|
 teknix
ÐøøÐ
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 7,857
|
 Re: Logical Evidence for Existence.  [Re: Icelander]
#16471949 - 07/02/12 09:17 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said:
Go ahead and report me. Cause...... I'm terrified. 
That is an extremely mature argument. 
|
Diploid
Cuban
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 18,202
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: teknix]
#16471953 - 07/02/12 09:18 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
teknix,
I don't know where you're getting your rules from, but it's not from the rules sticky.
More to the point, faulty arguments are not against the rules. They are part and parcel of debate and counter-argument.
Read the rules and refrain from reporting posts you don't like but that don't break them, especially when you introduced the side-discussion in the first place.
--------------------
Wanna hear something depressing? One out of four Shroomerites wants to lock me in a government cage for using a substance they don't like.
Hard to believe, right? Read it for yourself:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7874721#Post7874721
|
teknix
ÐøøÐ
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 7,857
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: Diploid]
#16471956 - 07/02/12 09:19 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
It was to point out the obvious absurdity and flawed logic within the argument.
|
Diploid
Cuban
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 18,202
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: teknix]
#16471961 - 07/02/12 09:21 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
That's not against the rules. Why are you whining to me about it?
--------------------
Wanna hear something depressing? One out of four Shroomerites wants to lock me in a government cage for using a substance they don't like.
Hard to believe, right? Read it for yourself:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7874721#Post7874721
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 79,819
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: Diploid]
#16471963 - 07/02/12 09:21 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Thanks for the clarification. I however didn't need it because I've read the forum guidelines and understand them. I knew I wasn't breaking any rules.
Pretty amazing stuff but no surprise. 
--------------------
"Hang on tightly, let go lightly" -anonymous
“under the present brutal and primitive conditions on this planet, every person you meet should be regarded as one of the walking wounded. we have never seen a man or woman not slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief. we have never seen a totally sane human being.”
― Robert Anton Wilson
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 79,819
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: Diploid]
#16471966 - 07/02/12 09:22 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Diploid said:
That's not against the rules. Why are you whining to me about it?
Like I said. Pretty amazing.
--------------------
"Hang on tightly, let go lightly" -anonymous
“under the present brutal and primitive conditions on this planet, every person you meet should be regarded as one of the walking wounded. we have never seen a man or woman not slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief. we have never seen a totally sane human being.”
― Robert Anton Wilson
|
teknix
ÐøøÐ
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 7,857
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: Icelander]
#16471969 - 07/02/12 09:23 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
This debate-oriented forum is for the discussion of philosophical ideas that can be backed up with some sort of thoughtful logic and reasoning.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 79,819
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: teknix]
#16471979 - 07/02/12 09:26 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
so? As the moderator pointed out you brought in the subject of whether dogs think. YOU!! I responded only then. Yet you blame me for going off topic. Now who's being illogical???????
--------------------
"Hang on tightly, let go lightly" -anonymous
“under the present brutal and primitive conditions on this planet, every person you meet should be regarded as one of the walking wounded. we have never seen a man or woman not slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief. we have never seen a totally sane human being.”
― Robert Anton Wilson
|
teknix
ÐøøÐ
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 7,857
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: Icelander]
#16471987 - 07/02/12 09:28 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Whatever you say.
|
Diploid
Cuban
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 18,202
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: teknix]
#16471994 - 07/02/12 09:29 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
I see no breaking of any rules. You've been presented with logic and reasoning. Just because you don't like that logic and reasoning, doesn't make it any less so. Rather than whine, perhaps deconstruct the logic and reasoning... if you can. That's what this forum is for.
I do see you derailing your own thread, however, which makes no sense to me. Half this thread is off-topic at your insistence. But hey, it's your party. 
--------------------
Wanna hear something depressing? One out of four Shroomerites wants to lock me in a government cage for using a substance they don't like.
Hard to believe, right? Read it for yourself:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7874721#Post7874721
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 79,819
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: teknix]
#16472001 - 07/02/12 09:31 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:
Whatever you say.
--------------------
"Hang on tightly, let go lightly" -anonymous
“under the present brutal and primitive conditions on this planet, every person you meet should be regarded as one of the walking wounded. we have never seen a man or woman not slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief. we have never seen a totally sane human being.”
― Robert Anton Wilson
|
teknix
ÐøøÐ
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 7,857
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: DieCommie]
#16472109 - 07/02/12 09:56 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Here is where dogs were first brought up.
Quote:
Icelander said:
Quote:
teknix said:
If something is pondering existence then there must be existence.
You do not exist.
------------------------------------------------------
There is not existence.
If something is pondering existence then there must be existence.
I am pondering my existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------
There must be existence.
Yeah things exist it seems. Seems pretty "self evident". My dogs are even aware of existence, at least their actions would indicate that.
Of course there's no way to know for sure. We are not the creators. Maybe this is non-existance. Wouldn't that be a hoot.
Then it was explained here:
Quote:
Your opinion on whether or not you think your dog think it exists is irrelevant.
AND HERE:
Quote:
teknix said:
You think a dog ponders existence? If it doesn't then how can it know it is existing? How would it know? You think bugs are pondering their existence?
Us pondering a dog's existence is an entire different subject matter imho.
Another user also saw the horrid logic here:
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Yea, there seems to have been a confusion between cognition and meta-cognition here. The latter implies the former, but not vise versa.
the rule that is broken is the very first one as shown here:
Quote:
This debate-oriented forum is for the discussion of philosophical ideas that can be backed up with some sort of thoughtful logic and reasoning.
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4526664
Then even after this was all pointed out, there was a continuance of argument without any seemingly logical basis up to this point.
Which can be seen here:
Quote:
Icelander said:
Thanks for the clarification. I however didn't need it because I've read the forum guidelines and understand them. I knew I wasn't breaking any rules.
Pretty amazing stuff but no surprise.
And Here:
Quote:
Icelander said:
Quote:
Diploid said:
That's not against the rules. Why are you whining to me about it?
Like I said. Pretty amazing.
And Here:
Quote:
Icelander said:
so? As the moderator pointed out you brought in the subject of whether dogs think. YOU!! I responded only then. Yet you blame me for going off topic. Now who's being illogical???????
And Here:
Quote:
Icelander said:
Go ahead and report me. Cause...... I'm terrified.
And Here:
Quote:
Icelander said:
Quote:
teknix said:
It seems like it could also be evidence for self-evidence and subjective nature.
What makes you think a dog is thinking it exists? I haven't seen any evidence that a dog thinks anything.
I never said a dog thinks it exists.
And if you think a dog doesn't think then you know very little about animals.
Edited by teknix (07/02/12 10:13 PM)
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 79,819
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: teknix]
#16472155 - 07/02/12 10:08 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Except you conveniently skipped where you said you don't believe dogs think. My comment on dogs was on topic if you will take a look again.
Why do you have to be so dishonest about this?
You don't have a case dude. You'll just dig a deeper hole trying to be right. And someone might think there's a nasty ego trip going on here.
--------------------
"Hang on tightly, let go lightly" -anonymous
“under the present brutal and primitive conditions on this planet, every person you meet should be regarded as one of the walking wounded. we have never seen a man or woman not slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief. we have never seen a totally sane human being.”
― Robert Anton Wilson
|
teknix
ÐøøÐ
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 7,857
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: teknix]
#16472194 - 07/02/12 10:16 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Yeah that was when I was showing the faulty logic of the proposition:
Quote:
teknix said:
It seems like it could also be evidence for self-evidence and subjective nature.
What makes you think a dog is thinking it exists? I haven't seen any evidence that a dog thinks anything.
Seems you still don't see how that was aiding the initial premise. Showing faulty logic. So yes, that is more evidence of showing faulty logic while you continue on.
And more evidence of the continuance:
Quote:
Icelander said:
Except you conveniently skipped where you said you don't believe dogs think. My comment on dogs was on topic if you will take a look again.
Why do you have to be so dishonest about this?
You don't have a case dude. You'll just dig a deeper hole trying to be right. And someone might think there's a nasty ego trip going on here.
And more evidence of continuing off-topic:
Quote:
Icelander said:
Except you conveniently skipped where you said you don't believe dogs think. My comment on dogs was on topic if you will take a look again.
Why do you have to be so dishonest about this?
You don't have a case dude. You'll just dig a deeper hole trying to be right. And someone might think there's a nasty ego trip going on here.
And more:
Quote:
Icelander said:
Here's the Moderators reply to you on this subject since you seem to have missed it.
Quote:
I see no breaking of any rules. You've been presented with logic and reasoning. Just because you don't like that logic and reasoning, doesn't make it any less so. Rather than whine, perhaps deconstruct the logic and reasoning... if you can. That's what this forum is for.
I do see you derailing your own thread, however, which makes no sense to me. Half this thread is off-topic at your insistence. But hey, it's your party.
And more:
Quote:
Icelander said:
And this.
Quote:
I don't know where you're getting your rules from, but it's not from the rules sticky.
More to the point, faulty arguments are not against the rules. They are part and parcel of debate and counter-argument.
Read the rules and refrain from reporting posts you don't like but that don't break them, especially when you introduced the side-discussion in the first place.
And here:
Quote:
Icelander said:
I'm done if you got it.
Edited by teknix (07/02/12 10:48 PM)
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 79,819
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: teknix]
#16472210 - 07/02/12 10:22 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
So what if you think it's faulty. You thinking dogs don't think is what's faulty imo. I was always on the topic. And followed you.
As as Diploid stated I've never broken a rule in this thread. Not one. Read the rules with the numbers. Those are the rules.
This is truly pathetic.
--------------------
"Hang on tightly, let go lightly" -anonymous
“under the present brutal and primitive conditions on this planet, every person you meet should be regarded as one of the walking wounded. we have never seen a man or woman not slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief. we have never seen a totally sane human being.”
― Robert Anton Wilson
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 79,819
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: teknix]
#16472216 - 07/02/12 10:23 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Here's the Moderators reply to you on this subject since you seem to have missed it.
Quote:
I see no breaking of any rules. You've been presented with logic and reasoning. Just because you don't like that logic and reasoning, doesn't make it any less so. Rather than whine, perhaps deconstruct the logic and reasoning... if you can. That's what this forum is for.
I do see you derailing your own thread, however, which makes no sense to me. Half this thread is off-topic at your insistence. But hey, it's your party.
--------------------
"Hang on tightly, let go lightly" -anonymous
“under the present brutal and primitive conditions on this planet, every person you meet should be regarded as one of the walking wounded. we have never seen a man or woman not slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief. we have never seen a totally sane human being.”
― Robert Anton Wilson
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 79,819
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: teknix]
#16472223 - 07/02/12 10:25 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
And this.
Quote:
I don't know where you're getting your rules from, but it's not from the rules sticky.
More to the point, faulty arguments are not against the rules. They are part and parcel of debate and counter-argument.
Read the rules and refrain from reporting posts you don't like but that don't break them, especially when you introduced the side-discussion in the first place.
--------------------
"Hang on tightly, let go lightly" -anonymous
“under the present brutal and primitive conditions on this planet, every person you meet should be regarded as one of the walking wounded. we have never seen a man or woman not slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief. we have never seen a totally sane human being.”
― Robert Anton Wilson
|
teknix
ÐøøÐ
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 7,857
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: teknix]
#16472271 - 07/02/12 10:36 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
You done?
Quote:
teknix said:
If something is pondering existence then there must be existence.
You do not exist.
------------------------------------------------------
There is not existence.
If something is pondering existence then there must be existence.
I am pondering my existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------
There must be existence.
Now back to the premise.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 79,819
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: teknix]
#16472293 - 07/02/12 10:41 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
I'm done if you got it.
--------------------
"Hang on tightly, let go lightly" -anonymous
“under the present brutal and primitive conditions on this planet, every person you meet should be regarded as one of the walking wounded. we have never seen a man or woman not slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief. we have never seen a totally sane human being.”
― Robert Anton Wilson
|
teknix
ÐøøÐ
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 7,857
|
Re: Logical Evidence for Existence. [Re: Icelander]
#16472324 - 07/02/12 10:49 PM (10 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Yeah, I get it, your arguments against the premise don't seem to have much if any logic.
(If that is what your doing here.)
Edited by teknix (07/02/12 10:56 PM)
|
|
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
