Howard

Sophie, I have to say that I really admire your perseverance in the face of multiple challengers. And while I cannot say that I completely understand your position, I have to respect anyone who can confuse the hell out of so many people.

Just to throw a little gasoline on the fire, what are your thoughts on free will in relation to omniGod?

Doctor X

I dismissed fallacies. Should the individual offer an actual argument I shall consider it. Nevertheless, that was an argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam


If the individual wishes to concentrate upon fantasy and base her conception of the world on it and fallacious reasoning she is, of course, free to that delusion. It would prove most considerate not to waste the time of others with it.

The case exists. Theories must account for it. Period.

If an unkind man, I could call that an argumentum ad ignorantium since the individual pretends to know of assumptions that require further analysis.

Pity she cannot actually do that.

On the contrary, the Case is the Case and it is real in all of its disturbing glory. The rest follows.

My ability to recognize these "arguments" as fallacious at best and purposefully obfuscatory at worse indicates that I rather read them all too well.

The Five Choices [™--Ed.] are conclusions. You have merely indicated your preference for two of them. This is your right, and you may even try to argue for the predominance of one over the other; however, that remains a secondary argument.

Another may argue that the conclusion Evil is more likely.

Wanting a child to suffer under such extreme circumstances for such a duration rather meets objective criteria for "evil." Devising a "plan" that requires such rather meets the criteria for "incompetent"--a mere mortal can comprise a "better plan."

This ipse dixit represents the literal variation of running about the playroom with phalanges firmly embedded in the external auditory meatii whilst shreiking, "LA!LA!LA!LA!LA!" The choices result from the case. Period.

Now one may feel no basis exists for preference of one choice over the other, but that remains a separate argument.

Quite possible, though another may argue for existence and Evil. Decision between the Five Choices [™--Ed.] represents another arguement.

I have no need to waste time qualifying something that Does Not Exist, is Evil, is Incompetent, is Irrelevant, or is some combination of the final three.

--J.D.

sophie

winstonjen : Has it ever crossed your mind that you may have completely missed the point. Now you are complaining there is no point. The mere fact of using the term 'dial a ...' indicates to me you must have comprehended in some small fashion, the idea 'dial a perfect experience'. Correct me if I am wrong, but you cannot correct me if you cannot base your answers on simple understanding.

This is so obviously misinformed. This is some combination of armchair warring, corridor haunting and blind delusions. How on earth did you arrive at this conclusion? Did your government tell you?

sophie

Howard : Absolute free will denies free will. Free will exists until it is denied. When free will is denied omniGOD is exercising free will.

I hope this confuses you even more. yeh.

sophie

Docter X : You make me smirk at your decision making processes. Only Docter X decides whether I have offered an actual argument. Is this the same Docter X, who can offer objective crieteria for omniGOD's disappearance, but it is the same Docter X who cannot offer objective rationale for dismissing another's valid argument. I find this rather subjective. However Docter X, will find it objective. yeh. Conclusion : you must be a bible thumper. yeh.

What the fuck is this in plain language. I can write French but do you read me writing, 'argumentation trot cue'? no, because I live in civil society, where logical arguments can be questioned at their premising understandings. But you write this strange composite to deny the use of sophisticated (sophie's) arguments. yeh.

sophie

Docter X : More subjective premising. Can you not find an objective interdiction to delay my thrust for eventual success? Something other that that which rests in your mind. Something I can get my hungry jaws into except dismissal.

sophie

Docter X : As I mentioned before, the choices are subjective and completely tied to the scope of your intellect. You dismissed it as [™--Ed.] You missed lazy , you missed .eternal sleep, .you missed what you missed by design or by incomptence. yeh.

Not the way I have argued my case and the manner you have subjectively presented the five choices. yeh.

sophie

Docter X : period. yeh. Every twenty-eight days we can change positions. yeh.

sophie

sophie : yeh.

The above is an excerpt from a work in progress. yeh.

Doctor X

"Lazy" would render one Incompetent. "Eternal sleep" would render one Irrelevant.

Quod erat demonstrandum times eight, methinks.

Poisoning the Well in the attempt to render reality "subjective." Nevertheless, as noted about, if one wishes to argue for the priority of one or more choices over another, it is another argument entirely. Furthermore, the individual did not really argue against Evil; she merely tried to dismiss it by declaring her choices as the only "logical" ones.

If I were not a gentleman I would suggest that a change in position more frequently will maintain a relationship better.

As for the rest of the quotes they do not come from me and are, therefore, not relevant.

--J.D.