Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

SO I GOT A REPLY! nac

Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 1:43:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
OMG OMG OMG!

Okay so I sent a message to Prof. Peter J. King who is a Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University and he agreed to go over my argument with me!

*Screams with glee*

OOHHHHH
NiamC
Posts: 905
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 1:47:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 1:43:58 PM, Ajabi wrote:
OMG OMG OMG!

Okay so I sent a message to Prof. Peter J. King who is a Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University and he agreed to go over my argument with me!

*Screams with glee*

OOHHHHH
Oh, thats really cool. Have fun!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Niam est amor, vita Niam
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 1:58:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 1:43:58 PM, Ajabi wrote:
Cool!

Good for you! :D
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 2:29:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 1:43:58 PM, Ajabi wrote:

Before anyone takes umbrage at what I'm about to say, let me explain that Prof. Peter J King's cop-outs are exemplary of the forces minorities must fight in their struggle to achieve equal footing with the rest of the community. I assume you already know that Prof. King's conclusions have very little thought behind them and are neither interesting nor amusing, but I have something more important to tell you. Regardless of the theoretical beauty of the notion that it is difficult for many people to accept that Prof. King's principles have sincerely been demonstrated to be coterminous with those of scornful killjoys, there is the opposing fact that I think that Prof. King prefers "Fisking""line-by-line rebuttals in which facts are dropped like radar chaff"to rational debate or building a coherent argument. You probably think that too. But Prof. King does not think that. Prof. King thinks that black is white and night is day.

I wish dictatorial ex-cons like Prof. King's cronies would quit whining and try doing some honest work for a change. Why? That's easy. I've heard numerous complaints about Prof. King's behavior. Many people I've talked to have complained that Prof. King comports himself like a filthy pig, heedless of all needs but his own. Among these needs the paramount one seems to be the need to trade fundamental human rights for a cheap "guarantee" of safety and security. This backs up my point that he has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and stir up one part of the population against another"all by trumping up a phony emergency.

Prof. King is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his disquisitions. Mutual efforts against foolhardy ageism are not just an educational process designed to teach people that the consequences of his bookish, piteous belief systems, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable. These efforts also serve as a beacon, warning the world of the impetuous consequences of his atrabilious, humorless apologues. We must love the Earth and everything that flowers and crawls upon it. If we don't, future generations will not know freedom. Instead, they will know fear; they will know sadness; they will know injustice, poverty, and grinding despair. Most of all, they will realize, albeit far too late, that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that Prof. King's primary goal is to take away what few freedoms we have left. All of his other objectives are secondary to this one supreme purpose. That's why you must always remember that I see how important Prof. King's meretricious ethics are to his acolytes and I laugh. I laugh because he speaks like a true defender of the status quo"a status quo, we should not forget, that enables him to make my worst nightmares come true.

Everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that it is amazing to me that Prof. King would dare to criticize someone or something without carefully reading what was written. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche. Look at what's happened since he first ordered his surrogates to evade responsibility: Views once considered bloodthirsty are now considered ordinary. Views once considered power-hungry are now considered perfectly normal. And the most hypocritical of Prof. King's views are now seen as gospel by legions of the most unforgiving deviants you'll ever see.

You've never heard Prof. King announce that he plans to demand that loyalty to temeritous, vagarious pharisaical-types supersedes personal loyalty? Well, Prof. King has repeatedly enunciated such a plan but in his typically convoluted way. Some people have indicated that the confluence of cronyism and vigilantism in his catch-phrases ensures a swirling river of discontent upon which he so peremptorily rides. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that Prof. King's diegeses are built on lies, and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. All of this once again proves the old saying that Prof. Peter J King is a sore loser.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 2:35:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 2:29:21 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 8/28/2014 1:43:58 PM, Ajabi wrote:

Before anyone takes umbrage at what I'm about to say, let me explain that Prof. Peter J King's cop-outs are exemplary of the forces minorities must fight in their struggle to achieve equal footing with the rest of the community. I assume you already know that Prof. King's conclusions have very little thought behind them and are neither interesting nor amusing, but I have something more important to tell you. Regardless of the theoretical beauty of the notion that it is difficult for many people to accept that Prof. King's principles have sincerely been demonstrated to be coterminous with those of scornful killjoys, there is the opposing fact that I think that Prof. King prefers "Fisking""line-by-line rebuttals in which facts are dropped like radar chaff"to rational debate or building a coherent argument. You probably think that too. But Prof. King does not think that. Prof. King thinks that black is white and night is day.

I wish dictatorial ex-cons like Prof. King's cronies would quit whining and try doing some honest work for a change. Why? That's easy. I've heard numerous complaints about Prof. King's behavior. Many people I've talked to have complained that Prof. King comports himself like a filthy pig, heedless of all needs but his own. Among these needs the paramount one seems to be the need to trade fundamental human rights for a cheap "guarantee" of safety and security. This backs up my point that he has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and stir up one part of the population against another"all by trumping up a phony emergency.

Prof. King is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his disquisitions. Mutual efforts against foolhardy ageism are not just an educational process designed to teach people that the consequences of his bookish, piteous belief systems, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable. These efforts also serve as a beacon, warning the world of the impetuous consequences of his atrabilious, humorless apologues. We must love the Earth and everything that flowers and crawls upon it. If we don't, future generations will not know freedom. Instead, they will know fear; they will know sadness; they will know injustice, poverty, and grinding despair. Most of all, they will realize, albeit far too late, that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that Prof. King's primary goal is to take away what few freedoms we have left. All of his other objectives are secondary to this one supreme purpose. That's why you must always remember that I see how important Prof. King's meretricious ethics are to his acolytes and I laugh. I laugh because he speaks like a true defender of the status quo"a status quo, we should not forget, that enables him to make my worst nightmares come true.

Everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that it is amazing to me that Prof. King would dare to criticize someone or something without carefully reading what was written. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche. Look at what's happened since he first ordered his surrogates to evade responsibility: Views once considered bloodthirsty are now considered ordinary. Views once considered power-hungry are now considered perfectly normal. And the most hypocritical of Prof. King's views are now seen as gospel by legions of the most unforgiving deviants you'll ever see.

You've never heard Prof. King announce that he plans to demand that loyalty to temeritous, vagarious pharisaical-types supersedes personal loyalty? Well, Prof. King has repeatedly enunciated such a plan but in his typically convoluted way. Some people have indicated that the confluence of cronyism and vigilantism in his catch-phrases ensures a swirling river of discontent upon which he so peremptorily rides. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that Prof. King's diegeses are built on lies, and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. All of this once again proves the old saying that Prof. Peter J King is a sore loser.
Mein Gott...
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 2:38:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 2:35:05 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 8/29/2014 2:29:21 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 8/28/2014 1:43:58 PM, Ajabi wrote:

Before anyone takes umbrage at what I'm about to say, let me explain that Prof. Peter J King's cop-outs are exemplary of the forces minorities must fight in their struggle to achieve equal footing with the rest of the community. I assume you already know that Prof. King's conclusions have very little thought behind them and are neither interesting nor amusing, but I have something more important to tell you. Regardless of the theoretical beauty of the notion that it is difficult for many people to accept that Prof. King's principles have sincerely been demonstrated to be coterminous with those of scornful killjoys, there is the opposing fact that I think that Prof. King prefers "Fisking""line-by-line rebuttals in which facts are dropped like radar chaff"to rational debate or building a coherent argument. You probably think that too. But Prof. King does not think that. Prof. King thinks that black is white and night is day.

I wish dictatorial ex-cons like Prof. King's cronies would quit whining and try doing some honest work for a change. Why? That's easy. I've heard numerous complaints about Prof. King's behavior. Many people I've talked to have complained that Prof. King comports himself like a filthy pig, heedless of all needs but his own. Among these needs the paramount one seems to be the need to trade fundamental human rights for a cheap "guarantee" of safety and security. This backs up my point that he has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and stir up one part of the population against another"all by trumping up a phony emergency.

Prof. King is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his disquisitions. Mutual efforts against foolhardy ageism are not just an educational process designed to teach people that the consequences of his bookish, piteous belief systems, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable. These efforts also serve as a beacon, warning the world of the impetuous consequences of his atrabilious, humorless apologues. We must love the Earth and everything that flowers and crawls upon it. If we don't, future generations will not know freedom. Instead, they will know fear; they will know sadness; they will know injustice, poverty, and grinding despair. Most of all, they will realize, albeit far too late, that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that Prof. King's primary goal is to take away what few freedoms we have left. All of his other objectives are secondary to this one supreme purpose. That's why you must always remember that I see how important Prof. King's meretricious ethics are to his acolytes and I laugh. I laugh because he speaks like a true defender of the status quo"a status quo, we should not forget, that enables him to make my worst nightmares come true.

Everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that it is amazing to me that Prof. King would dare to criticize someone or something without carefully reading what was written. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche. Look at what's happened since he first ordered his surrogates to evade responsibility: Views once considered bloodthirsty are now considered ordinary. Views once considered power-hungry are now considered perfectly normal. And the most hypocritical of Prof. King's views are now seen as gospel by legions of the most unforgiving deviants you'll ever see.

You've never heard Prof. King announce that he plans to demand that loyalty to temeritous, vagarious pharisaical-types supersedes personal loyalty? Well, Prof. King has repeatedly enunciated such a plan but in his typically convoluted way. Some people have indicated that the confluence of cronyism and vigilantism in his catch-phrases ensures a swirling river of discontent upon which he so peremptorily rides. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that Prof. King's diegeses are built on lies, and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. All of this once again proves the old saying that Prof. Peter J King is a sore loser.
Mein Gott...

Mein Gott indeed.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 2:45:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 1:43:58 PM, Ajabi wrote:
OMG OMG OMG!

Okay so I sent a message to Prof. Peter J. King who is a Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University and he agreed to go over my argument with me!

*Screams with glee*

OOHHHHH

Is this a valid summarization of your argument?:

1. God is an a priori concept.
2. God cannot be refuted through empirical means.
3. It's impossible to disprove an a priori concept.
4. Thus, it is impossible to disprove God.
5. In order for it to be impossible to disprove God, he must exist.
Conclusion: God exists.
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 3:26:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 2:45:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 1:43:58 PM, Ajabi wrote:
OMG OMG OMG!

Okay so I sent a message to Prof. Peter J. King who is a Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University and he agreed to go over my argument with me!

*Screams with glee*

OOHHHHH

Is this a valid summation of your argument?:

1. God is an a priori concept.
2. God cannot be refuted through empirical means.
3. It's impossible to disprove an a priori concept.
4. Thus, it is impossible to disprove God.
5. In order for it to be impossible to disprove God, he must exist.
Conclusion: God exists.

Not fully, no. It seems you mistake a premise for a conclusion.

More like:
1. The idea of God exists
2. An idea can exist as a pure empirical concept, an impure empirical concept (imagined idea) or as an innate idea.
3. The idea of God is not a pure empirical concept.
4. The idea of God is not an impure empirical idea.
5. If the idea of God is false, it is necessarily an impure idea.
6. The idea of God is an innate idea.
7. The idea of God is not false.

In proper philosophy a distinction between a priori and innate needs to be made. lol
But yeah you got the gist of it up there. Hold up I gotta reply to ya in Heidegger thread.