Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Gileandos a cowardly deciever?

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:32:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Gileando continues to run away when I refute him. if he is sure of himself why doesn't he defined his argumets. pls no comment of then sophist Gileandos

This is for gileando who avoids my refutations. Let him stand up for himself or let him be known as a cowardly deceiver.

A positive negative -> a negative. You can't run from it Gileandos !!!!
1*-1x=-1x

The Fool: This is how you beat a semantic relativist! This is a simple but devastating manoeuvre you want in your artillery to expose somebody using sematic sophistry.

For Gileandos claims that atheist try and change the semantics to deceive. But this can't make sense. And the truth will prove who the deceiver is really.

For this a ‘Reducto relatismo defino' attack;) A classic fool's technique. But I call it the Sand Toss. ;) That is by throwing sand on greasy slithery semantic persuader. So they cant slip away as easily!!

But it only works if you are looking for knowledge. It will collapse if you are
dependent on the definition to be the same of the truth of what it's trying to define?

For definition is always a definition. Definition =definition D=D

The actual thing which exists is the actual thing which exists. E.g. A=A

The definition is meant to correspond to an existing thing. The human definer can only define something in a human framework. The question of whether a definition corresponds to something more than simply an idea is whole other issue. How do you know? You could never know if there is correspondence outside your mind without verification. Confusion of the two is recipe for ‘mushmind' (and nobody wants that) ;)

Sophist Gileandos: atheism is a positive belief in no god and he asserts that there is not god.

The Fool: then I guess I have all been fooled for I guess we were never atheist then. So call us what we are, which are people who do not have a belief in god.

Sophist Gileandos: but you assert that there is no god.

The Fool: For let's say I assert god does not exist. Well what does exist is not there to assert. Thus I would only be refuting myself when I try.

Sophist Gileandos: but an agnostic is the neutral position!

The Fool: yeah I considered myself agnostic before I refuted the difference. But I have exposed the fallacy and so know I known better.

Sophist Gileandos: awww why?! ;(

The Fool: well non-existence can't be asserted, so it doesn't matter if there is assertion or not, it ends up logically being the same. So someone who is claims to not know that god doesn't exist is correct because notness cannot be known, for it doesn't exist.

Sophist Gileandos: But I read a book, and a guy with PHD in philosophy and a Doctor so what he says must be true. Why would anyone trust a fool?

The Fool: know body should trust a fool, I have been saying that many times. They should think for themselves and use their reason to judge.

Foolishly Formal

version: v. 1.0
That is holding something to a definition is futile if the thing you are trying to define is different than your definition. For a definition not based off experience, is at best and is an ideological claim. A syntheses (summing together) other ideas, you already have. The function of language is to communicate our ideas.

Shady sophist: atheism is blah blah blah!!

If that doesn't match the ideas you are trying to communicate then just substitute your idea.

I will use the word F-atheism

And let the definition be x ; in this case that I don't belief in a god.
The Problem gets circumvented. Why?

I could never be wrong about my about what ideas nor how I am feeling. In this
case it's my feeling of expectation which is involved.

And I can't be wrong on my own definition.

And so we loop whole out of the semantics game. Why?

Because the definition is a definition.. My expectation is my expectation (it's my thought)

That is one is a label for something and one is that actual something which labels attempts to represent. It may or may not representing anything.
Exit

Shady sophist: hey this is not in the book! Arrg. You damn fool. I will get you yet!

Fool x: That may be the case. but for now… Foolish dance time!!! ;)
Foolish Cheering in the background: Go Fool, Go. Fool. Go Fool..!!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 5:04:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 4:32:56 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Gileando continues to run away when I refute him. if he is sure of himself why doesn't he defined his argumets. pls no comment of then sophist Gileandos
...I don't know why'd he be a Sophist: if we are using the old meaning, he is not relativist and sticks with his own view all the time and doesn't do it to earn money. If we're using the modern definition, I'll see the proof.

This is for gileando who avoids my refutations. Let him stand up for himself or let him be known as a cowardly deceiver.
Ahh, we are using the modern definition.
A positive negative -> a negative. You can't run from it Gileandos !!!!
1*-1x=-1x
...Yes, this is true. If you posted the context, I would be grateful, because this sounds like something I can put into my signature.
The Fool: This is how you beat a semantic relativist! This is a simple but devastating manoeuvre you want in your artillery to expose somebody using sematic sophistry.
...do you mean anti-realism? Because I can tell you that isn't true.
For Gileandos claims that atheist try and change the semantics to deceive. But this can't make sense. And the truth will prove who the deceiver is really.
He's an atheist? What?
For this a ‘Reducto relatismo defino' attack;) A classic fool's technique. But I call it the Sand Toss. ;) That is by throwing sand on greasy slithery semantic persuader. So they cant slip away as easily!!
Obvious attempt at humour, made me smile, job well done.
But it only works if you are looking for knowledge. It will collapse if you are
dependent on the definition to be the same of the truth of what it's trying to :define?
...I think I understand this. Are you saying it is a presupposition? The syntax is making it quite confusing.

For definition is always a definition. Definition = definition. D=D

Yes.
The actual thing which exists is the actual thing which exists. E.g. A=A
Yes.

The definition is meant to correspond to an existing thing.
...No, 2 is not an actual thing, neither is socialism, they are both conceptual.
The human definer can only define something in a human framework.
Do you mean "The definer can only define something in their own framework", referring to a human? If so, then I'd guess I agree, although I am not 100% sure of what I have agreed to.
The question of whether a definition corresponds to something more than simply an idea is whole other issue.
Okay, let's put a nail in this to find later.
How do you know? You could never know if there is correspondence outside your mind without verification. Confusion of the two is recipe for ‘mushmind' (and nobody wants that) ;)

Sophist Gileandos: atheism is a positive belief in no god and he asserts that there is not god.

The Fool: then I guess I have all been fooled for I guess we were never atheist then. So call us what we are, which are people who do not have a belief in god.
I'd say we lack the belief that theism has to make it really clear, as some people don't understand language. But yes, you are 100% right here.
Sophist Gileandos: but you assert that there is no god.

The Fool: For let's say I assert god does not exist. Well what does exist is not there to assert. Thus I would only be refuting myself when I try.

Sophist Gileandos: but an agnostic is the neutral position!
Agnosticism means CANNOT know, not DOES NOT know.
The Fool: yeah I considered myself agnostic before I refuted the difference. But I have exposed the fallacy and so know I known better.

Sophist Gileandos: awww why?! ;(

The Fool: well non-existence can't be asserted, so it doesn't matter if there is assertion or not, it ends up logically being the same. So someone who is claims to not know that god doesn't exist is correct because notness cannot be known, for it doesn't exist.
Okay, again, I think I understand and agree.
Sophist Gileandos: But I read a book, and a guy with PHD in philosophy and a Doctor so what he says must be true. Why would anyone trust a fool?
Republic Book 1: Thrasymarchus' refutal by Socrates.
The Fool: know body should trust a fool, I have been saying that many times. They should think for themselves and use their reason to judge.
...cardinal sin of spelling "no" as "know", then not making it nobody. ;P
Apart from that, yes.
Foolishly Formal

version: v. 1.0
That is holding something to a definition is futile if the thing you are trying to define is different than your definition. For a definition not based off experience, is at best and is an ideological claim. A syntheses (summing together) other ideas, you already have. The function of language is to communicate our ideas.

Shady sophist: atheism is blah blah blah!!

If that doesn't match the ideas you are trying to communicate then just substitute your idea.

I will use the word F-atheism

And let the definition be x ; in this case that I don't belief in a god.
The Problem gets circumvented. Why?

I could never be wrong about my about what ideas nor how I am feeling. In this
case it's my feeling of expectation which is involved.

And I can't be wrong on my own definition.

And so we loop whole out of the semantics game. Why?

Because the definition is a definition.. My expectation is my expectation (it's my thought)

That is one is a label for something and one is that actual something which labels attempts to represent. It may or may not representing anything.
Exit

Shady sophist: hey this is not in the book! Arrg. You damn fool. I will get you yet!

Fool x: That may be the case. but for now… Foolish dance time!!! ;)
Foolish Cheering in the background: Go Fool, Go. Fool. Go Fool..!!!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 6:04:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 5:04:59 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
...No, 2 is not an actual thing, neither is socialism, they are both conceptual.
I am mean thing it its vaguest form. I include idea as things. (conceptions as mental ideas extracted externally or Synthesized internally by smaller conceptions)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 9:53:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 6:04:06 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/12/2012 5:04:59 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
...No, 2 is not an actual thing, neither is socialism, they are both conceptual.
I am mean thing it its vaguest form. I include idea as things. (conceptions as mental ideas extracted externally or Synthesized internally by smaller conceptions)

so are ideas 'things' or not?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 11:03:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is it absolutely necessary to name a user and insult him in the thread title?

And please don't pull a Glenn Beck and say it isn't an insult if it's a question.
bhatti1020
Posts: 216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 1:06:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 11:03:24 AM, Wnope wrote:
Is it absolutely necessary to name a user and insult him in the thread title?

And please don't pull a Glenn Beck and say it isn't an insult if it's a question.

+1
-Tourism & Immigration minister for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
"hey, no Jerry springer here!"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 1:19:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 11:03:24 AM, Wnope wrote:
Is it absolutely necessary to name a user and insult him in the thread title?

And please don't pull a Glenn Beck and say it isn't an insult if it's a question.

sophist: what is 2+2? but don't say 4
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 1:29:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is an insult page. We need a British Parliament system.

How the post would change:

The honourable gentleman continues to run away when I refute him. if he is sure of himself why doesn't he defined his argumets. pls no comment of the honourable gentleman.

This is for the honourable gentleman who avoids my refutations. Let him stand up for himself or let himself be perceived, at least by myself, as a cowardly deceiver.

A positive negative -> a negative. The honourable gentleman must accept this !!!!
1*-1x=-1x

The Fool: This is how you beat a semantic relativist! This is a simple but devastating manoeuvre you want in your artillery to expose somebody using sematic sophistry.

For the honourable gentleman claims that atheist try and change the semantics to deceive. But this can't make sense. And the truth will prove who the deceiver is really.

For this a ‘Reducto relatismo defino' attack;) A classic fool's technique. But I call it the Sand Toss. ;) That is by throwing sand on greasy slithery semantic persuader. So the honourable gentlemen can't slip away as easily!!

But it only works if my esteemed associates are looking for knowledge. It will collapse if you are dependent on the definition to be the same of the truth of what it's trying to define?

For definition is always a definition. Definition =definition D=D

The actual thing which exists is the actual thing which exists. E.g. A=A

The definition is meant to correspond to an existing thing. The human definer can only define something in a human framework. The question of whether a definition corresponds to something more than simply an idea is whole other issue. How do you know? You could never know if there is correspondence outside your mind without verification. Confusion of the two is recipe for ‘mushmind' (and nobody wants that) ;)

The honourable gentleman: atheism is a positive belief in no god and he asserts that there is not god.

The Fool: then I guess I have all been fooled for I guess we were never atheist then. So call us what we are, which are people who do not have a belief in god.

The honourable gentleman: but you assert that there is no god.

The Fool: For let's say I assert god does not exist. Well what does exist is not there to assert. Thus I would only be refuting myself when I try.

The honourable gentleman: but an agnostic is the neutral position!

The Fool: yeah I considered myself agnostic before I refuted the difference. But I have exposed the fallacy and so know I known better.

The honourable gentleman: awww why?! ;(

The Fool: well non-existence can't be asserted, so it doesn't matter if there is assertion or not, it ends up logically being the same. So someone who is claims to not know that god doesn't exist is correct because notness cannot be known, for it doesn't exist.

The honourable gentleman: But I read a book, and a guy with PHD in philosophy and a Doctor so what he says must be true. Why would anyone trust a fool?

The Fool: know body <- fix this. should trust a fool, I have been saying that many times. They should think for themselves and use their reason to judge.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 1:33:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 1:31:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that he is a sophist. In addition, you are not Socrates . . .

Oh, I have tried to explain this before. I also like how he disagreed with people at one point, when he took the traditional sophist position and they the Socratic, yet he kept this form.

Whatever floats your boat.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 1:37:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 1:31:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that he is a sophist. In addition, you are not Socrates . . .

I agree. I think she's trying to sound too over the top...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 1:48:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 9:53:02 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/12/2012 6:04:06 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/12/2012 5:04:59 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
...No, 2 is not an actual thing, neither is socialism, they are both conceptual.
I am mean thing it its vaguest form. I include idea as things. (conceptions as mental ideas extracted externally or Synthesized internally by smaller conceptions)

so are ideas 'things' or not?

The Fool: I reject the catagories of realism and anti-realism. (they are superflous)
I doesn't makes sense to me to say I picture unicorn in my mind but its not real.
its still a real picture of a unicorn in my mind.

That is why you thought I was treating him as an anti-realist. I kicked them out. alot of deception in our understanding/ comes from superflous catagories.
You would be amazed. it bogs us down. create boxs,. but they are only cause by language and then we treat them as reall because we had word for it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 1:50:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 1:33:38 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/12/2012 1:31:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that he is a sophist. In addition, you are not Socrates . . .

Oh, I have tried to explain this before. I also like how he disagreed with people at one point, when he took the traditional sophist position and they the Socratic, yet he kept this form.

Whatever floats your boat.

Socratic method usually suggests asking leading questions. All you're doing is rebutting in the form of a dialogue. Using the socratic method, HE should be the one coming to that conclusion by answering a question of yours which contradicts one of his earlier answers.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 1:53:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 1:31:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that he is a sophist. In addition, you are not Socrates . . .

The Fool: Yes mame!! It has been noted!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 1:59:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 1:37:40 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 2/12/2012 1:31:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that he is a sophist. In addition, you are not Socrates . . .

I agree. I think she's trying to sound too over the top...

The Fool: I will put less effort into it, it too it next time I dont' want to sound too over. :)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 2:05:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: nobody says anything nice on hear. I don't now if its the debating context or the American contexts. You guys naturally sound rude too us. I think it has to do with such big cities. People are much more rude in toronto then ottawa.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 2:07:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 1:50:19 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/12/2012 1:33:38 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/12/2012 1:31:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that he is a sophist. In addition, you are not Socrates . . .

Oh, I have tried to explain this before. I also like how he disagreed with people at one point, when he took the traditional sophist position and they the Socratic, yet he kept this form.

Whatever floats your boat.

Socratic method usually suggests asking leading questions. All you're doing is rebutting in the form of a dialogue. Using the socratic method, HE should be the one coming to that conclusion by answering a question of yours which contradicts one of his earlier answers.

The Fool: I really was giving a great technique out there, you probably couldnet see it with all that pride in you face.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 2:17:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 2:07:44 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/12/2012 1:50:19 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/12/2012 1:33:38 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/12/2012 1:31:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that he is a sophist. In addition, you are not Socrates . . .

Oh, I have tried to explain this before. I also like how he disagreed with people at one point, when he took the traditional sophist position and they the Socratic, yet he kept this form.

Whatever floats your boat.

Socratic method usually suggests asking leading questions. All you're doing is rebutting in the form of a dialogue. Using the socratic method, HE should be the one coming to that conclusion by answering a question of yours which contradicts one of his earlier answers.

The Fool: I really was giving a great technique out there, you probably couldnet see it with all that pride in you face.

No, it really was shocking "technique". I like funny "hooks" as much as the next guy (I'm pretty much a talking compendium of them), but you aren't doing it in an interesting, amusing, constructive, or intelligent way. For both our sakes, and for the sake of one greater than both of us (Comedy), please stop.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 2:26:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 2:05:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: nobody says anything nice on hear. I don't now if its the debating context or the American contexts. You guys naturally sound rude too us. I think it has to do with such big cities. People are much more rude in toronto then ottawa.

1. people on DDO are naturally critical which can sometimes come off as "rude"

2. Americans are generally rude people as well

3. when someone posts a rambling critique of a single user using methods you clearly don't fully understand you are liable to be attacked a little...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 2:55:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't know how someone who goes around calling people "sophists" can complain about others being "rude" to them. =p
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 3:00:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 2:55:02 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I don't know how someone who goes around calling people "sophists" can complain about others being "rude" to them. =p

are you sure you're not The_Fool_on_the_hill? She talks exactly like you, with the same ambiguity and occasional verbosity. She says random things often mocking something or another in this pseudo-philosophical, eccentric tone.

Don't lie, she's your multiaccount isn't she?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 3:06:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, it really was shocking "technique". I like funny "hooks" as much as the next guy (I'm pretty much a talking compendium of them), but you aren't doing it in an interesting, amusing, constructive, or intelligent way. For both our sakes, and for the sake of one greater than both of us (Comedy), please stop.

The Fool: very classy,,lol ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 3:06:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You're a fvcking idiot.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 3:07:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That was aimed at 000ike, by the way.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 3:09:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 3:07:46 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
That was aimed at 000ike, by the way.

That was a bit shocking. Did I offend you?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 3:11:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 3:07:46 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
That was aimed at 000ike, by the way.

The Fool: I was shocked for sec!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 3:23:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 2:05:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: nobody says anything nice on hear. I don't now if its the debating context or the American contexts. You guys naturally sound rude too us. I think it has to do with such big cities. People are much more rude in toronto then ottawa.

Hahaha, that made me laugh. I don't know about where you come from, but in America, we consider it just a little rude to call someone a cowardly deceiver.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 3:27:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 3:06:13 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
No, it really was shocking "technique". I like funny "hooks" as much as the next guy (I'm pretty much a talking compendium of them), but you aren't doing it in an interesting, amusing, constructive, or intelligent way. For both our sakes, and for the sake of one greater than both of us (Comedy), please stop.

The Fool: very classy,,lol ;)

Classy is my middle name. It got me beaten up on a lot in school. I've always suspected that my parents just wanted me to suffer.