Subject:
|
Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Apr 2001 04:25:57 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
[q_harlequin_p@]nospam[hotmail.com]
|
Viewed:
|
871 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 03:18:15 GMT, "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > Not entirely true, it could all be literally true whilst parts could
> > > > > > still be incorrect.
> > > You're equivocating.
> > Not at all. An entire text that I have written may represent the
> > truth of what I believe, however when things are taken out of context,
> > they do not represent the truth of what I believe. Therefore as a
> > whole it is true, but not when broken into parts. Now how much more
> > straight forward can you get than that? I mean perhaps the real
> > problem is that you spend all your time trying to find equivocation
> > that you don't bother to see what's actually there.
> Trying to find equivocation in your arguments is like trying to find grass in
> a meadow. I don't have all that much experience on Usenet, as you so proudly
> proclaim yourself to have, but your style of argument (about which, see below)
> was old on Warboards back in the early 80's. All you're doing is holding--or
> pretending to hold--a position until someone challenges you on it, then you
> claim that you don't really hold the view you've professed. Childish, at best,
> and in any case boring and not particularly insightful.
Again simply accusing me of being equivocal, but this time doing it in
a rather prolix over exasperated way, as if that somehow makes it any
less transparent and laughable. In case you hadn't noticed I'm still
"holding" the position I started out with about 2 days ago, it is YOU
have now resorted to "Oh you're just playing games so I'm not going to
defend myself". I stood firm on the opinions I adopted two days ago
and I STILL stand firm on them. Regardless of whether I say they
aren't my true feelings or beliefs.
> > My logic? LOL, I have no set belief system, I'm simply taking sides
> > here kitten, nothing more.
> Are you hitting on me?
If that somehow entails pointing out your idiocy, yeah I guess I am.
> Thanks, but I'm not interested.
Obsess much?
> For that matter,
> until we can resolve our rhetorical differences I don't think you have much
> chance of engaging my interest on any real level.
Is the part where you nonchalantly run away from the debate?
> > > therefore you are falling victim to your own doctrine.
> > Again assuming that the opinions I express are not only mine, but ones
> > that I truly believe in.
> If that's the game you care to play, I'm obliged to point out that you're
> making assumptions about my assumptions.
You only assume I'm making assumptions about your assumptions. : )
> So far I've been reacting to the
> character you've portrayed here on LUGNET. For all I care, in real life you
> could be the guy who sat five rows away at the movies last week; irrelevant.
> The character (such as it is) of Robert Bevens is a self-important, childish,
> pseudo-intellectual and self-described social engineer. I don't find the
> character to be well-developed, or engaging, or particularly interesting other
> than as a discursive footnote in the larger debate.
Maybe the reason you feel that way is because I've stepped REAL hard
on your beliefs and then acted all arrogant about it thus furthering
your little fatuous paroxysm.
> To that end, I decry once
> again your Postmodernist bent, since it identifies you--the author--as little
> more than a trend follower. And here you've fallen irretrievably into a trap,
> because even if you deny that you hold the views you espouse, you're still
> guilty of them; that's the nature of Postmodernist author/text/character
> blurring. Bravo to you for landing squarely in the middle of a hackneyed and
> trite rhetorical dead end!
Oh that's deep. Okay bud, I'll play along, you're right, there's no
way I can be a Nihilist. I guess ya got me good, huh?
> > > Further, arguments along the lines of "you can't know 'reality'
> > > anyway" (of which type you're so very fond) have little rhetorical value and
> > > amount to a sort of fillibuster.
> > Really, how so? See that's what I keep asking, and yet you and others
> > just can't seem to be able to explain yourselves.
> Again, I must point out that you're assuming that we can't explain
> ourselves.
I'm not assuming anything, there are a variety of possibilities
though. One is that you don't want to explain yourselves for fear of
being wrong, there are many others. I just love how you keep assuming
I'm making all these assumptions when I'm clearly not. I hardly ever
use definitive based language in my debates, why even in this sentence
by using the word "hardly" I've managed not to.
> I understand Bruce's point, and James', yet it seems baffling to
> you. If you are of such intellectual monument that we can't follow your
> definition of logic, how is it that three such mental midgets can employ
> reasoning that defies your professed intellectual prowess?
I believe I not only pointed out the fallacies in Bruce's and Jame's
point, but yours as well Mr. Out Of Context.
> > > Ultimately they're not particularly
> > > interesting, since they result in infinite regress and leave you no better
> > > off than when you started, at which point the more desperate debaters will
> > > say "see? I was right--it's all meaningless."
> > Well of course it's all meaningless, but that doesn't mean we can't
> > debate the subject.
> Previously you stated that because it's all meaningless (when you pointed out
> that we might be brains in vats viewing computer simulations), we shouldn't
> bother debating the subject. Are you contradicting yourself, or are you simply
> testing me to see if I read your previous post? It was quite trying, I admit,
> since your textual style is dry and juvenile, but through perserverance and in
> the spirit of fair play I trughted through it despite its weakness.
You may think my style is dry and juvenile, but at least it's not as
bad as your ongoing prolix verbiage.
> > Maybe someone should just get you a mirror, then you can really have some
> > fun.
> And now you're making me an oblique offer of cocaine. Boy, this fictional
> character named Robert Bevens really is a kook!
Boy that one sure went over your head. Tell me, do you work in a
movie theater as a projectionist? : )
> > > You don't have to bother. You've cited the so-called Liar's Paradox,
> > > which predates arguments about The New Testament's legitimacy by at least
> > > several centuries. In any case, the statement "A is true, but only when A
> > > is false" has no truth value and therefore doesn't enter in any meaningful
> > > way into logical discourse.
> > This six word sentence is false.
> > Oops, there goes the Liar's Paradox, see how easy that is?
> Obviously I see how easy it is; you've provided a sentence with no truth
> value and therefore with nothing to contribute to the debate. Thank you for
> agreeing with me and further illustrating my point!
Oh it looks like that one went over your head too, no surprise there.
I guess since there is no truth value that's not a real English
sentence, huh Mr. Out Of Context?
> > > You're demonstrating a
> > > type of misunderstanding along the lines of those who assert "science can't
> > > prove x", when in fact science isn't about "proving" anything; it is a
> > > system of reasoning and a method of understanding. So with logic.
> > Robert goes through his posts and tries to find where he said anything
> > about science or trying to prove things, but alas, can find nothing.
> If Robert could actually read and comprehend, Robert would have understood
> that I did not assert that he had made any claims about science. I had pointed
> out that his reasoning (for lack of a better word) was of the same sort
> employed by those who claim to understand the nature of science while
> simultaneously demonstrating their ignorance of it. Robert referred to false
> logic, for which I must again remind him that logic is a system of examination
> and analysis and in itself is not true or false.
Oh goody I get to make you look stupid again, this is fun. Here's a
dictionary definition of logic:
"The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure
of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and
validity in deductive reasoning. "
No do you see why you're argument is meaningless or do you need me to
point it out for you? Okay then, I will. See son, you're saying that
logic isn't definitive and that is one of the points I was debating
against the others about. I said that IN logic there is true and
false, however that's not to say that logic is necessarily correct. I
mean aren't you the one being equivocable at this point? I mean here
we are arguing logic and saying this thing here is true, this other
thing here is false, and then here comes you saying that it's all
bullshit because logic may be completely wrong. Well no shit,
sherlock, hell for all we know the entire universe may not even really
exist. Unfortunately for your stupidity you seem to have failed to
see that we are arguing IN logic, using the primer of logistics as if
they are indeed real and true.
> > Funny, I never said you didn't confidently assert that it is false,
> > seems you're the one with the reading comprehension problems there,
> > bud.
> Yet another veiled drug reference! Are you seeking an intervention?
What does your reading comprehension have to do with drugs? I guess
maybe at this point I should be the one saying, "Yet another drug
reference accusation! Are you seeking an intervention?
> > Wait, wait, wait, did you just say "defend"? LOL, oh the irony, that
> > one just went right over yer head, didn't it kitten.
> Doese everyone see this? Robert's blatantly hitting on me here in front of
> all LUGNET! I'm feeling disempowered!
You must have a thing for kitten's or something, I can't see many
other reasons you would see that as a come on. BTW that's not a
request for an explanation about your kitten love fantasies, you can
just keep those to yourself.
> > > I think James overlooked it because it was presented as a rebuttal to my
> > > question as though it was in itself an answer. If it makes you feel any
> > > better, my response to your question is "I cannot assert with confidence
> > > that the literal word is false. However, I can and do assert with
> > > confidence that if part of the literal word is false, then it is not
> > > possible for all of the literal word to be true."
> > Let me prove you wrong. Here's a quote from your passage:
> >
> > "part of the literal word is false"
> >
> > Now if that paragraph you just wrote does indeed represent your true
> > beliefs than by your own logic any part of the passage also reflects
> > your true beliefs, does it not? Therefore you believe that part of
> > the literal word is false, regardless of anything else. I believe the
> > phrase you're looking to find here is "out of context".
> I believe the phrase I'm looking for is "Robert can't read." I established a
> basic if/then relationship: IF part of the literal word is false, THEN it is
> not possible for all of the literal word to be true.
Oh either way you want to play it Stupid, it still works out. Playing
by your new backpedal the portion that was taken out of context
doesn't reflect your true beliefs then the entire paragraph
representing your tue beliefs doesn't really represent your true
beliefs. Hey you make yourself look even stupider when you play it
from that angle. Care to try again?
Robert
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic
|
| (...) Trying to find equivocation in your arguments is like trying to find grass in a meadow. I don't have all that much experience on Usenet, as you so proudly proclaim yourself to have, but your style of argument (about which, see below) was old (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
126 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
