Is this a griefer or just a plain idoit?

[fuzzypanda109]

Hello,

Earlier today was relaxing on the Davinci Gardens sim when a guy on a dragon kept shooting fire on me. I observed that he did not do this action to anyone else on the SIM.

IF we were to compare this to real world attacking anyone would be termed as a violent act, so why not on SL?

Maybe there should be the option to not only block someone's voice/text but also their actions?

Kindly look into this individual, I don't know if he will be dumb enough (or troll) again to try this on me using another avatar. I have had previous incident in the past being "caged".

I tried talking to him in messages, asking why he was doing this but he didn't respond.

The avatar's name is now edited due to violation of said terms.

 

I hope this is considered as a serious matter, sometimes what may be fun trolling by sick-minded persons are actually annoying to peaceful residents.

 

Thank you!

Edited September 19, 2017 by fuzzypanda109

[Pamela Galli]

6 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Alternatively, find something useful to do instead of philosophy.
 

For me, all the most interesting and important questions involve something like philosophy. "What is truth?" Is one of them. I would regret going through life without at least asking the big questions. 

[Callum Meriman]

9 hours ago, Klytyna said:

We're talking circa 600 bce

Yes, you are right. In 600 bce it's fully plausible -- over the middle kingdom, where I was thinking.

Pharoh Neko II (Awesome name mewwwww) 610-595bce built the canal linking the Nile to the Red Sea, and crewed his ships with Phoenicians. They explored the west coast or more. Those ships could have done it. 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

On 9/24/2017 at 12:19 AM, Madelaine McMasters said:

Wow, I don't think anyone has ever used "intellectual" and "honest" when speaking of me. You're probably wrong.

Yeah, we use those terms for Snugs... 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

On 9/19/2017 at 12:41 PM, fuzzypanda109 said:

Grow a thicker skin? Let's just go with this a little further, supposedly someone were to rape you on SL, would you grow a thicker skin and laugh it off because it's not actually rape.

Actually, you cant be raped in SL unless you agree to it. If you don't jump on the poseballs, nothing happens. 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

On 9/19/2017 at 12:53 PM, fuzzypanda109 said:

You should be banned if you think that setting people on fire makes you happy. Thanks again for the link to the Community Standards' rules that I wasn't aware about. It has been removed. I don't think in the real world you should ignore violent acts so similarly in the virtual world it's the same. The people who push for such agendas that make the virtual world violent, in forms of intimidation and bullying are the ones that worry me. But you know how it goes, "those who make the rules, win the game".

I don't think that my inability to perfectly use spellcheck undermines the points raised in my posts.

Enjoy the superpower!

Please, do not EVER go to my inworld store and go in the dungeon... The RLV monsters down their would turn your hair white. 

[Klytyna]

8 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

I suspect you are unaware that on a somewhat tangible level philosophy lead directly to science and the scientific method.

ONE Philosopher from ONE school of Philosoiphy, the Epicureans, came within spitting distance of "Scientific Method"...

ONE...

And he failed to make the final step.

8 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

The logic coming from and developed in philosophy is the same logic used in math and science.

Funny, I could have sworn that so called Logic, that fraudulently claims 'victory' in academic debate classes because an opponent said "X is wrong because its originator was an insane lunatic wo knew nothing about the subject" while screaming "ad hominem ad hominem we win". Science... Science would examine the statement and see if it was in fact FACTUAl, and if it proved to be FACTUAL, wou8ld accept the argument, despite it being an 'Ad Hominem'.

The Brand of 'Logic' taught in philosophy courses, bears little relationship to reality, or science, or math.

Claiming that the statement "The suggestion that 2 + 2 equals 5  by Billybob Nomates is wrong because Billybob is an illiterate idiot" is 'automatically false because Wiki Rules of Logic - Ad Hominem' is not something you'd find in Science, Math, Engineering, Accountancy, etc. 

8 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Here you once again ignore or miss the point I have been making. What you call the philosophical gibberish is talking about the varied subjects people have named Truth. None are debating the meaning/definition of truth or Truth.

Wrong, learn to read ENGLISH, take that 'Consensus' gibberish, the idea that 'Truth' is defined as "something a group of people might come to believe in the future" has exactly NOTHING to do with facts or what is factual or has a boolean value of 'true'. NOTHING.

8 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Sumerian being the oldest

8 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

As best I can tell there is no proof languages of 3,000 BCE were primitive, just different. Anything older is speculation and opinion.

Sumerian and Egyptian are pretty much tied for "First use of writing" and your 3000 bce date is a bit late. In addition, nobody said these languages were primitive, although they do have much smaller and simpler vocabularies than more modern languages. We KNOW for a fact that the Egyptians shifted their WRITING system from pictograms to ideograms, to phonograms, and thus the symbol for the Sun, became the root symbol for day, daytime, even time it's self.

We also know they experienced some ambiguity over the meanings of written words, of a more abstract nature, partly due to the inherent difficulties with abstracts, and partly from their syntactic structure, based as it was on consonantal stems with varied meanings implied by context and the inserted vowels, the development of determinative glyphs appended to words being part of their solution.

8 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Ethics and morals are derivatives of philosophy.

I suspect most of the priests of most of the religions that have plagued this planet over the last few thousand years, would disagree that 'morals' are a derivative of wealthy land owning country squires, sitting in the Agora swilling wine all day while talking pretentious crap at each other.

8 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Law is the enshrined result of philosophy.

And that statement is even funnier, and even more fraudulent.

8 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Perhaps if you understood it philosophy better you could present a better argument for your viewpoint

Philosophy began as a way for wealthy landowners to pass the time, pretending that inheriting land from Daddy made them 'more intelligent' than people who had to work for a living...

Go read Aristotle's "The Politics" and see what he thinks of 'employed people' trying to think 'deep thoughts' about politics...

Today... Philosophy is a variation of the "Anthropic Principle".

As in the belief that the Universe exists simply to justify the creation of tenure in academic liberal arts faculties, for professors of philosophy, so they can enjoy a comfortable living with no heavy lifting involved, no more, no less.

 
 

[chardonay Babii]

The  solution for idiots-

Step 1- https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/gKill-Combat-System/2378099

Step 2- Use it. 

Step 3- Enjoy the show. 

Step 4 - Block if required. 

Step 5- Relax..

 

Edited September 26, 2017 by chardonay Babii

[Klytyna]

7 hours ago, Pamela Galli said:

I would regret going through life without at least asking the big questions

Big questions... Most 'Big Questions' are either not really worth asking or can be dealt with in a matter of less than a minute.

Q: Is there a God?

A: Who cares, if She exists, She's done such a good job of hiding from everyone that She might as well not exist, so who gives a rat's backside.

Q: What is the Meaning of Life?

A: Who told you there WAS one and what evidence did they have for the claim?

Q: What is Truth?

A: Take the Door step Challenge, try new improved Facts (tm) for 2 weeks, and if not completely satisfied, we'll give you TWO of your old brand of worthless philoso-fail BS in exchange!

...

To be perfectly honest, I've always found the 'small' questions far more interesting...

Was there a 'Helen of Sparta'?

What did Henry  Vth really say to the troops before the Battle of Agincourt?

Why did Egyptian farmers volunteer to spend their holidays building the Great Mer of Khufu?

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

16 hours ago, Pamela Galli said:

For me, all the most interesting and important questions involve something like philosophy. "What is truth?" Is one of them. I would regret going through life without at least asking the big questions. 

I think I'm fairly curious, but I haven't a lot of interest in questions that ultimately seem to boil down to what other people think. "Truth", in the way philosophers and theologians often consider it, seems just that. I was not the teacher's pet in the philosophy and theology courses I had to take in college, sometimes because I questioned the professor's authority to speak on a topic while completely unaware of his internal biases, perceptual errors, and maladapted reasoning skills (all of which were annoyingly evident to me at times). When I see consensus I'm generally critical of it. Thank goodness I'm a loner.

It may be hubris on my part, but I have a hard time placing great faith in ancient philosophers (or even more so, modern ones) who plumb the depths of human thought while completely unaware of the underlying neuroscience that shows just how flawed our thinking actually is. They got some things very right and some things very wrong, as do the people in the meditation classes at my local health club. We will, of course, remember what was got right, as we do with Nostradamus.

I am fascinated by those who think about thinking with one foot firmly planted in cognitive and behavioral neuroscience, yet there are non neuroscientists who's thinking about thinking I find appealing, for widely varying reasons. Among them are Dad, Richard Feynman, Mark Twain, Benjamin Franklin and Irma Bombeck. And, although I only know them from a Louie Schwartzberg short film, I'm rather fond of a little blonde girl (I'm blonde!) and an old man, Brother David Steindl-Rast (I hope to get old!). Here's Louie introducing that short film, I've linked this before and I'm sure I'll link it again...

I think there's some Truth in there. Do you see it, Pam? Klytyna? Nalates?

I have no reason to think I've got a handle on the Truth, yet it sure feels like I know it when I see it. And so I've learned to enjoy skepticism in my own beliefs and to appreciate conversation with others who do as well.

;-).

Edited September 26, 2017 by Madelaine McMasters
Misspelled Nostradamus. He probably saw that coming.

[Rolig Loon]

5 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I have no reason to think I've got a handle on the Truth, yet it sure feels like I know it when I see it. And so I've learned to enjoy skepticism in my own beliefs and to appreciate conversation with others who do as well.

As an eighteen-year-old, I was drawn to the physical sciences because they seemed to promise black and white answers, unlike the "fuzzy sciences" like Psychology, which we all looked down our noses at.  As I matured as a scientist, I learned quickly to be skeptical of those things that I knew for sure, to pay greater attention to things that I did not know, and to be wary of making pronouncements about things that I didn't know that I didn't know.  I also learned that there is a realm of questions that have no knowable answers but are still worth wondering about because they color the way that people around me interpret causality, existence, order, and purpose.  Whether the interpretations that other people hold are "true" or not, it is worth spending some of my own intellectual energy to ask (a) what my own interpretations are and (b) why anyone in her right mind would come to a different conclusion.  The time that I spend asking metaphysical questions helps me understand my own behavior and gives me a glimmer of understanding of the rest of humanity.

As I grow older, I have the greatest respect for people who can stand aside from things that they know to be "true" and ask questions that may prove them wrong. I have the least respect for those who enter a conversation with an unshakable certainty that they know the truth, and who adopt a  Basil Fawlty tactic of Proof by Intimidation to convince me. They remind me too much of my 18-year-old self. Like you, Maddy, I respect people like Richard Feynman and Mark Twain who can stand back from the world of certainty and wonder about these questions that have no answers.  Whether in person or through their writings, they tease me to wonder how solid my own reasoning is, and they reveal more of those vast areas of inquiry that I am totally unaware of.  The fact that I will never find the "truth" in any of what they say or anything that I figure out for myself is less important than exploring how those ideas shape my world. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

55 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

As an eighteen-year-old, I was drawn to the physical sciences because they seemed to promise black and white answers, unlike the "fuzzy sciences" like Psychology, which we all looked down our noses at.  As I matured as a scientist, I learned quickly to be skeptical of those things that I knew for sure, to pay greater attention to things that I did not know, and to be wary of making pronouncements about things that I didn't know that I didn't know.  I also learned that there is a realm of questions that have no knowable answers but are still worth wondering about because they color the way that people around me interpret causality, existence, order, and purpose.  Whether the interpretations that other people hold are "true" or not, it is worth spending some of my own intellectual energy to ask (a) what my own interpretations are and (b) why anyone in her right mind would come to a different conclusion.  The time that I spend asking metaphysical questions helps me understand my own behavior and gives me a glimmer of understanding of the rest of humanity.

As I grow older, I have the greatest respect for people who can stand aside from things that they know to be "true" and ask questions that may prove them wrong. I have the least respect for those who enter a conversation with an unshakable certainty that they know the truth, and who adopt a  Basil Fawlty tactic of Proof by Intimidation to convince me. They remind me too much of my 18-year-old self. Like you, Maddy, I respect people like Richard Feynman and Mark Twain who can stand back from the world of certainty and wonder about these questions that have no answers.  Whether in person or through their writings, they tease me to wonder how solid my own reasoning is, and they reveal more of those vast areas of inquiry that I am totally unaware of.  The fact that I will never find the "truth" in any of what they say or anything that I figure out for myself is less important than exploring how those ideas shape my world. 

Mark Twain has done more to make me wonder about my own thinking than Socrates, Plato, or Wittgenstein. All of them thought about thinking, but only Mark was able to pierce my thick skull by wrapping his philosophy in something that distracted me long enough for him to make the kill. I can't shoot like Twain because I don't have the skill. I can't shoot like the others because I don't have the interest.

I suppose I still look down my nose a little at the fuzzy sciences, wondering if they haven't fallen into the uncanny valley between art and hard science.

And finally, another favorite quote about truth...

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. - Mark Twain

[Klytyna]

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I suppose I still look down my nose a little at the fuzzy sciences, wondering if they haven't fallen into the uncanny valley between art and hard science.

I'm reminded of a documentary, many, many years ago, about the 'science' of Economics...

Little titbits came out that were facinating, like the fact that the contraption of tubes, valves, basins, pumps and coloured water used by Keynes to 'prove' his economic theories were 'true' by simulating the economy, did not in fact actually work, it had to be topped up each night by a caretaker because the water evaporated, so all the results were in fact a bit skewed.

The funniest part of the show though, was an interview with a senior professor of economics, in which he told the interviewer about an annual economic forecast contest the faculty had.

Every year, they invited all the economic think tanks, focus groups, political advisory lobby groups etc. with their differing economic models, to submit a forecast about the state of the economy in 12 months time.

End of the year, they would open all the entries, compare them to the actual state of the economy, and which ever think tank & model came closest, won that years prize.

At the time of the interview, apparently NO group had won twice, ands no particular economic model had ever worked consistently to predict the actual results.

The Professor being interviewed then admitted that the "Science" of Economics, was in fact about as scientific as Medieval Alchemy...

Uncanny valley indeed.
 

[Nalates Urriah]

On 9/26/2017 at 5:09 AM, Klytyna said:

ONE Philosopher from ONE school of Philosoiphy, the Epicureans, came within spitting distance of "Scientific Method"...

ONE...

And he failed to make the final step. 
 

Well... you continue to miss or ignore my point on definitions. The challenges to prove you misstatements you do not address. Your entire set of responses are counter statements without proofs. You obviously are short on history and particularly the history of philosophy or its purpose and achievements.

The idea the Epicureans were the only ones that approached the idea of the scientific method is just strange. Thales, Amaximenes, Heraclitus, and Anaximander were all going down similar paths. It was philosophers that had to work out the rules of logic to provide a foundation for thinking, which evolved into the scientific method. Roger Bacon being considered a major contributor to today's idea of the scientific method.

While many give credit to Aristotle and the Greek philosophers for the method, I tend to agree they are reaching.  A closer tie can be made to the Muslim scholars of the 10th to 14th centuries. 

And before you jump on my use of the word scholar, al-Haytham was a Muslim scientist, mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher. So, once again, you are showing how misinformed you are. (Consider that statement an Alinsky tactic.)

So... what have you got against philosophy?

[Klytyna]

3 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Well... you continue to miss or ignore my point on definitions.

Since your point seems to be fraudulently claiming that 'Truth' has a single definition, and claiming wiki, dictionaries and philosophers all support you, when in fact they do not, your point doesn't need to be addressed, as its fact free rubbish.

3 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Your entire set of responses are counter statements without proofs.

So far you haven't given a single 'proof' of anything, starting with your FRAUDULENT claim that you could prove a statement of mine false with dictionary definitions, which you failed to provide (and how do you 'prove' or 'disprove'  a subjective opinion of an ill defined abstract concept  anyway), and then later claiming, again fraudulently that claiming you *could* disprove something meant that you had.

3 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

So... what have you got against philosophy?

Where to start with that one...

1. Religion is the curse of the Human Race, and Philosophy is nothing more than a non-religious religion, a way for self appointed 'priests of philosophy' to enjoy all the pros of being in the clergy, tenure with free board in a large expensive cult hq, social prestige, big dinners for no work etc., with out any of the Cons, like having to get up early on sundays to hold services, or long lists of pesky commandments and sins to deal with.

2. Ideas propounded by philosophers are a close second behind religion as a cause of human suffering and conflict. Von Clauswitz and his charming idea that citizens exist to serve the will of the State, Communist Dogma, Fascism, to name but a few.

3. The whole stinking, intellectually dishonest, intellectually redundant culture of Liberal Arts Faculty Philosophy, with its fatuous 'rules of logical debate' that have no grounding in reality, whose sole purpose is to allow the philoso-failure to fraudulently claim victory in debate classes even when they are factually in the wrong.

The automatic assumption that any statement that sounds a original MUST be a quote from a member of the Philoso-Failure Cult, so you automatically search on the pseudo intellectual quotes websites.

The intellectually dishonest tactic of invneting damn labels that mean nothing and using them to describe any idea thats out of line with yours, so that you can claim that something is 'obviously wrong' simply because it's a "Professor Talkalotofcrapski Tactic".

4. Because it's becomew nothing more than a manifestation of a rather specific version of the Anthropic Principle, that is to say, the idea that the Universe exists simply to ensure that professional academic philoso-failures can enjoy a comfortable living either from faculty tenure or advance fees for writing books nobody buys.

5. Because its generally utterly useless, 

3 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Thales, Amaximenes, Heraclitus, and Anaximander were all going down similar paths.

Now, your waffle about 'scientific method and philosophers... I love the names you picked...  Similar paths to 'science', eh?

 

Heraclitus... Not sure how you justify a proto Stoic, who waffles on about everything coming from the 'word' is a fore runner of scientific method, especially as almost none of his writings survive...

Amaximenes... Thought everything was made of air, that the flat earth was made of felted air, and gave off combustible fumes that created stars...

Thales and Anaximander, wow, reading potted bios of these two, you sense the desparate reaching of the modern philosophy fans... ranting on about Anaximanders use of gnomons, when they were in fact invented by the Babylonians, claims by others that Thales invented mathamatical deduction, when theres papyri a 1000 years older that disprove this. it's fantastic..

[Love Zhaoying]

21 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Since your point seems to be fraudulently claiming that 'Truth' has a single definition

Some people just can't handle the Truth!  Those that demand they do are called "Truthers".

[Love Zhaoying]

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 12:53 PM, fuzzypanda109 said:

You should be banned if you think that setting people on fire makes you happy.

Fun fact: Before the internet, "BBS" and other pre-internet had "forums" that were much like these forums.  When users got "rowdy" they would engage in a "flame war", which usually just meant copy-pasting ASCII pictures made up of characters, that looked like flames.

The more you know!

[Pamela Galli]

I tend to define at least some truths as subjective, as per Kierkegaard and Keats.

I do think "Truth is beauty, beauty truth" is a true statement, not just an opinion.  Not all truths can be proven true. 

[Nalates Urriah]

On 9/27/2017 at 3:20 PM, Klytyna said:

Since your point seems to be fraudulently claiming that 'Truth' has a single definition, and claiming wiki, dictionaries and philosophers all support you, when in fact they do not, your point doesn't need to be addressed, as its fact free rubbish.

So far you haven't given a single 'proof' of anything, starting with your FRAUDULENT claim that you could prove a statement of mine false with dictionary definitions, which you failed to provide (and how do you 'prove' or 'disprove'  a subjective opinion of an ill defined abstract concept  anyway), and then later claiming, again fraudulently that claiming you *could* disprove something meant that you had.

 

Well... you continue to miss or ignore my point on definitions.

Since your point seems to be fraudulently claiming that 'Truth' has a single definition, and claiming wiki, dictionaries and philosophers all support you, when in fact they do not, your point doesn't need to be addressed, as its fact free rubbish.

I just keep pointing out facts. I challenge you repeatedly to provide proof of your point. You just make more denials and counter statements.

This is simple. Dictionaries and thesauruses all use the same or highly similar definitions for true, truth, and Truth. How people apply the noun ‘Truth’ and what they are talking about when they apply the word does vary greatly. But, that doesn’t change the definition. You don’t seem to pick up on the difference between definition and use.

You obviously do not know how to debate an issue. All one would have to do is point to one definition source to support your position and I would have to concede. Using an ‘I know therefore I do not need to prove’ defense/attack is not a winning tactic.

So far you haven't given a single 'proof' of anything, starting with your FRAUDULENT claim that you could prove a statement of mine false with dictionary definitions, which you failed to provide (and how do you 'prove' or 'disprove'  a subjective opinion of an ill defined abstract concept  anyway), and then later claiming, again fraudulently that claiming you *could* disprove something meant that you had.

I provided definitions in this comment. In my first response to you I pointed out I had searched for varying definitions and was not finding them. This gave you an opportunity to rebut my effort, but you didn’t and I doubt you can.

A basic concept of logic and debate is burden of proof. The one making a statement is required to back it up. Not doing so in formal debate competitions costs one points. In such debates, a common tactic is placing an opponent in the place of having to prove a negative, something generally considered impossible.

You are asking me to prove all definitions of true, truth, and Truth are the same. That proof is unachievable because I would need to provide all the definitions and be able to prove my list was complete. Missing even one would be a failure and leave room for the counter point to be true. So, not a proof.

However, your providing just would prove your point and provide a complete argument/proof.

Cambridge Dictionary gives a long colorful set of definitions for true with shaded connotations, but, they all conform to the basic definition of other reputable dictionaries. Also, for truth (noun), which they define it as the quality of being true. That makes it a property of a statement, in case you miss the point. They do not distinguish between truth and Truth. But, in both cases they are nouns. Truth only is a proper noun when applied to a thing.

Macmillan Dictionary gives the definition of true as; based on facts or things that really happen, and not made up. Basically, the same as Cambridge’s. Truth as; the actual facts or information about something, rather than what people think, expect, or make up.

Merriam-Webster gives the definition of true I first quoted; being in accordance with the actual state of affairs. Truth as; the body of real things, events, and facts and (3) often capitalized: a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality. In this later definition it should be obvious the capitalized form is for when it is applied to a subject.

Dictionaries don’t comprehensively address the common misuse of words or how we bastardize them. For that we have to get into providers of grammar rules to get more specific. But, no matter how words are used on any given day, the definition does not change.

We use idiom to convey colored meaning. So, we can use ‘bad’ to connote ‘especially good’ or a ‘good we like’, but our use of idiom does not change the definition of the word ‘bad’ until popular usage is so great the majority of the population accepts it and uses it a new way. Then dictionaries change. An example is the word 'gay'.

You can’t prove your point that the word ‘Truth’ has varied definitions that significantly vary from the definitions I’ve provided.

 

As to your thinking on philosophy… I suspect most of the readers here understand how philosophy worked and developed over time and its usefulness and achievement in human learning. It has no relationship to what you write, but you make your feelings and thoughts about it clear.

Since you think the rules of logical debate have no grounding in reality, I now understand why you cannot debate me and why you can’t pick up on the point I have made about the difference between definition and use.

That leaves me wondering why you continue to try and discuss the subject. If you can’t be convincing and change minds, what is your goal?

[Nalates Urriah]

On 9/28/2017 at 1:47 PM, Pamela Galli said:

I tend to define at least some truths as subjective, as per Kierkegaard and Keats.

I do think "Truth is beauty, beauty truth" is a true statement, not just an opinion.  Not all truths can be proven true. 

I agree. That I like chocolate cake more than Angel Food is a truth. It isn't a 'universal' truth, but it is true and obviously subjective.

When examining truth we are often are looking at reality and reality is amazing in its mathematical precision, symmetry, and complication. Many of us see it as beauty.

Some very interesting big question truths cannot be proven. Is there a god? Christians are a sucker for this one. The majority have no idea what can and cannot be proven. The result is the majority of Christian children have given up their faith by the end of their first college year. Their parents, family, and pastors simply cannot integrate the Bible, Koran, Tipitaka, Confucianism, etc. with science or defend against the atheist religion.

Yet, as all religions promise eternal life in some form and many proclaim eternal damnation for failure to believe, it seems a question worth answering in a definitive way. Since what we believe doesn't change reality, it would seem the ultimate quest for facts and perception of reality. Either we have nothing to worry about and what you see is what you get, or we need to conform our life to some 'godly' standard. But, which?

[Klytyna]

5 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

I just keep pointing out facts. I challenge you repeatedly to provide proof of your point.

NOTHING in your posts is FACTUAL

8 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

You obviously do not know how to debate an issue. All one would have to do is point to one definition source to support your position and I would have to concede. Using an ‘I know therefore I do not need to prove’ defense/attack is not a winning tactic.

As I sated earlier, I despise the dishonest pseudo-intellectual bs culture of Liberal Arts Faculty Academia...

I KNOW how you people 'debate' issues, for you the dishonest bs, and scoring points off each other is more important that determining the facts.

I WONT engage in that claptrap, with moronic made up 'rules' that allow the intellectually dishonest to fraudulently claim 'victory' because FACTS violate some 'faux-law' they read about on wikipedia, or learned in some worthless degree course.

Examine the ARROGANCE of your position.

You saw a staement you didn't agree with, so

1. You checked the philosophy professor quotes online search engine to see who I was quoting, because you ARROGANTLY assumed that it HAD to be a quote from somebody else.

2. When you found out I wasn't quoting an academic, you ARROGANTLY decided my statement was worthless, becausze, it wasn't made by a professional academic.

3. You CLAIMED you could disprove it, but ARROGANTLY failed to do so.

4. Then ARROGANTLY CLAIMED that CLAIMING you could disprove it meant that you already HAD.

5. You made repeated use of 'Alinsky Tactic' despite that term being of no relevance whatsoever, because you ARROGANTLY assumed that citing the name and kindle edition page of a book, would be enough to "bully the non graduate peasants into obedience".

6. You cite Websters AMERICAN Dictionary, and ONE of it's NINE definitions of 'Truth', which you select over the others because YOU happen to prefer it. Then you claim that this careful selection of ONE definition, proves all your BS and demand that we ignore all the other definitions."

You rapidly go down hill from there, your most recent post is such a glorious harvest of weapons I can turn against you, I hardly know where to start...

24 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

The one making a statement is required to back it up. Not doing so in formal debate competitions costs one points

As I said, Liberal Arts Faculty Pseudo-Subject Faux-Degree Debate Class 101 Games with Ivory Tower Rules, divorced from reality, the sole purpose of which is to 'prove' how clever the pseudo-intellectual debaters are.

27 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

In such debates, a common tactic is placing an opponent in the place of having to prove a negative, something generally considered impossible.

Looks like the pseudo-intellectuals are onto a loser then when trying to 'prove' their 'cleverness' since its obviously in the negative value range.

30 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

You are asking me to prove all definitions of true, truth, and Truth are the same. That proof is unachievable because I would need to provide all the definitions and be able to prove my list was complete.

YOU made the claim that EVERYONE agrees on the definition of 'Truth' (or at least EVERYONE that YOU think actually counts, which seems to exclude an awful lot of people), and since YOU made that claim, then according to YOU rules of YOU damn silly Academic Game...

33 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

A basic concept of logic and debate is burden of proof. The one making a statement is required to back it up

And now you openly admit that you CANNOT back your claim, by your own 'Rules' you committed 'debate suicide' way way back.

35 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

I suspect most of the readers here understand how philosophy worked and developed over time and its usefulness and achievement in human learning

You are making Arrogant Academia assumptions again. Attempting to 'play to the crowd' by telling them that there are really clever and thus agree with you, an age old ploy, even the Ancient Greeks knew and despised it.

37 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

It has no relationship to what you write,

Really? So now you FRAUDULENTLY claim that Aristotle didn't state that working people have no place in political debates because they are too poor and thus too busy to 'think'?

You're claiming that von Clauswitz didn't state that citizens exist simply to serve the Will of the State?

That Engles and Marks didn't develope their ideas of wealth redistribution and social change after witnessing the appaling poverty in Manchester, in the mid 1840's? That their philosophy didn't lead to Communist Revolutions, executions of 'counter revolutionaries' gulags, invasions, wars? Oppression of the people, and all those other things 'Uncle Sam' stands against.

That certain 19th C germanic philosophers didn't give rise to a movement that felt it was ok to exterminate people who weren't blond haired and blue eyed enough to be classed as Uber-Mench, and were thus part of the Unter-Mench sent to work camps, or shot in the head and dumped in shallow mass graves, or sent to the gas chambers and ovens?

(Note how I can't refer to the name of this repellent philosophy based dogma because one of the made up 'rules' of your Academia Game is that naming something your Philoso-Failure Cult helped create is an 'auto debate loss')

47 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Since you think the rules of logical debate have no grounding in reality, I now understand why you cannot debate me

I actually gave an example of why ONE of your fraudulent 'rules' is divorced from reality, and it's not that I CAN'T stoop to your Pseudo-intellectual Debate Gutter, it's that I have STANDARDS, and WON'T stoop that low.

50 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

That leaves me wondering why you continue to try and discuss the subject. If you can’t be convincing and change minds, what is your goal?

Academic Arrogance again, you assume that since YOUR 'mind' isn't changed, nobody elses is...

Further I'm not 'discussing the subject', rather, every time you try to 'prove' how 'clever' you are, by displaying the "Institutionalised Ignorance of Academic Truth (tm)", I respond by b*tch slapping you up and down the forum with the "Baseball Bat of FACT".

55 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

why you can’t pick up on the point I have made about the difference between definition and use.

YOUR personal MISUSE of YOU personal cherry picked definition of 'Truth' according to YOU ill-informed version of the rules of English Grammar, does not make YOUR academia ivory tower OPINION, into any kind of FACTUAL statement., you do not in fact HAVE a point to 'pick up on'.

And it's LINK time...

Webster's American Dictionary 9 definitions in 3 main categories, one of which you cherry picked, and two of which do not require any association with factual reality.

Oxford Dictionaries Two definitions of a common noun, both fact based, which won't please the fact free lovers of 'Truth' - The Fraudulent Proper Noun.

Cambridge English Dictionary Not only do they have several definitions of truth, they even have DIFFERENT definitions for English vs American. One particularly caught MY eye for cherry picking...

"a fact or principle that is thought to be true by most people:"

I believe your 'rules' of debate, has a specific name for the auto-debate fail of assuming something is factual simply because a lot of people believe it...

Where I come from we call it "The School of Everyone Knows" and hold it in contempt.
 

[Nalates Urriah]

2 hours ago, Klytyna said:

NOTHING in your posts is FACTUAL

I quoted what is in the dictionaries in previous posts. Those are facts. Your statement has been disproven. Simple.

You seem to have lost touch with reality.

While you think you are proving something, you are only expressing your opinions. I have yet to see you offer any facts.

[Parhelion Palou]

5 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Some very interesting big question truths cannot be proven. Is there a god? Christians are a sucker for this one. The majority have no idea what can and cannot be proven. The result is the majority of Christian children have given up their faith by the end of their first college year. Their parents, family, and pastors simply cannot integrate the Bible, Koran, Tipitaka, Confucianism, etc. with science or defend against the atheist religion.

Yet, as all religions promise eternal life in some form and many proclaim eternal damnation for failure to believe, it seems a question worth answering in a definitive way. Since what we believe doesn't change reality, it would seem the ultimate quest for facts and perception of reality. Either we have nothing to worry about and what you see is what you get, or we need to conform our life to some 'godly' standard. But, which?

You say atheism is a religion and also state that all religions promise eternal life in some form. Atheism does not promise eternal life; when you die that's the end of it. So which is true? Is atheism a religion, or do all religions promise eternal life in some form?

[Nalates Urriah]

2 hours ago, Parhelion Palou said:

You say atheism is a religion and also state that all religions promise eternal life in some form. Atheism does not promise eternal life; when you die that's the end of it. So which is true? Is atheism a religion, or do all religions promise eternal life in some form?

Good point. I'll have to correct myself and say most in place of all.

[Klytyna]

On 01 October 2017 at 2:28 AM, Nalates Urriah said:

Good point. I'll have to correct myself and say most in place of all.

 

On 30 September 2017 at 10:02 PM, Nalates Urriah said:

You seem to have lost touch with reality.

 

On 30 September 2017 at 10:02 PM, Nalates Urriah said:

I have yet to see you offer any facts.

As I said, your arrogant ivory tower academia institutionalised ignorance is showing...

Here's a fact... Atheism is NOT a religion. Atheism is the LACK of belief in any god or gods, usually as a result of the total lack of any evidence for the existence of same.

The only people who ever claim that it is are the intellectually dishonest liars who push one or both faces of the tarnished coin of anti-fact that is Religion/Philosophy, in order to try and improve their chances of luring young and gullible minds into their cults.

The various lawsuits that have attempted to have Atheism officially classified as a 'religion' have ALL been financed by rabid fundamentalist theists, so that they can then demand that 'teachings of the atheist religion'  like Human biology, evolution, cosmology etc., anything that disagrees with their religious dogma, be banned from schools under the 'separation of church and state'.

You are the one divorced from reality.

You claim pre-socratic philosophers who blather about all matter being derived from 'the word' or that the earth is made from 'felted air', and other equally fatuous superstitions, without any actual experimentation,  as 'the founders of scientific method' clearly showing that you don't actually understand what 'scientific method ' is, or how so called 'thought experiments' practiced by philoso-failures do not count as 'science' in any way, shape or form.

You ignore the role played by philosophy in the origin of some very nasty socio/political ideas, ideas that have caused untold suffering to hundreds of millions of humans, and now you FRAUDULENTLY claim Atheism is a 'religion'.

You wouldn't know a fact if somebody carved it in base relief letters a foot high on the front of a Main Battle Tank, and drove it over your house.

Not ONE of your posts has contained any factual information, examples of 'logical thinking' or any degree of 'intellectual honesty'. And now you are resorting to fraudulent accusations of 'Religion'.
 

[Pamela Galli]

27 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

Here's a fact... Atheism is NOT a religion. Atheism is the LACK of belief in any god or gods, usually as a result of the total lack of any evidence for the existence of same.

That there is no proof for something does not mean there is no evidence for it.