Impeach Xev?

[Hoth]

WANDERER - Nice to see you haven't changed a bit. Interesting how you project me into such a larger-than-life role in your personal world, as though I'm somehow controlling your whole life. Apparently the concept of me is haunting you somehow despite of my lack of interest in doing so. I suppose your insecurities aren't my concern, but I nevertheless apologize for the anguish you are enduring. I guess the main issue must be that you feel I wounded your "he who shouts the loudest gets some odd sort of prize" life philosophy which you've no doubt expanded upon in your deeply insightful and popular books which I'm sure you are about to note are available on amazon... so to help repair my damage to your psyche I will reassure you that if you shout just a bit louder that'll solve everything and force the universe to conform to the way you like to convince yourself it is. You are a powerful wolf, I am sheep, I cringe before your vengance. There, are you feeling at least a little less intimidated? Well, we can work on this more later.

By the way, seeing as how I have 380 posts and was at this site more than two years ago, I'm afraid the infection probably already set in before you came here. You ought to be well aware of this, considering it was me who emailed you a link to sciforums when I banned you, suggesting that you would enjoy posting here (that's ok, you can thank me later ). Anyhow, be careful and check with your doctor, you may have contracted the infection already as it's been known to lie dormant for years before symptoms show up. One day, you may wake up and without any warning find youself arguing points based on their merit rather than pure emotion... would be a sad day indeed.

 

[WANDERER]

Hoth
You pathetic fat pig.
Thanks for this link; I appreciate it.
How’s that boring shit-hole of yours.
Still haven’t banned every ounce of interest out of it I hope.
Still posting the usual tripe and reassessing the work of past thinkers with no effort of your own?
Still stuck in that hole of yours while the sun shines outside?
You could never turn theory into practice.
I bet you think you are living in a Democracy, still controlled by that primitive nationalism and pretending you are an intellectual.
If the ‘truth’ hurts you then kill yourself. Distracting yourself from your pathetic life by pretending you are thinking when you are simply going over what others have said before and what they meant by it, is not enough.

WANDERER - Nice to see you haven't changed a bit. Interesting how you project me into such a larger-than-life role in your personal world, as though I'm somehow controlling your whole life. Apparently the concept of me is haunting you somehow despite of my lack of interest in doing so. I suppose your insecurities aren't my concern, but I nevertheless apologize for the anguish you are enduring.

Yea, you are the center of my universe, fatso.
So knowledgeable but you can’t quit use that knowledge to lose some weight, can you?
Why is that?
All theory and no application, I suspect. All thought and no action.

I guess the main issue must be that you feel I wounded your "he who shouts the loudest gets some odd sort of prize" life philosophy which you've no doubt expanded upon in your deeply insightful and popular books which I'm sure you are about to note are available on amazon... so to help repair my damage to your psyche I will reassure you that if you shout just a bit louder that'll solve everything and force the universe to conform to the way you like to convince yourself it is.

Who’s shouting idiot? I assure you I am very calm and collected.
What’s the matter couldn’t handle the implications of my ‘What about Bob?’ thread on your life?
Sorry there are two types of people: 1-Those that take criticism and are motivated by it 2-Those that take criticism and try to hide or distance themselves from it.

Guess which one you are.
You American twit.

Anyhow, be careful and check with your doctor, you may have contracted the infection already as it's been known to lie dormant for years before symptoms show up. One day, you may wake up and without any warning find youself arguing points based on their merit rather than pure emotion... would be a sad day indeed.

My doctor is dead. I killed him.

“Pure emotion”?
The feigned aloofness of those that know nothing but try to pretend they do because they are calm and soft speaking.
Acting civilized does not mean you know what you are saying. It only means you’ve succumbed to social norms.
Passion is how things are done.
You go on and sit on that large chair of yours, the one your ass has perfectly moulded into its shape, and act all distant and cold and “logical”.
Philosophy is lived, not only talked about with the indifference of the non-affected.
Philosophy is passion and art. Learn something from the Greeks, you fat fuck.
Now go off to your home and start a thread about free-will or something, while your Will lies dormant and atrophying between your plump ass-cheeks.
A true example of sophistry you are, all knowledge and information with no personal commitment.
What a moron.

 

[BMW-Guy]

No offense, Wanderer, but if this is How you treated Hoth before you were banned, I can see why Hoth did ban you.

Be nice, please..........

 

[ElectricFetus]

Here WANDERER take a smily: steal from his site, steal a tiny near microscopic bit of his bandwidth.

Seriously, short of hacking its all you can do to him.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34969

 

[Hoth]

No, WANDERER can do many terrible things, for he is wolf and I am Bob.

all knowledge and information with no personal commitment

Thank you. Most people seem to disagree, particularly when I'm bashing dualists (and the physicalists and idealists who are closet dualists), but I'm glad you find me so knowledgable and unbiased.

Now, if only you had any actual philosophy to focus your passion on instead of a bunch of weak-minded immitations of Plato and Nietzche and political junk, you'd be more interesting.

 

[Xev]

Wande:
"Now, if only you had any actual philosophy to focus your passion on instead of a bunch of weak-minded immitations of Plato and Nietzche and political junk, you'd be more interesting."

This is from a man whose board consists of Christians and idiots who felt that reading Jasper's book on Kant qualifies them as transcendentialists.

 

[Hoth]

Christians almost always stay confined to the religion forum, and if you were to compare the amount of reading of primary sources in philosophy there with here, I don't think sciforums would come out too well... as WANDERER already implied himself. Of course this is mostly just because sciforums is primarily a science site, not a philosophy site... but most people here seem to have just read Nietzche and that's about it, certainly haven't noticed any professors here. And Nietzche of course is popular because he's easy to read and tries to make things sound exciting and meaningful, yet he lacks any depth, is quite unoriginal and added nothing much to philosophy. He simply regurgitated old philosophy in a new made-for-TV format for those with who have short attention spans and want things to appear exciting. All bark and no bite, much like WANDERER.

Anyhow, suffice it to say I haven't heard of this Jasper person, have read plenty of Kant, but would not call myself a transcendetalist because that word tends to be associated with pseudophilosphical misconceptions.

 

[Xev]

Naw, most of our members have read quotes from Nietzsche and find others via google. As for whether he "adds things" to philosophy, fuck off. Philosophy itself is not a difficult practice - the rigor of it trips most people off and they just turn into Randians. If it doesn't, peice of cake.

Science envy, Mr. Paul? You know the physicists do epistemology better than philosophers ever could.

Jaspers. He wrote what I'm told is an excellent intro to Kant.
Wanderer is probably right about you being an asshole, if you have read lots of Immanuel's works. Kantiens tend to be closet christians, drawn by the unsubstantiated bullshit on morals.

Pardon. You posted something on over-socialization once that I liked so no need to use dirty words. You just on occasion - reek of humanism.
What would be the point of trying to find meaningful debate on the 'net anyway? You want meaningful conversation, talk about Polyani over a couple of beers with a friend. Forums are for entertainment, compensation for not having a tv.

 

[Hoth]

Suffice it to say that I'm anti-Kantian on ethics. I just don't take the irrational step of throwing out Kant's metaphysics simply because like so many others he turned ethics into sophistry aimed at the attempt of claiming that ethics is "objective". That claim of objectivity of course boils down to people trying to say "the universe commands you to obey my ethics" and is hence popular though unfounded.

What would be the point of trying to find meaningful debate on the 'net anyway? You want meaningful conversation, talk about Polyani over a couple of beers with a friend.

What you're suggesting requires too much socialization.

Science envy, Mr. Paul? You know the physicists do epistemology better than philosophers ever could.

Being a coherentist with strong sympathies for Neurath, and considering my favorite philosopher was acutally a physicist (Eddington), I couldn't disagree with that.

 

[Xev]

Hoth:
" I just don't take the irrational step of throwing out Kant's metaphysics simply because like so many others he turned ethics into sophistry aimed at the attempt of claiming that ethics is "objective"."

Danka. Actually that turned me off to Kant for years - rebutting his proof of the existence of god for Christians made me figure him to be an idiot.
That said, his metaphysics and his episimological systems are brilliant, even if a bit limited by his science.

"What you're suggesting requires too much socialization."

Yes, it does until you stumble upon a person or two like that.
Or are you one who finds close human contact to be intolerable under any circumstances? I actually enjoy it, once I'm intimate enough with a person and the social nuances don't matter.

The internet is a form of socializing just as well - it's simply incredibly more tolerable than going out and about.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

and if you were to compare the amount of reading of primary sources in philosophy there with here, I don't think sciforums would come out too well...

I think thats exactly the problem.
Anyone can read philosophy but can anyone at your forums come up with an original idea or ask an original question?
Reading philosophy and philosophy should be considered different subjects.
Isn't philosophy at its essence thinking about existence? Reading other peoples ideas is not even beginning to breach the subject of philosophy. Its actually contradicting the point of philosophy. Philosophy being a school subject is also contradicting the point of philosophy, learning 'how to think like this' is what i would call being sculpted by someone else.
I think once someone has established their own take on existence, then and only then should they start reading the 'takes' of others, out of curiousity.
I think philosophy rolls better off facts than it does off other's philosophies.
If you're not interested in trying to understand yourself then by all means read a tonne of philosophy and select the ideas you like most.
But you couldn't be classed as even an amateurish dumb ass philosopher if that's the route you opt for.
I'm proud to say I am an amateurish dumb ass philosopher. Never taken a class on philosophy or read a book on philosophy. I'm still not entirely sure what philosophy means and I rarely if ever use words that end in 'ist'

 

[thefountainhed]

Kantiens tend to be closet christians, drawn by the unsubstantiated bullshit on morals.

You really like to throw that bloody word, Christians, around a lot, don't you? Reading and respecting Kant, or even sharing in some of his beliefs does not make you "Christian"-- I wonder what the insane fool you so admire would think of your constant abuse of his views. I think it is quite simply that you cannot understand Kant and therefore cannot appreciate Kant, for on every mention of his name, you seem quick to attack. You epitomize the problem with intellectuals like Allen, and morons like Dave: you study the author and what he said or might have said, or you study what the author wrote about the author and what he might have said... Originality in thought has been replaced by the constant parading of an act.

 

[lixluke]

Racists are idiots.
Although there are racists with in every ethnic group, it seems the majority of the white people I have come in contact with are severely racist.
To them, there's nothing wrong with it.
They believe that you can account for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.


It's a serious problem that faces society because it's such a normal thing for them. Anybody that feels that way should be turned into the person they feel most inferior, and see what it is like to be seen as an inferior when it is something you are really not.

Racism attempts to separate the qualities of individuals who in reality are the same. Instead of referring to a person as part of 'us', a person is referred to as 'them'.
Them is us. Us is them. You racists only discriminate against your own kind.


Needless to say, I am not voting on this poll until I get bribed. I'd like to know what's in it for me in order to make the best choice. Capitalize by any means necessary. Capitalism at it's finest.

 

[ElectricFetus]

People your discussion is mot!!! The quorum has already been passed!

 

[spuriousmonkey]

People your discussion is mot!!! The quorum has already been passed!

But what is the result?

Are we counting the last two categories as separate? Or do we throw them on one heap?

who won?

who lost?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

The last 2 categories are the same 'do not impeach'.
Wcf could have made it fairer by only having 2 or having 4 with 2 for each.... but what do i care really?
Xev only called me a nigga once, and she spelt it nigga and not nigger so ofcourse I was not offended.

 

[Yes]

Yes Xev is not worthy of being a moderator (impeach Xex)
Yes Xev is a wacko, but still a OK moderator (Do no impeach Xev)
No Xev is alright as a person and moderator (Do not impeach Xev)

So these are the options. Now, why is number two there at all? It's a simple yes or no question to begin with, not a " How do you perceive Xev's personality-poll".
Why are there two "do not impeach Xev" option, but only one "impeach Xev" ? And furthermore, number two starts with the word "yes".
This poll is constructed with the intention to make people vote "do not impeach Xev", right? And those who do not pay attention to details, falls right into the trap.
Just wanted to focus your attention on this.
Bye.

 

[lixluke]

The problem is, that you are asking to impeach somebody without a replacement.
Nobody has propsed a replacement.
Somebody has to do the moderating.
If there is nobody else, we have no choice but to let the racist do it.
See?


If anybody wishes to moderate the forum including Xevy, the racist, I am accepting bribes.

 

[Persol]

You don't necessarily need a replacement when you impeach someone.

 

[Rappaccini]

The Philosophy subforum isn't so bad, anyhow.