Honest Help

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 12:50am

Strate_Egg wrote:OHHHh and ( Stupid_egg is creative for an Empiricist ) PS this comes from a man who calls a genius "a fucking idiot." Yea, you MIGHT be able to say that when you become that famous and world-wide studied.

I can say that because I know it's rational to conclude that I need food in order to survive, dumb-ass. You still demonstrate that you don't know what's wrong with the appeal to authority. And your long-winded arguments still rely almost entirely on attacking the source, and ignoring his points.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 12:59am

Strate_Egg wrote:Whatever. You people are mindless drones of Wongism. ANyone with a different opinion whom you CANNOT prove wrong, you discredit lol. It is pathetic.

I don't need to prove 0=0 wrong in order to show that it is trivial and useless, dumb-ass. Same situation here.

Whether i am a kid, or 90 years old, it makes no difference.

Strawman fallacy. No one refuted your argument based on your age.

SKepticism has many points of view. Hmmmm and as for the claim that i read one article and make conclusions, you are an idiot to assume such a thing.

The alternative is that you have carefully read everything and decided upon the trivial solution as the best one, which would mean that you're stupid rather than ignorant.

I understand this fully Mr. Wong. OF COURSE it can go too far THAT IS the beauty of Skepticism in making other methodologies uncertain. That is its job. IT is supposed to be the antagonist. People are always ignoring when i say "YOU CAN get through life without knowning certain if something is true, or if it represents reality." The idea is that it could be false. There are a multitude of very good reasons why. SOME are stupid, SOME are far-fetched, yes.

I see you've gone right back to your idiotic claim that anything less than perfect certainty is not real "knowledge", hence useless. I would say "black/white fallacy" again, but you don't think that black/white is a fallacy

PS, its not my brand, its a mix between universal and limited skepticism. I dont belive that Empirical or Rational thought can lead to an understanding of an external reality to the mind.

So you believe there is no real universe; it's all in your head. Wonderful theory

A solypsist denies the concept of evidence

Damn man, the ONLY thing i am denying is certainty of knowledge of reality.

No, you are denying that empiricism gives any knowledge AT ALL; read your own posts.

The empiricists say their evidence conforms to reality, so do those that follow Berkely, so do those that follow Plato. All Empiricism does is tell you what your subjective senses tell you, that is it.

And what objective measuring instruments tell us, etc. Unless, of course, it's all a giant hoax (see the logical principle of parsimony) or a product of your own mind (which begs the question of why it's more consistent than you are).

Skepticism lists a fucking plethora of reasons why Empiricism and rationalism CANNOT express reality, therefore it is not factual, therefore...i didnt fucking do jack-shit to the definition.

The fact that people call it skepticism does not mean anything more than the name given to Rand's objectivism.

Also kid...KNowledge is a true, justified belief based on fact or reality. SINCE NEITHER empiricism NOR Rationalism can provide PROOF of fact to reality, SKeptics 1: others 0.

Actually, you just lost (see bolded section). It is a fact that the observable universe has certain characteristics. Whether the observable universe is "reality" (a concept which you cannot define satisfactorily) is irrelevant; the fact remains that these are the characteristics of the entity known as the observable universe, ergo they are facts, ergo empiricism gives us knowledge while solypsism does not.

I am only using the Definition of KNowlecge, truth, and support from some of the worlds BEST philosophers. What are you using? OH Yea, a false claim that i distorted the defintion of truth and knowledge. Blow me. At least look up defintions before you speak.

Speak for yourself, dumb-ass.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:00am

Strawman fallacy. No one refuted your argument based on your age.

NO they only bring it up every 4 seconds

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:01am

Strate_Egg wrote:
Strawman fallacy. No one refuted your argument based on your age.

NO they only bring it up every 4 seconds

It is your obvious lack of experience which they bring up every 4 seconds, and deservedly so. If you managed to make it to an advanced age while retaining such pitiful skills, that would only be worse.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:04am

Wow, you people are ignorant. NOT ONLY do you say fALSLY that i distort the defintions of truth and knowledge, you lie on top of it lol.

I AM THE ONLY ONE that is using the accepted defintions in philosophy. YOU, are using WOngisms because you have no brain and you let Wong lead you around by the nose and make your decisions. OHHHH and as for the appeal to authority.....hmmm that kinda goes along with PROVING and DEMONSTRATING my claim that skepticism is the best methodolgoy for comparism DUMB ASS.

1. Look up definitions before you speak to me.
2. STop using Wongism backgrounds
3 Try and not use personal attacks every 3.3 seconds
4 PROVE that according to the RULES of philosophical debate that SKepticsm does NOT discreted Empiricism. THis would mean that you cant Wongism the words KNOWLEGE, and TRUTH. AND at least try to use the right word "solipsism.'"

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:05am

Only an idiot would go off and use words he cant even define.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:05am

Rather than use the fallacious ad-hominem tactic of declaring everything I say to be a "Wongism" and therefore wrong by default, please answer the points raised in my posts to you.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-10-20 01:06am

Strate_Egg wrote:Whatever. You people are mindless drones of Wongism.

*picks up phone*

Yeah, exterminators? We got another one of those trolls.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:06am

Strate_Egg wrote:Only an idiot would go off and use words he cant even define.

Only a bigger idiot would provide a definition which disproves his own point and then scream at his opponent for using it against him.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:07am

it is more like your ignorance and stubborn Empiricist masturbation tactics that ignore the POINT of skepticism. But then again, that is why the philosophies are still studied. THere are idiot Empiricists and Rationalists born every day who think they are the ultimate ones that "know reality." Thats pathetic bullshit and you know it. YOU LIE, you distort, AND you dont know jack-shit. YOu try to make it "sound" as if you have separate minds, but you are all just wong clones.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:08am

Isn't it amazing how he refuses to address the point made several posts ago in which his own definition of knowledge was used to disprove his claim, and simply flames and trolls instead?

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:08am

NO, my definition does NOT disprove me.

i dont wanna paste the defintions again. A someone said i am a solipsist, which i am not.
B someone ill-defined Knowledge and Truth

I addressed it, proved his definition WRONG. SUbject still fails to recognize it.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:08am

Isn't it amazing how he refuses to address the point made several posts ago in which his own definition of knowledge was used to disprove his claim

I am not seeing this, point it out or at least tell me what post.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:09am

Strate_Egg wrote:Wow, you people are ignorant. NOT ONLY do you say fALSLY that i distort the defintions of truth and knowledge, you lie on top of it lol.

I AM THE ONLY ONE that is using the accepted defintions in philosophy. YOU, are using WOngisms because you have no brain and you let Wong lead you around by the nose and make your decisions. OHHHH and as for the appeal to authority.....hmmm that kinda goes along with PROVING and DEMONSTRATING my claim that skepticism is the best methodolgoy for comparism DUMB ASS.

1. Look up definitions before you speak to me.

Learn more philosophy than Sophism 101 before trying to debate it here, child.

2. STop using Wongism backgrounds

Stop using fallacies to divert attention away from your atrocious lack of knowledge on even such a simple matter as philosophy.

3 Try and not use personal attacks every 3.3 seconds

Try to obey this stipulation yourself, child.

4 PROVE that according to the RULES of philosophical debate that SKepticsm does NOT discreted Empiricism. THis would mean that you cant Wongism the words KNOWLEGE, and TRUTH. AND at least try to use the right word "solipsism.'"

1) Learn to spell if you're going to try and act superior. Acting superior and demonstrating the grasp of language of a thirteen year old cracker/script kiddie is the ultimate in offensive irony.
2) Realize that your Sophism is the most useless philosophical invention since the fart.
3) Think up something more insightful than 'WONGISM! YOU ARE WONGISMING YOU ARE WRONG'. It's tiresome and trite. Look up those big words if you must.
4) Actually learn to debate.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:09am

Notice how he does not quote the argument or address it directly; he just declares his own victory and continues to flame.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:09am

As i recollect, i defined it CORRECTLY because SOMEONE ELSE used it improperly to accuse me.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:10am

Maybe i defined it in the Archimedes unit: ILl brb and see if that is what i did. I go back and forth, sorry if i did.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-10-20 01:10am

Strate_Egg wrote:YOU LIE, you distort, AND you dont know jack-shit.

I'm no psychologist, but I can diagnose a case of projection when I see it.

YOu try to make it "sound" as if you have separate minds, but you are all just wong clones.

So we're nothing more than mindless clones? Okay, I'll humor you.

Shut up, fucktard.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:10am

Strate_Egg wrote:As i recollect, i defined it CORRECTLY because SOMEONE ELSE used it improperly to accuse me.

Then your definition in which knowledge includes anything known to be factually true validates empiricism, which only describes attributes of the observable universe. The observable universe need not be "reality" in order to have attributes, dumb-ass.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:11am

Strate_Egg wrote:As i recollect, i defined it CORRECTLY because SOMEONE ELSE used it improperly to accuse me.

You gave the definition out of a dictionary and declared victory; this is not debating, this is acting like a six year old who didn't get his toy.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:12am

Let us review the definition he gave and my response, since he is studiously ignoring that exchange:

AdmiralKanos wrote:
Also kid...KNowledge is a true, justified belief based on fact or reality. SINCE NEITHER empiricism NOR Rationalism can provide PROOF of fact to reality, SKeptics 1: others 0.
Actually, you just lost (see bolded section). It is a fact that the observable universe has certain characteristics. Whether the observable universe is "reality" (a concept which you cannot define satisfactorily) is irrelevant; the fact remains that these are the characteristics of the entity known as the observable universe, ergo they are facts, ergo empiricism gives us knowledge while solypsism does not.

Hmmmm, do you think he'll ever address the point?