Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sophie · 07-31-2003, 07:55 AM

King Rat

Quote:

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

I hope this relieved some of your pressure.

Quote:

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.

With your lack of understanding I wonder if those words you write are in any way meaningful.

I did make some very very valid points, try to sift through the posts but read them with a clearer mind.

Quote:

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...

This is appropriate when faced with my arguments, abandon your position.

Quote:

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.

This seems quite dogmatic assertivness on your part. I am a free person. I can construct arguments which do not constrict my way of life. yeh.

Next time...

sophie · 07-31-2003, 08:01 AM

Docter X :

Quote:

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.

As I noted before my single friend, the irrelevance of omniGOD has placed individuality at an all time high. You were unable to refute the argument of individuality. When you did that on the first pages of this thread, you had already lost the argument and your 5 choices tumbled into non-existence. You do not wish to follow this good sense, so in the futhre you are markedly exempt from using this argument of individuality. yeh.

sophie · 07-31-2003, 08:03 AM

Docter X :

Quote:

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."

I suppose because you are wrapped up in your own inteligence, the body does not consist of the brain and mind.

Arrange your thoughts carefully before you make gargle out of your words.

sophie · 07-31-2003, 08:09 AM

scumble :

Quote:

I think an army of Straw Men were to blame

This quotation probably characterises your noblesse. To assign true blame all the information must be at hand.

I think it immature and premature to assign blame on a few confused premises which do not characterise the real situation, but eventually bases the conclusions on possibilities. I will re-iterate, possibility flies in the face of knowledge.

King Rat · 07-31-2003, 08:42 AM

Quote:

I did make some very very valid points, try to sift through the posts but read them with a clearer mind.

Throw me a bone then, where are these 'very very valid' points you made?

Quote:

This is appropriate when faced with my arguments, abandon your position.

Abandon all logic, ye who enter here...

Quote:

This seems quite dogmatic assertivness on your part. I am a free person. I can construct arguments which do not constrict my way of life. yeh.

I have yet to see an constructed argument yet. You are right though, your flexibility is certainly astounding.

Doctor X · 07-31-2003, 02:19 PM

Loki:

Did you expect a cordial welcome from <insult deleted - liv>?

Quote:

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

Of course, your succinct demonstration <insult deleted - liv> proved quite "relevant." Though it would be more entertaining if she could progress past ipse dixit, as in this reply to King Rat:

Quote:

I can construct arguments which do not constrict my way of life. yeh.

nor do they apparently exist for we have yet to see them.

Now, no one can think I enjoy this. However, much I detest it, I detest Liars more. Thus:

Quote:

As I noted . . . the irrelevance of [deity--Ed.] has placed individuality at an all time high.

Difficult to notice something that has never happened. Individuality remains irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote:

You were unable to refute the argument of individuality. When you did that on the first pages of this thread, . . .

Considering I had demonstrated the irrelevance of individuality to the argument this is a Lie

What follows is the <insult deleted - liv> failing to dismiss the Five Choices [Coming soon to a theater near you.--Ed.] based on this lie.

Having lost, having descent to lies, <insult deleted - liv> does not cease there. No. The <insult deleted - liv> blubbers more non sequitur and argumentum ad hominem hoping, apparently, to distract the Noble Readership from the argument:

Quote:

I suppose because you are wrapped up in your own inteligence, the body does not consist of the brain and mind.

Which, of course, does not address the evidence suggested, nor does this:

Quote:

Arrange your thoughts carefully before you make gargle out of your words.

which proves her a <insult deleted - liv> since she rather embodies this practice.

Scrumble, I am sure, can see the attempted fallacy the <insult deleted - liv> perpetrates here:

Quote:

. . . to assign blame on a few confused premises which do not characterise the real situation, . . .

Though the <insult deleted - liv> may wish to confuse us, the premise is is a real situation.

And that . . . is rather that. . . .

--J.D.

sophie · 07-31-2003, 02:33 PM

I wanted to let the good, kind and ultra rational Docter X, what is my opinion (ha ha) on suffering.

Suffering is one of those combination words when linked with top philosophy it entails nothing more than an inability to deal with present reality.

One can suffer through pain, one can suffer through loss, one can suffer through loneliness. The fab Docter X, has choosen suffering as part of the crieteria used to construct a logical argument whose conclusion appears as one of Docter X's 5 choices. Given the argument is well constructed, all the necessary conditions are well met, but the wise Docter X has neglected to take into consideration the scope of the argument.

Take for example a possible axiom of Docter X's brilliant work. Mama and Papa have passed away, doting son Ina Jam, has dedicated the last 15 years of his life caring for Mama and Papa (no he ain't Spanish). His sisters and brothers are so proud of Ina Jam, that they decide to let Ina Jam have the whole inheritance. However Ina Jam starts to suffer the loss of his dearly beloved parents, to whom he has become so so attatched, As the years pass on, Ina Jam becomes more and more morose due to more and more of his suffering. He misses his Papa's stories, and he longs for his mother's kind words about him.

By rote token, due to the prolonged suffering of Ina Jam, should the omniGOD not have let Papa and Mama live forever with Ina Jam fully well knowing Ina Jam would have the most peculiar of suffering ever imagined.

Therefore to acknowledge suffering in one case and not in the other really entails Docter X's arguments are tied to a very special case, and cannot be used to construe any proper conclusion BECAUSE there is a lack of real information concerning the special case AND to pin these conclusions of omniGOD based on this special case is tantamount to dishonesty. It therefore becomes an invalid argument, thrice over. yeh.

07-31-2003, 02:41 PM

I am very fond of Lewis Carroll's writing and would commend Humpty Dumpty to your attention.

Quote:

"Yes, all his horses and all his men," Humpty Dumpty went on. "They'd pick me up again in a minute, they would! However, this conversation is going on a little too fast: let's go back to the last remark but one."

"I'm afraid I can't quite remember it," Alice said very politely.

"In that case we start fresh," said Humpty Dumpty, "and it's my turn to choose a subject" (" He talks about it just as if it was a game!" thought Alice.) "So here's a question for you. How old did you say you were?"

Alice made a short calculation, and said, "Seven years and six months."

"Wrong!" Humpty Dumpty exclaimed triumphantly. "You never said a word like it!"

"I thought you meant 'How old are you? "Alice explained.

"If I'd meant that, I'd have said it," said Humpty Dumpty.

Alice didn't want to begin another argument, so she said nothing.

"Seven years and six months!" Humpty Dumpty repeated thoughtfully. "An uncomfortable sort of age. Now if you'd asked my advice, I'd have said, 'Leave off at seven' -- but it's too late now."

"I never ask advice about growing," Alice said indignantly.

"Too proud?" the other inquired.

Alice felt even more indignant at this suggestion. "I mean," she said, "that one can't help growing older."

"One can't, perhaps," said Humpty Dumpty, "but two can. With proper assistance, you might have left off at seven."

.....

"there are three hundred sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents -- "

"Certainly," said Alice.

"And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!"

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course yet I don't -- till I tell you. I meant ' there's a nice knockdown argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

from Chapter 6 of Through the Looking Glass

sophie · 07-31-2003, 02:42 PM

Docter X :

Quote:

Difficult to notice something that has never happened. Individuality remains irrelevant to the discussion.

As I noted before on the topic of Docter X's finer points of argumentation, when faced which his neglect to properly embed enough understanding into the logical construction, Docter X fancies his argumentation as beyond reproach and all possible bits of information which may shed more light on the case becomes irrelevant.

Bravo Docter X, bravo, you have taken the disposition of logical argumentation to an all time high, just barely above ground. Imagine I am only a novice at spotting logical loopholes. What's gonna become of you, I wonder when I grandly rise to expert.

Unless you refute my arguments without the use of dismissal, I find it rather pointless to address them.

Redeye yeh.

Amaranth · 07-31-2003, 03:03 PM

Quote:

As I noted before on the topic of Docter X's finer points of argumentation, when faced which his neglect to properly embed enough understanding into the logical construction, Docter X fancies his argumentation as beyond reproach and all possible bits of information which may shed more light on the case becomes irrelevant.

Humorous that you, of all people, would accuse the good Doctor of ipse dixit. Furthermore, it's ironic that your accusation itself is ipse dixit.

Quote:

Bravo Docter X, bravo, you have taken the disposition of logical argumentation to an all time high, just barely above ground.

:banghead:

Quote:

Imagine I am only a novice at spotting logical loopholes.

This is probably the easiest mental exercise I'll preform all week.

Quote:

What's gonna become of you, I wonder when I grandly rise to expert.

Ahh, the better question is "How will you word your apology when you discover what 'logical fallacies' are, dear Sophie?"

Quote:

Unless you refute my arguments without the use of dismissal, I find it rather pointless to address them.

There is a duck on the duchesses head.

Quote:

Redeye yeh.

I'd suggest using "bullseye" in the future. Redeye sounds like someone meaning to say pinkeye...or brown-eye. Ewww.

Amaranth

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2003, 02:33 PM	#157
sophie Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: On the road to extinction. . . Posts: 1,485	I wanted to let the good, kind and ultra rational Docter X, what is my opinion (ha ha) on suffering. Suffering is one of those combination words when linked with top philosophy it entails nothing more than an inability to deal with present reality. One can suffer through pain, one can suffer through loss, one can suffer through loneliness. The fab Docter X, has choosen suffering as part of the crieteria used to construct a logical argument whose conclusion appears as one of Docter X's 5 choices. Given the argument is well constructed, all the necessary conditions are well met, but the wise Docter X has neglected to take into consideration the scope of the argument. Take for example a possible axiom of Docter X's brilliant work. Mama and Papa have passed away, doting son Ina Jam, has dedicated the last 15 years of his life caring for Mama and Papa (no he ain't Spanish). His sisters and brothers are so proud of Ina Jam, that they decide to let Ina Jam have the whole inheritance. However Ina Jam starts to suffer the loss of his dearly beloved parents, to whom he has become so so attatched, As the years pass on, Ina Jam becomes more and more morose due to more and more of his suffering. He misses his Papa's stories, and he longs for his mother's kind words about him. By rote token, due to the prolonged suffering of Ina Jam, should the omniGOD not have let Papa and Mama live forever with Ina Jam fully well knowing Ina Jam would have the most peculiar of suffering ever imagined. Therefore to acknowledge suffering in one case and not in the other really entails Docter X's arguments are tied to a very special case, and cannot be used to construe any proper conclusion BECAUSE there is a lack of real information concerning the special case AND to pin these conclusions of omniGOD based on this special case is tantamount to dishonesty. It therefore becomes an invalid argument, thrice over. yeh.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.