Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GazzBut]
    #1112498 -

Just a little word of advice to some of you supposed philisophical heavyweights with your oft assered super powers of logic - making comments about the character of the person you are debating with is not an effective method of debate. In fact it is irrelevant and totally uneccesary. If you wish to refute somebodys arguement simply stick to the subject and leave all the sly digs and petty name calling where it belongs - in the schoolyard.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GazzBut]
    #1112567 -

So if everyone thought like you we would progress faster then?

Why not just shorten your statement to: If everyone thought, we would progress faster.

Do not confuse an opinion or an adopted posture as thinking.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
    #1112723 -

So you dont have opinions Swamster? You just think....


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Edited by GazzBut (12/05/02 04:02 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GazzBut]
    #1112759 -

...but arrogance certainlly does...
Thank you for your professional assessment., however we already had the "psychoanalyze Swami" thread. More poeple here that take umbrage with my writing focus on my personality and motivation INSTEAD OF RESPONDING TO THE POINTS MADE. That tells me that they are almost incapable of critical thinking and attack instead. I expect more from you as you do not seem to generally fall into this catagory.

sadly what your EGO takes such great pleasure in bandying about as logic seems to me nothing more that a set of prejudiced beliefs
You seem to jump to false conclusions fequently.

backed up with the claim that if certain experiments\claims have been proven to be false or erroneous then all claims of a similar nature are also false or erroneous.
More reading comprehension errors. I have never stated that once. What I have stated is that when a believer presents "best evidence" and it falls flat the entiire field is suspect; not one UFO hoax makes all sightings false. Attempt to see the difference.


That is not logic, that is generalisation.
Your whole post has been a generalisation.

I just feel you jump to the conclusion that many things are 100% false a little too easily, which logically speaking is the same error the "Believers" are making.
Your feelings are not very accurate. Have stated many times that I have done more research than any ten members here. Assuming an extraordinary claim is false until shown otherwise is hardly the same as believing every fairly tale that comes long. This is called discernment.

As for burdens of proof, there is no claimant,
Guess we read different posts (I read them all). There are many outlandish claims made here.

no prosecutor - so i dont see the relevance.
Your inability to see any relevance does not mean that it doesn't correlate.

It just looks like the skeptics trying to make it easier to claim a victory on the behalf of their cherished beliefs.
Whatever that means. This is repeated so many times as an excuse for an inability to provide and sunstantiation. I would LOVE TO believe in life-after-death, UFOs, ETs, telekinesis, etc., but require more than mere say-so or desire to accept them.




--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: dee_N_ae]
    #1112764 -

I hardly ever ask anyone to prove to me something they've just said.
It almost seems rude.
Discussion on a discussion board, "OH MY GAWD!" what was I thinking? Didn't realize this was the "Post a Story and Back Me Up" board.

When one is deciding to take a loved one diagnosed with cancer to a Filipino psychic surgeon instead of an oncologist and asks for proof, is that being rude?

When a member states that they can astral travel to my house and I design a placard with a symbol to test that, is that being rude?

When a memeber says the world is ending and we should quit our jobs and become survivalists in the remote reaches of Montana, and I ask what this prophecy is based on, is that being rude?

What's wrong with giving a SHRED, a mere SLIVER of your consciousness over to the idea that something you don't believe in is possible and happenes... no matter what you believe?
What's wrong with giving a SHRED, a mere SLIVER of your consciousness over to the idea that something you believe in is misinterpretation and false conclusions and impossible... no matter what you believe?

You, like most believers, fail to understand that critical investigation is the key to understanding ANY phenomenon.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Edited by Swami (12/05/02 05:10 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
    #1112776 -

"motivation INSTEAD OF RESPONDING TO THE POINTS MADE. That tells me that they are almost incapable of critical thinking and attack instead. I expect more from you as you do not seem to generally fall into this catagory."

I admit labelling you was wrong. However, this is a tactic you are not adverse to employing yourself upon occasion!!

"You seem to jump to false conclusions fequently."

I stated an opinion, I did not jump to any conclusions.

"That is not logic, that is generalisation.
Your whole post has been a generalisation."

Fine, if thats your opinion.

Basically, I think we are on the same side of the fence. If you are actually willing to accept the possibillity of there being an element of truth in some of the weird and wonderful claims made here.





--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GazzBut]
    #1112835 -

So if everyone thought like you we would progress faster then?

Or at least if everyone thought for themselves, rather than having an implanted microchip pulling the strings. Since you are only able to parrot the views of the cabal who had your microchip installed, you cannot be criticized for holding the position you do -- it's not your fault.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
    #1112886 -

Quote:
What's wrong with giving a SHRED, a mere SLIVER of your consciousness over to the idea that something you don't believe in is possible and happenes... no matter what you believe?
What's wrong with giving a SHRED, a mere SLIVER of your consciousness over to the idea that something you believe in is misinterpretation and false conclusions and impossible... no matter what you believe?
 



I need to ask why these two modes of thought are mutualy exclusive?I after sleeping on it believe this is the ultimate point I try to make; even though diametricly opposed,both thought mode are valid .Here's a little WR wisdom for ya'll "Out of paradox,Arises understanding"Ya'll are wrong,Ya'll are right, out of this will true understanding arise.......but probably not today :laugh: WR


--------------------
To old for this place

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Phred]
    #1112919 -

Keep trying, you may get a reaction out of me other than sympathy.

But I doubt it.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
    #1113114 -

Have stated many times that I have done more research than any ten members here.

Sure, you've stated it but that doesn't make it true.

You said you'd watched area 51 through a pair of binoculars once and because you didn't see any UFO's this was conclusive proof they don't exist. Sorry, but I don't call that research.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Xlea321]
    #1113220 -

It's closer to research than watching Spielberg's Taken or reading Communion and then pretending that you've actually done something. I don't think Swami had the security clearance to give Area 51 a proper treatment... so he did what he could.

BTW, what the fuck happened to MY thread here?
Every friggin' time Alex posts he's completely ignoring the topic at hand and is bent on trying to "disprove" Swami. It's incredibly annoying/counterproductive/whatever and it should be stopped. Unless Alex IS Swami (uh... yeah), then it would be amusing...


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
    #1113355 -

Poor schlorch is feeling ignored. Somebody quick! Verbally attack him so that he can feel needed. :tongue: 


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GazzBut]
    #1113390 -

Gazzbut writes:

Keep trying, you may get a reaction out of me other than sympathy.

Sorry, I don't understand that response. Are you trying to claim that your thoughts and actions are not in fact controlled by the microchip, or are you merely trying (clumsily) to divert attention from it?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
    #1113394 -

See what you started Sclorch.......You and your subtle instigation have completly derailed your own thread :grin:Are you in advertizing? you do get the hits :wink: BTW I agree with your astute assesment of BoP and apologize for contributing to the dichotomy(trichtomy,N-chotomy?) of your topic.Be happy, you turn up the volume of discussion (and elevate it :wink:) with most of your posts and I personaly value your insight :wink: Peace and lucidity to you! WR


--------------------
To old for this place

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
    #1113700 -

BTW, what the fuck happened to MY thread here?

Damn sclorch, sounds like you're finally getting a handle on the rest of us feel when someone starts a spiritual thread and you and swami make 50 posts saying "Can you prove that happened?".


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
    #1114140 -

Discussion on a discussion board, "OH MY GAWD!" what was I thinking? Didn't realize this was the "Post a Story and Back Me Up" board.

LOL!  :grin:

When one is deciding to take a loved one diagnosed with cancer to a Filipino psychic surgeon instead of an oncologist and asks for proof, is that being rude?

When a member states that they can astral travel to my house and I design a placard with a symbol to test that, is that being rude?

When a memeber says the world is ending and we should quit our jobs and become survivalists in the remote reaches of Montana, and I ask what this prophecy is based on, is that being rude?

*sigh*

I was speaking more about extraordinary occurances that may be considered by an individual to be of a deeply personal or private nature, such as alien encounters could be.
   

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Xlea321]
    #1114492 -

Damn Alex, sounds like you STILL haven't addressed the topic. If you could only understand this thread, you'll know why Swami (or whomever) has to make 50 posts just to drive his point home. Why don't you help us all conserve energy and time by actually learning how to avoid pseudoreasoning, slanters, and fallacies. Thanks.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
    #1114657 -

:smile:


--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
    #1114836 -

Burden of proof is always the responability of the claiment. Logic is a flawed tool in that is relies on a belief in language.


--------------------
Quote:
Rhaz said:
        I think consciousness is impersonal and the body as well but for the history and tendencies of the body/intelligence process, which are things about our being, the personal, but don't necessarily define our being.
 


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
    #1114869 -

OMG this is silly. From now on, I will do my best to not get into these arguments or even read them.

Have fun prooving you have a bigger ego than someone else.  :wink:


--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists
( 1 2 all )		 OrgoneConclusion 2,667 22 01/12/09 08:57 PM
by Mr. Mushrooms
* Newton's dark secrets Icelander 981 8 11/16/05 02:22 PM
by Ped
* Proof
( 1 2 all )		 nice1 1,672 34 10/05/09 12:27 PM
by learningtofly
* Negative Proof
( 1 2 3 all )		 OrgoneConclusion 2,886 57 12/24/08 02:14 AM
by deranger
* Newton's self reflection OrgoneConclusion 514 8 12/18/10 10:10 PM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Subatomic physics
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 2,431 24 10/23/02 02:26 PM
by trendal
* Subatomic frequencies. Droz 1,491 9 02/08/05 09:14 AM
by gnrm23
* Burden of Proof OrgoneConclusion 844 13 03/05/08 08:59 PM
by backfromthedead

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
8,153 topic views. 3 members, 76 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.