Debate: lixluke interviews sisyphus__ about truth

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by Tnerb, Dec 18, 2008.

  1. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    80 posts max.
    lixluke and I only.
    Discussion is about arriving at some agreement of truth.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    Moderator note: posts by posters other than sisyphus__ and lixluke have been moved to the [thread=89129]Discussion thread[/thread] relating to this debate.
     
  8. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    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.
     
  9. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    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.
     
  10. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    So so sensitive are we.
    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?

    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.

    Entirely false. Please provide another logic other than the one we are presently abiding by .... For everyone who cares about you.

    [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."]

    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.

    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.
     
  11. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    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.
     
  12. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    You're the total joke luke.
    You are on ignore, and it is clear who is in the dark.
    Good day.
     
  13. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Yes it is clear. You.
     
  14. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    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."
     
  15. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Change of mind, you're off ignore.
     
  16. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Well,move around and say something.
     
  17. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    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.
     
  18. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    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?
     
  19. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    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.
     
  20. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    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.
     
  21. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    * * * * 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?
     
  22. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Guess not.
    But my little discussion has a point-
    Sorry yo.
     

Share This Page