Doctor X

No.

Amazing how we can save our selves so much time when we recognize the initial premise is false.

A passing concern with the anatomy of pain would correct this misconception.

Next. . . .

--J.D.

sophie

Doctor X : Perhaps if you stopped whining so much, faced the arguments face-to-face, stop using the excuse for English excuses, realise that possibility is in no way a substitute for real information you may actually learn something.


Then when I go on to claim pain is actually a warning sign that internal reality is distorted, you reply with a blithe no, then actually say you do not realise how badly you are failing to convince me of anything but your dogma. yeh. Your premises in your 5 choices cannot be argued and destroyed, or even reduced to rubble by reasons of your misconceptions, by reasons of failing to clearly address reality, but you can willfully do this with others.


Mabye you should try arguing with someone else. I find your methods of arguing quite childish.

finally : Think of what you just wrote. It is patent nonsense.

One hardly complains of pain if the body is working correctly. Oh I know you are from not(earth). yeh. If you cannot conclude this simple adjustment, you have no business arguing with me. you have no business claiming the things YOU CLAIM.

sophie

Docter X : resorting to childish behaviour will change nothing for me.




and more of it...
You sure are cracking. Il est en train de craquer sous pression vrai et formidable. Salut mon beau.

Doctor X

Unfortunately, despite exhortations, the individual refuses to flop about more vigorously in the barrel.

One should not mistake the recognition of a "flawless victory" as "whining."

The individual wishes to apply that which she does consistently to moi. I would reply that should she ever produce an argument rather than fallacious denial, I shall, indeed, "face it." The ease to which her fallacies are exposed, however, rather demonstrates the dishonesty in her claim.

Since the individual has yet to use an original fallacy, I doubt I shall learn anything new. Hope springs eternal, however.


Should the individual claim that the sun revolves around the earth, I am certain someone will succinctly reply "no."

"Can't help fools."--Sanjuro Yojimbo.

Further whining about the Five Choices follow which . . . Heavens to Betsy . . . do not actually address them. I will let the Readership entertain themselves by identifying the fallacies she uses.

I cannot argue with one that does not form an argument.

I am only as good as my material. Should the individual provide better material she might find her defeat more edifying.

Let us all say it together, shall we?!

Ipse dixit and wrong. She might as well complain that stating a passing familiarity with astronomy will demonstrate that the earth revolves around the sun is "patent nonsense."

Incidentally, pouring acid upon one's skin causes pain demonstrating an external source. Furthermore, people generally do not feel pain from an internal source until the pathology effects a somatic system--the rather vague discomfort--if any--of appendicitis until the inflamation reaches the sensitive abdominal cavity wall, for example.

Quod erat demonstrandum times . . . I have lost count. . . .

Really? One might wish to consider thalamic pain, phantom limb pain, and even psychosomatic pain. Now one can complain that "the body is not working correctly" in these cases; however, in the later cases it is a result of the body working the way it is "suppose to."

The individual then wallows in the gutter of argumentum ad hominem.

Next. . . .

--J.D.

DMB

I expect most people contributing to this thread can understand this, but in case there are non-French-speakers here, this says that "he" is in the process of cracking under real and formidable pressure. I think "he" is Doctor X.

Earlier in this thread, I recommended a book to sophie:Impostures intellectuelles.

It is also available in English.

I think anyone who has taken part in this thread might enjoy it. It explains quite a lot.

loki jref

Doctor X,

How ya doin' Doc! Glad to see the 5 choices (tm) are still as deadly as ever. Do you think Sophie even realises the size of the hole she's stumbled into? Nah, I guess not...

Don't hold your breath - she still doesn't seem to realise that there are only 5 choices.

Doctor X

Loki:

Ah! g'day!

This somehow got "obliterated" so I will try again.

Well, as I indicated in the beginning, I did not want to resort to it, but needs must.

Eventually, she fell on two choices: No Existence and Irrelevant. To have such a grand conception as an "OmniGOD" bottled into "irrelevance" at best and "non-existent" at worse must prove rather disappointing.

What to do after that?

--J.D.

King Rat

Um, stick your fingers in both ears and go "LALALALALALALALALA!" Loudly?

Sophist, you are far from a 'formidable' opponent. Try these English adjectives instead: baffling, obtuse, inscrutable, dithering, polemic, circular, revisionist, deceptive, Ptolemaic, illogical, and so on.

I was wrong about the fish in the barrel description as DMB was so kind to point out. I think a more apt description would be shooting water in a water barrel, pointless...

Sophist, until you choose from among Dr. X's big 5, or come up with a suitable refutation. Your own position bears a striking parallel to 3 , 4, and 5 of Dr.X's 5 choices.

sophie

loki jref : your first post and you seem so familiar with what is going down!

How about taking a real part in this affair and not being irrelevant to the partial discussion I am conducting.

scumble

I think an army of Straw Men were to blame