming that they "own" something and it gets a hell of a lot deeper than image so don't pretend you're on to anything here.
Ok, well what about the material I've presented and my post before you continued with ranting instead of debating?
Material, I am interested in. It's a wealth of material you're presenting, and when I counter it with my beliefs they appear worthless.
Notice the bolds by the way.
Caliming that everything you are posting is to expose character is about image. You are either about material or about image. Image means you disregard material, and do whatever you can for the sake of image. Character/image has nothing to do with the validity of the material at hand. Either material is valid or invalid. It has no relation to image/character of anybody presenting material.
It does if it's "everything."
Everything you say, every word you present, every logic you spout, will be disregarded by me (to a certain extent), due to the fact that it has no truth.
And, that is what truth is unfortunately.
Let's settle this point which appears insignifigant, first, that way we can move on to the questions that you've forgot about which I posted.
Of course I'm just spouting a little bit of absurdity here but the fact is that what I say is true, and this is what I believe a very important truth to be. A truth which has been devoted by me for nearly my whole life.
Other truths include such examples you raise, and things which are by no means valid for everyone.
Imagine applying your meathod to anything. It's unacceptable.
A lot of what you say though does have its merrit, but that doesn't make it right. If it comes down to it we'll get into this if you want me to and we'll talk about it. Until then, please don't beg me to shove actual logic down your throat, or ask me any other examples. You realize most people are different than you in how they view things. I'm not talking about anything worthless either.
lol what a great post i made ;0
lixluke
12-18-08, 08:11 PM
It does if it's "everything."
Everything you say, every word you present, every logic you spout, will be disregarded by me (to a certain extent), due to the fact that it has no truth.
And, that is what truth is unfortunately.
Let's settle this point which appears insignifigant, first, that way we can move on to the questions that you've forgot about which I posted.
Of course I'm just spouting a little bit of absurdity here but the fact is that what I say is true, and this is what I believe a very important truth to be. A truth which has been devoted by me for nearly my whole life.
Other truths include such examples you raise, and things which are by no means valid for everyone.
Imagine applying your meathod to anything. It's unacceptable.
A lot of what you say though does have its merrit, but that doesn't make it right. If it comes down to it we'll get into this if you want me to and we'll talk about it. Until then, please don't beg me to shove actual logic down your throat, or ask me any other examples. You realize most people are different than you in how they view things. I'm not talking about anything worthless either.
All you want to do is disregard discuss the matter at hand, and attack character. You cannot get anywhere in any discussion about character attacks. <-This whole statement in fact has nothing to do with validity of subject matter, but is about your character. If you want to disregard the subject and bicker about character, you are the one that started it.
James R
12-18-08, 08:14 PM
Moderator note:
This thread is really outside the terms of the Formal Debates forum. There seems to be no single topic of debate, or at least that isn't clear. The number of posts is not agreed to.
The participants in the debate are not specified, either. Initially, it looked like it was just sisyphus__ and lixluke, but a number of other posters are joining in.
sisyphus__: since you started this thread, you decide what happens to it. Options:
1. All posts by posters other than yourself and lixluke are deleted from the thread. You specify a time limit or post limit for the end of the debate, and a debate topic.
OR
2. The thread is moved to a different subforum (you specify where you think it would best fit).
---
Members are asked to review the rules of the Formal Debates forum, which are in a sticky thread at the top of the list of topics.
80 posts max.
lixluke and I only.
Discussion is about arriving at some agreement of truth.
James R
12-18-08, 08:25 PM
Moderator note: posts by posters other than sisyphus__ and lixluke have been moved to the Discussion thread relating to this debate.
All you want to do is disregard discuss the matter at hand, and attack character. You cannot get anywhere in any discussion about character attacks. <-This whole statement in fact has nothing to do with validity of subject matter, but is about your character. If you want to disregard the subject and bicker about character, you are the one that started it.
Actually I was bickering about subject matter, not character. I had clearly stated "everything". I was going to try something with you but it is failing so what do you want now?
Why does the entire surface of philosophy today have a different defination of subjectivity than you do?
If you fail to answer this question I place you on ignore close this thread hopefully, and be done with you forever- I'm sure everyone else would do something similar.
lixluke
12-18-08, 08:46 PM
I was going to try something with you but it is failing so what do you want now?
1. You have not answered questions I previously posted. I will not answer anything until my questions that I aksed first are answered.
2.
I was going to try something with you but it is failing so what do you want now?
Try what? This is a clear violation of the rules of productive discussion. This shows that your intent is image.
1. The goal of each party in a discussion is to understand what the other party is communicating, and arrive at a conclusion regarding a matter.
2. Discussions can only be productive if they operate within the parameters of logic, and abide by the rules of knowledge.
3. Any party that approaches a discussion with intent to prove another party wrong is not acting with intent of understanding, but acting with intent of image. Such an approach is about discussion, but about debate and tactics used for debate for the sake of image.
According to #3, you are debating for the sake of winning and losing. What exactly is your intent here? Jamesr has stated there is nothing regarding topic.
There must be a specific statement. Such as "The Earth is round." Then people must take opposing t/f position, and continue from there. Yet there doesn't seem to be any specific stated topic.
1. You have not answered questions I previously posted. I will not answer anything until my questions that I aksed first are answered.
2.
Try what? This is a clear violation of the rules of productive discussion. This shows that your intent is image.
1. The goal of each party in a discussion is to understand what the other party is communicating, and arrive at a conclusion regarding a matter.
2. Discussions can only be productive if they operate within the parameters of logic, and abide by the rules of knowledge.
3. Any party that approaches a discussion with intent to prove another party wrong is not acting with intent of understanding, but acting with intent of image. Such an approach is about discussion, but about debate and tactics used for debate for the sake of image.
According to #3, you are debating for the sake of winning and losing. What exactly is your intent here? Jamesr has stated there is nothing regarding topic.
There must be a specific statement. Such as "The Earth is round." Then people must take opposing t/f position, and continue from there. Yet there doesn't seem to be any specific stated topic.
So so sensitive are we.
1. You have not answered questions I previously posted. I will not answer anything until my questions that I aksed first are answered.
I've already answered what I thought were your questions. I can't find a "?" in your posts other than the ones I've searched for. Am I missing any?
2.
Try what? This is a clear violation of the rules of productive discussion. This shows that your intent is image.
Wrong. There is no violation of productive discussion. Get it straight.
My intent is not image, but whatever it is that I desire. Get it straight.
2. Discussions can only be productive if they operate within the parameters of logic, and abide by the rules of knowledge.
Entirely false. Please provide another logic other than the one we are presently abiding by .... For everyone who cares about you.
3. Any party that approaches a discussion with intent to prove another party wrong is not acting with intent of understanding, but acting with intent of image. Such an approach is about discussion, but about debate and tactics used for debate for the sake of image.
[firstly if I cared about image any, I'd actually show you where you're wrong. Instead I'm taking my time and being humiliated, for your sake- it's probably whats best for your "image."]
According to #3, you are debating for the sake of winning and losing. What exactly is your intent here? Jamesr has stated there is nothing regarding topic.
What a total slouch depending on untrue testomony from the authority.
You know precisely the intent. Don't lie to yourself.
Arriving at some agreement on truth.
There must be a specific statement. Such as "The Earth is round." Then people must take opposing t/f position, and continue from there. Yet there doesn't seem to be any specific stated topic.
It's simply a debate to come to an agreement on truth.
We can debate however we like, I guess.
So. Please answer my questions.
lixluke
12-18-08, 09:31 PM
Sure thing.
The question is irrelevant.
Proof:
1. If all philosophers in history agree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the information.
2. If all philosophers in history disagree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the inforamtion.
This is not a discussion about whether or not a philosopher in the past made a statement or who their ideas relate to information I have provided.
Why bother with insane illogical nonsensical claim that truth is relative? Because it makes you happy? Of course. What a total joke.
You're the total joke luke.
You are on ignore, and it is clear who is in the dark.
Good day.
lixluke
12-19-08, 01:37 AM
Yes it is clear. You.
1. If all philosophers in history agree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the information.
:roflmao:
That leaves you with.
2. If all philosophers in history disagree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the inforamtion.
And they do.
So it is you aganist all the philosophers in history.
Who's more dependable?
Not satisfying?
Not satisfying?
Not insane yet are we?
Scan wiki-pedia over, and search for the word "philosophy."
Change of mind, you're off ignore.
Yes it is clear. You.
Well,move around and say something.
lixluke
12-19-08, 01:58 PM
Your question is irrelevant.
These are facts:
1. If all philosophers in history agree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the information.
2. If all philosophers in history disagree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the inforamtion.
Is anybody discussing any previous philosophers? No. Does any previous philosopher agreement/disagreement of information affect validity of information? No.
Your question is irrelevant.
These are facts:
1. If all philosophers in history agree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the information.
2. If all philosophers in history disagree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the inforamtion.
Is anybody discussing any previous philosophers? No. Does any previous philosopher agreement/disagreement of information affect validity of information? No.
question is not irrelevent.
Philosophers facts about that they do disagree with you is pretty straightforward.
But, I guess you'd say that you want SOMEBODY to help you with your theory because it IS THAT ABSURD.
I would guess, you want to state your rules and have everybody wondering exactly how they're wrong.
Am I wrong?
lixluke
12-19-08, 05:49 PM
question is not irrelevent.
Philosophers facts about that they do disagree with you is pretty straightforward.
But, I guess you'd say that you want SOMEBODY to help you with your theory because it IS THAT ABSURD.
I would guess, you want to state your rules and have everybody wondering exactly how they're wrong.
Am I wrong?
I was willing to participate in a legitimate discussion you were the one that conveted it into a flame war. So go flame yourself because I'm not interested in ad hominem or ad populum nonsense.
Ok. Well that's what the whole rest of this forum is to you.
Trying to arrive with a point with you is like trying to reason with a retarted baby.
Fraggle Rocker
12-19-08, 06:48 PM
Ok. Well that's what the whole rest of this forum is to you. Trying to arrive with a point with you is like trying to reason with a retarted baby.* * * * MODERATOR'S NOTE * * * *
Personal insults are a violation of the SciForums rules. I realize the definition of "personal insult" is a little subjective, but this clearly crosses the line. If you want to criticize another member's style of argument or discussion, please cite an example of what you're objecting to. If your criticism is valid, then that shouldn't be difficult, should it?
Guess not.
But my little discussion has a point-
Sorry yo.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.