#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
"I Don't Have A Source Handy" Says Amarel. While Connected To The Internet.
Facts
Side Score: 75
|
 |
No Facts
Side Score: 51
|
|
For a discussion about singularities, I cited a physics professor, an astro-physics professor, and referred to NOVA for what "most physicists agree" about. You cited an article from a philosophy encyclopedia and wikipedia. "A singularity is a place of infinite density, and that's not really a thing." What's sad is, you claimed this area was your profession. You said you were a science journalist. You have been schooled in your own profession by an anonymous internet guy. Side: Facts
"When scientists talk about black hole singularities, they are talking about the errors that appear in our current theories and not about objects that actually exist. When scientists and non-scientists talk about singularities as if they really exist, they are simply displaying their ignorance." displaying their ignorance displaying their ignorance displaying their ignorance displaying their ignorance Side: Facts
Poor old 6 gun Amarel who values freedom of speech but bans everyone who disagrees with him has been exposed âwaffling â yet again ..... In reply to your previous âpiece â...... Jody, you're a god-damned child walking in to the middle of a grown-up movie and asking little kid questions. Of course when something is beyond your pea like brain itâs my fault not yours........LOL You're out of your depth, as usual. Being told this by an idiot whoâs whole argument is another appeal to his latest favourite go to source is amusing to say the least If you run the expansion of the universe which we observe today backwards , then the density of matter must have been larger the younger the universe was, all the way back to an initial moment where the density must have been infinitely high: it must have been singular. Iâm really dumbing it down for you here buddy Side: Facts
|
"Based on their experience with other systems, physicists suspect that the singularities in General Relativity are a warning, a tip-off that we need another theory to describe the physics in the extreme situations when gravity is very strong and its quantum effects are very large." Side: No Facts
"Based on their experience with other systems, physicists suspect that the singularities in General Relativity are a warning, a tip-off that we need another theory to describe the physics in the extreme situations when gravity is very strong and its quantum effects are very large." You really should read the entire article that you plagarised your snippet from and credit the source........ which was NOVA ...... The one type of singularity that might be realâthat physicists donât know how to resolveâis the one that appears in Einsteinâs theory of General Relativity when matter collapses under the gravitational pull of its own weight. There is nothing in General Relativity that then stands in the way of this collapse. It will continue until all the matter is located at a single point of infinite matter density and infinite space-time curvature: a singularity. Side: Facts
I didn't really think you could read. Good job, though your comprehension is iffy. Yes, the beginning of the article says that the one singularity that might be real is the black hole. It then goes on to explain that the the math of Einstein's General Theory resulting in black hole singularities violates the principle of unitarity. It concludes with my above quote which. Which is a quote dumbass, not plagiarism. Side: No Facts
I didn't really think you could read. But you think a lot of very silly things like the necessity of owning 6 guns Good job, though your comprehension is iffy. My comprehension is fine , here is the part where you revise what you said to take account of my correcting your assertions Yes, the beginning of the article says that the one singularity that might be real is the black hole. Heâs getting it ...progress it then goes on to explain that the the math of Einstein's General Theory resulting in black hole singularities violates the principle of unitarity. It concludes with my above quote which. Which is a quote dumbass, not plagiarism.*b I read your plagarised article , you did not as you cheery picked one part ignoring the rest you idiot Also in text citations one should quote the author but not when itâs a sneering cunt like you posting apparently Side: Facts
But you think a lot of very silly things like the necessity of owning 6 guns See, you just make up shit. It's not necessary, but why should I get rid of an antique just because it's not necessary? Why would I hunt with a weapon designed for concealed carry? There's only one that's necessary, but the others are fun too. You bring up my gun ownership more than anyone else, including me. That tells me that mentioning it in the first place had it's desired affect. Which was mostly to annoy the sorry likes of you and BL. Piss and moan all you want about Americans with guns, but it won't change the fact that this American has guns. Side: No Facts
See, you just make up shit. I donât actually It's not necessary, Yet you claimed it was and most Americans agree citing protection as the number one reason for ownership but why should I get rid of an antique just because it's not necessary? Youâre deflecting....again Why would I hunt with a weapon designed for concealed carry? Still deflecting ..... There's only one that's necessary, but the others are fun too. Ahhh so one is necessary so again we are agreed guns are necessary in the US to feel safe You bring up my gun ownership more than anyone else, including me. Yet youâve spent years defending such , I bring up the fact that you live in a very violent society (you agree ) also gun ownership is a necessity to feel safe in the US again you agree , yet here you are getting all butt hurt because I point it out .....sore point is it? That tells me that mentioning it in the first place had it's desired affect. Which was mostly to annoy the sorry likes of you and BL. Doesnât annoy me at all it amuses me that idiots like you think having armed guards at school is something to boast about itâs pretty tragic really Piss and moan all you want about Americans with guns, but it won't change the fact that this American has guns. Oh Iâm not moaning Iâm pointing out youâre part of the problem as you live in a very dysfunctional society and you glorify and wallow in your ignorance and think that as a nation you are somehow âenglightenedâ LOL Side: Facts
Jesus Christ I'll shorten it up for you dipshit. Owning 6 is not necessary. Owning 1 is. And not for everyone over here, but for me. I hope that's simple enough for you . As for the rest; I haven't murdered anyone so I'm not part of the gun homicide problem. I haven't shot myself so I'm not part of the gun suicide problem. Living in a society that has problems doesn't make you part of that problem dumbass. Oh, and I haven't boasted about schools having armed guards. No one here has. That's just another example of you making shit up. You do it a lot Side: No Facts
1
point
Jesus Christ I'll shorten it up for you dipshit. Going to school would be a considerably better use of your time. Owning 6 is not necessary. Owning 1 is. Oh God you're simply so impossible to reason with. Owning a gun is obviously not necessary because not all Americans own guns. Once again what you are saying directly contradicts the facts. As for the rest; I haven't murdered anyone so I'm not part of the gun homicide problem. That's exactly like saying you haven't abused your slaves so you're not part of the slavery problem. Fuck off you retarded little idiot. đ Side: Facts
Owning a gun is obviously not necessary because not all Americans own guns So now I'm here quoting myself bey you're too dim to read what I wrote. "And not for everyone over here, but for me." SMFH That's exactly like saying you haven't abused your slaves so you're not part of the slavery problem. Being not a murderer makes me not part of the murder problem. By your reasoning, since you're Irish you're part of the goat fucking problem. Now I'm here to tell you that you're not Jody. You're not part of that Irish goat fucking problem unless...wait, have you? Side: No Facts
So now I'm here quoting myself bey you're too dim to read what I wrote. "And not for everyone over here, but for me." SMFH Most of what you write contradicts what you previously wrote but your goldfish memory is your friend ....thankfully for you Being not a murderer makes me not part of the murder problem. By your reasoning, since you're Irish you're part of the goat fucking problem. But youâre Jewish arenât you ? Did any of your relatives make for nice lampshades , was the skin just right? Now I'm here to tell you that you're not Jody. You're not part of that Irish goat fucking problem unless...wait, have you? I still havenât fucked your wife so Iâm good on the ole goat front , do you both bed down in straw? Side: Facts
2
points
Most of what you write contradicts what you previously wrote That's the most hilarious thing about having an argument with him. He gets so many things wrong and makes so many mistakes that he spends most of his time trying to twist language inside out to avoid admitting defeat. Typical right wing nutbag. Side: Facts
That's the most hilarious thing about having an argument with him. He gets so many things wrong and makes so many mistakes that he spends most of his time trying to twist language inside out to avoid admitting defeat. Typical right wing nutbag. As always he shoots his fool mouth off without thinking and spends days reaming off Amarel - speak trying to get out of the latest hole he readily made for himself Side: No Facts
Haha no. BL just says that because that's his idea of an insult. Actually it wasnât designed to be an insult as they make excellent lampshades by all accounts , youâre very thin skinned arenât you ? There's got to be a reason you're refusing to answer my question. Honestly Jody, do you fuck goats? But I did answer it I still havenât fucked your wife ......tell you what I will do her when you put the 6 guns down and she puts the mace down ......you can watch đąđđđđđ Side: Facts
So while you goat fuckers sat on the sidelines, you were rooting for the winner to bring you Jewish furniture? A truly sad loss for you, worthy of raising the swastika in mourning. With a Nazi like you teaming up with a Commi like Nom, does capitalism stand a chance? Probably yes since target practice is a pastime over here. Side: Facts
So while you goat fuckers sat on the sidelines, you were rooting for the winner to bring you Jewish furniture? There you go and itâs worth a fortune. BTW the yanks were not the âwinnersâ you burger chomping fucks got your butts canned in Nam by emaciated rice farmers you have never won a war despite all the Amarel type boasts of â we have loooadsaaa guns â A truly sad loss for you, worthy of raising the swastika in mourning. With a Nazi like you teaming up with a Commi like Nom, does capitalism stand a chance? âCapitalism â as in your brand âhealthcare is a privilege â ....âfuck minimun wageâ ......We all canât be cunts like you Probably yes since target practice is a pastime over here. Say all the best American school shooters who splatter a load of burger chomping fatties for sport against the nearest wall .....yeeee haaaaaaa đŞđđđ Side: Facts
1
point
So now I'm here quoting myself bey you're too dim to read what I wrote I quoted what you wrote then replied to it. Reality really is a problem for you, isn't it? "And not for everyone over here, but for me." Guns are no more "necessary" for you than they are for anybody else. You must get this ridiculous idea out of your head that you are somehow special. Being not a murderer makes me not part of the murder problem. If guns are a problem and you are defending guns then yes, you are part of the gun problem. Funny how that works. Side: Facts
2
points
Here's a hint dimwit. Painkillers are not our drug problem. Banning all opioids is not a good idea. Cars are not the traffic accident problem. Follow the logic now. Guns are not the murder problem. The common denominator with all of these issues is people. Countless people utilize painkillers responsibly, drive safely, and properly carry firearms. A lot of people, though not all, have need of the three things I mentioned. And many many more people have the right to those things even if they don't use them now. If you were truly interested in lives lost, you would take more interest in our drug problem as it is our greatest killer. But your a communist totalitarian. Historically, you're the worst of the worst kind of person. You simply saying that guns are the problem is reason enough for responsible people to own them. Side: Facts
Guns are not the murder problem. The common denominator with all of these issues is people. You live in a violent society where inequality is the norm and the appalling attitude of Americans like you who detest those less well off is part of the problem What sort of people see universal healthcare as a âprivilege â? What sort of people insist a billionaire should not by law pay his staff a basic wage that secures the necessities of life? You want guns deaths to drop address inequality Side: Facts
1
point
Guns are not the murder problem. The common denominator with all of these issues is people. I'm convinced he might actually be on the spectrum, mate. Imagine standing up at Nuremburg and saying, "Now look here guys, Nazis kill people, sure, but so do lots of other things. The common denominator here is people, therefore we can't stop the Nazis and should just let them get on with it." đ The idiot just makes me laugh. He's so stupid. Side: Facts
"Now look here guys, Nazis kill people, sure, but so do lots of other things. The common denominator here is people, therefore we can't stop the Nazis and should just let them get on with it." đ The idiot just makes me laugh. He's so stupid. đđđđ No doubt reaming off a load of âstats â to back his latest âtheoryâ up đ I note even gender issues Jace called him out on his idiocy last week only to be met by another 20 page convoluted reply Iâd say on the rare occasion his wife asks to be âserviced â (needs must) he states â your request is invalidated by my interpretation of recent research into spontaneous coupling etc , etc ......... Side: No Facts
the appalling attitude of Americans like you who detest those less well off is part of the problem More made up shit from the guy who can't say whether he fucks goats. When you throw everything at the wall to see what sticks, I can't take any of the bait until we clear up this goat issue. Side: No Facts
More made up shit from the guy who can't say whether he fucks goats How many times I still havenât fucked your wife ......itâs the smell .....you know what I mean donât ya đą . When you throw everything at the wall to see what sticks, I can't take any of the bait until we clear up this goat issue Read above , I bet your wife is a âstunner â đ đđ Side: Facts
Yes yes, you're implying my wife is a goat. But over hear, that's illegal. We don't have the kinds of inter species issues that the Irish have. The issue you can't even clear your name of. I'm gonna have to make some assumptions since you cannot say you haven't fucked goats, and you are Irish. Side: No Facts
Yes yes, you're implying my wife is a goat. But over hear, that's illegal. âOver hearâ ......đđđđ Itâs painful reading the dross of a gun nut who cannot even spell We don't have the kinds of inter species issues that the Irish Really ? Obviously you didnât watch some of the commentary from your fellow Trump supporters at the recent riots ...reporter ....âhow do you sum Trump up ?â Amarel type â one letter dude J for genius â you yanks are funny . The issue you can't even clear your name of. I'm gonna have to make some assumptions since you cannot say you haven't fucked goats, and you are Irish. The question really is how did you âsweet talk â a goat đ into marrying you ? Amarel the goat đ whisperer đŞđđđ Side: Facts
1
point
Here's a hint dimwit. Painkillers are not our drug problem. Here's a hint for you, retard. Painkillers have got nothing to do with your gun problem. When you can't even remain on topic you forfeit the right to call anybody else a dimwit. You want to defend guns, but you are talking about cars and painkillers, not guns. If you were truly interested in lives lost, you would take more interest in our drug problem as it is our greatest killer. Pointing to problem number two does not justify problem number one and I am sick to death of your fallacious abuse of reason. If drugs were the greatest killer then the military would be armed with painkillers not guns you stupid little fuck. There is absolutely no relationship between drug deaths and gun deaths and you are simply trying to use the former to excuse the latter. Side: Facts
Jesus Christ I'll shorten it up for you dipshit. You get very annoyed at the fact you live in a very violent country calm the fuck down Owning 6 is not necessary. Owning 1 is. Yawn , yes idiot a gun is necessary to feel safe in the US we have established that And not for everyone over here, but for me. I hope that's simple enough for you . But if itâs necessary for you and the majority of Americans who feel unsafe As for the rest; I haven't murdered anyone so I'm not part of the gun homicide problem. Ahhh right thatâs that sorted out gun problem over I haven't shot myself so I'm not part of the gun suicide problem. Surprised at that as youâre not the sharpest tool in the box , hopefully you might consider the suicide option Living in a society that has problems doesn't make you part of that problem dumbass. Yes we know your society is totally dysfunctional people like you are part of the problem as your position is that the only answer is guns Oh, and I haven't boasted about schools having armed guards. No one here has. That's just another example of you making shit up. You do it a lot*b Indeed , you yanks wear it as a badge of pride that you have the âintelligence â to have armed guards in schools .......youâre a typical example of a brain dead yank that swells out in pride at the thought â those poor Europeans have no guns â ...... Youâre a victim of indoctrination and you cannot even see it Side: Facts
1
point
You bring up my gun ownership more than anyone else, including me. That tells me that mentioning it in the first place had it's desired affect. Lol. Effect. Has it ever occurred to you buddy that perhaps you should learn English before deluding yourself into the belief that you are the master puppeteer? đ Side: Facts
1
point
I didn't really think you could read. Good job, though your comprehension is iffy. My God you are just insane. Yes, the beginning of the article says that the one singularity that might be real is the black hole. Black holes are not singularities you lamentably stupid troll. Black holes are the regions of space which form around singularities. Scientists only began looking for black holes in the first place because real world singularities were predicted by general relativity. It then goes on to explain that the the math of Einstein's General Theory resulting in black hole singularities violates the principle of unitarity. OH, YOU STUPID, STUPID, STUPID BOY. The "principle of unitarity" has nothing to do with relativistic physics because it's a QUANTUM THEORY!!!! See any online encyclopaedia for details:- In quantum physics, unitarity is the condition that the time evolution of a quantum state according to the SchrĂśdinger equation is mathematically represented by a unitary operator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ As per usual, when you finally realise you are wrong you simply try to derail the conversation with insults and references to words you don't fucking understand. Idiot. You're a total fucking idiot, Amarel. Side: Facts
The "principle of unitarity" has nothing to do with relativistic physics because it's a QUANTUM THEORY! Why do I always take the time to educate you? There is not a unified theory of everything. Quantum theory and Relativity are not compatible. One example of this is the black hole information loss problem. Relativity predicts black holes where information disappears. This was ok as long as we could assume info is locked in there somewhere that we can't observe (we also can't observe something that is "infinitely dense" which is fine for math but a physical absurdity in reality). Black hole information loss stopped being ok when Hawking discovered black hole radiation that leads to black holes evaporating and going away. When they do this, they reveal no information. Thus, Black holes, as derived from the General Theory, violate unitarity, a quantum principle. I only know this because I've been reading NOVA articles. You don't know it because you're a worthless science journalist. Get better at your job so I don't have to educate you anymore. Side: No Facts
2
points
Why do I always take the time to educate you? Oh please, Amarel. By all means, "educate" me about why you don't understand the difference between quantum physics and general relativity. đ There is not a unified theory of everything. Quantum theory and Relativity are not compatible I know there is not a unified theory of everything and I know that quantum theory and relativity are not compatible. That is why I laughed at you when you tried to discredit the relativistic concept of real world singularities because they "violate the [quantum] principle of unitarity." You are literally just SUCH a stupid cunt. Side: Facts
You assert that you know some things, but you demonstrate no understanding of them at all. I've shown you the opinions of physicists concerning singularities. You are free to continue believing layman opinions of physicists opinions picked up on wikipedia. I'm sure you will. You are willfully ignorant. You and Jody should both look at each other and consider the company you keep. Today's fruitless lesson is concluded Side: No Facts
You are free to continue believing layman opinions of physicists opinions picked up on wikipedia. Actually I quoted from the article you cherry picked two lines from which had you jumping through hoops backtracking , next time you plagarise an article from Nova make sure you get assistance in comprehending what you read Side: Facts
0
points
and credit the source He doesn't credit his sources because he misrepresents and/or misunderstands them and doesn't want to be called out on it. A couple of weeks ago he confused a world population table with data on fatal stabbings. How that is even possible I don't know but he managed it. I tracked down his source and he must have read no further than the title. Side: Facts
You nailed it , the stupid cunt quotes articles and sources and rarely reads the full content and nearly always makes out they are his opinions as crediting is something he doesnât do Your example is typical and earlier I called him on his plagiarizing directly from Nova an article he didnât fully comprehend Itâs hilarious if you I or anyone else cites an article he wails â that s invalid as itâs an appeal to authority â đą Side: Facts
FFS I explained that article to your stupid ass. đđđ Says the idiot who quoted two lines and never read the article he plagarised Go figure out some basic shit, like whether doubt is an experience (it is). Ahhh back to Descartes and scepticism which Descartes failed to carry to its extremes in his much debunked Cogito .....you need to drag yourself screaming into the year 2021 I cannot believe youâre still smarting over your trouncing regards the Cogito .....let it go man itâs years ago Then come back and try to grasp what I've explained exhaustively you goat fucking Nazi loving prick. You explained nothing you attempted to bullshit your way out of another position you jumped into little understanding what the plagarised article you quoted actually said I still havenât fucked your goat đ wife and regards Nazis your own âdear â former leader said â they were some fine people â I disagree but if you have any spare lampshades give me first refusal.....please đ¨đ Side: Facts
0
points
FFS I explained that article to your stupid ass. Sometimes I wonder whether you are dishonest and know that you don't understand the things that you read, or if you are delusional and don't. Either way it makes for a frustrating conversation because:- A) Everything you ever say is wrong. And:- B) You say everything which such sneering derision. Side: Facts
Because you believe A), you disagree with everything I say even though you believe that I constantly contradict myself. That's funny. We can't expect much from a science journalist who prefers wikipedia over the view of several professors and subject matter experts. God I would love to read one of your articles. Do they make it beyond your personal blog? Side: No Facts
1
point
Because you believe A), you disagree with everything I say even though you believe that I constantly contradict myself. Your atrocious grammar makes your posts unreadable and your apparent idea that I only "believe" you contradict yourself all the time is laughable. It's just my imagination, is it? đ Side: Facts
2
points
Remember when I explained the difference between an infinitely expanding universe and an infinitely.large universe ? I remember that you're a really stupid idiot who keeps trying to give other people lectures in things he quite clearly does not understand and that when your ridiculous errors are explained to you it makes no difference whatsoever. The universe has at least four dimensions, not three, so if it expands for infinite time then it is infinite big. If you are too stupid to understand this, as you are too stupid to understand most other things, I suggest shutting your idiot mouth and reading books. Side: Facts
The hilarious thing about 6 gun Amarels posts is that he leaps on snippets of plagarised articles posts them up as his own âtheories â and when corrected resorts to the usual 3 defences ..... 1: Amarel -speak ( talking utter bollocks ) 2: Contradicts what he previously said 3: Claims all other sources are invalid as they are appeals to authority Side: Facts
You you make up shit and attribute it to me, and then I contradict it, that's not me contradicting myself. When I said that you were a Nazi because the cowardly country of Ireland sat by while everyone else put in the work, you were not contradicting yourself when you swore you weren't a Nazi despite that swastika flag you raised in mourning of Hitler's death. Side: Facts
You you make up shit and attribute it to me, and then I contradict it, that's not me contradicting myself. I made nothing up , youâre a compulsive liar who never fails to repeatedly contradict his every post When I said that you were a Nazi because the cowardly country of Ireland sat by while everyone else put in the work, Hilarious America said the war had nothing to do with them and didnât want to get involved .....Iâm all in favour of others doing the work although yanks are dreadful soldiers still waiting on a first win in a war although excellent at blowing up childrenâs schools and hospitals and raping and pillaging in Vietnam .......Remember that one war you guys won ? shhhhhhhhh it was against Grenada đŞđđ Good job , you have more guns than the entire population đŞđ you were not contradicting yourself when you swore you weren't a Nazi despite that swastika flag you raised in mourning of Hitler's death. I didnât raise it I wasnât born ......itâs amusing getting a âlecture â from a gun toting âheroâ who lives in a country where blacks were segregated right up to the 60âs and who takes pride in this fact Side: Facts
I remember how you shut the fuck up when I explained it to you because you can't admit when you're wrong. You're only now restating your confused ignorance, two weeks later, because no matter how obvious it is that you're a fucking idiot, such as in this post, you've got your fluff man Jody to make you both feel pretty alright. Side: Facts
you've got your fluff man Jody to make you both feel pretty alright. You attempted to suck up to your last resort last week âgender issues â Jace he called you a fucking idiot and youâre still sulking that even he will no longer back your bull shit up In future when you plagarise articles to support you cause you really ought to attempt to comprehend what the author is saying and not what you think they are saying Side: Facts
Jace and I are complete opposites at the most fundamental levels. It's surprising we don't clash harder and more often. He said my position was ignorant, which is fine because I was challenging his legalization position. One I somewhat agree with. Look up plagiarism. Read how it is used in examples. Then try to start using it correctly. Quoting the conclusion of an article is neither plagiarism nor a failure of comprehension. I know it seems like pretty high level stuff to you two when an astro-physicist says "A singularity is a place of infinite density, and that's not really a thing.", but it is not high level. But what do I expect? I'm talking to a wikipedia journalist wannabe and a goat fucker who can't tell that doubt is an experience because...you know... Nietzsche ya dumb Jew. Side: Facts
Jace and I are complete opposites at the most fundamental levels. Not really both of you are very concerned over individuals being âmisgendered â It's surprising we don't clash harder and more often. He said my position was ignorant, which is fine because I was challenging his legalization position. Most your positions demonstrate this to be the case so on that heâs on the money One I somewhat agree with. Look up plagiarism. Read how it is used in examples. Then try to start using it correctly. Quoting the conclusion of an article is neither plagiarism nor a failure of comprehension. You didnât credit your source and your cherry picked a snippet from the plagarised piece until you were corrected and then as usual you back tracked I know it seems like pretty high level stuff to you two when an astro-physicist says "A singularity is a place of infinite density, and that's not really a thing.", but it is not high level. âThe lady doth protest to much ââ But what do I expect? I'm talking to a wikipedia journalist wannabe and a goat fucker Your obsession with goats đ is telling I guess you look at the what you married and think â how did I get here â and then realise fucking a goat would be a step up for you who can't tell that doubt is an experience because... You see thatâs the problem with you every time you think your opinions are fact when the opposite is in fact true , I stated the conclusions of the Cogito are limited Descartes was wrong to have used the words âI thinkâ if he was to be consistent with his general skeptical approach he should have said âthere are thoughts â etc , etc , you got trounced on this before by me and also a young Indian logician gave you a sound beating also you know... Nietzsche ya dumb Jew. Iâm not a fan of Nietzsche but I do like his destruction of the Cogito which differs to mine ......interesting Iâm now Jew 𼹠Itâs quiet amazing you can never actually debate a topic unless all parties agree with you otherwise you fly into a rage , youâre a very silly little fellow Side: Facts
If you ever had an original thought you would be able to see why Neitzsche was wrong. But given your love for other people's thoughts in the absence of your own consider the following. While presenting his own criticism of Descartes, Kierkegaard demonstrated that the cogito statement is a tautology. This critique doesn't undermine the validity of the statement, rather it attacks the presentation as tautological and trivial. Furthermore, it demonstrates that Neitzsche's critique is fallacious insofar as it claims the tautology is untrue, which can't be the case for a tautology. But the most important aspect of that whole argument, is that you are so dependant on other people thinking for you that you can't even tell that doubt is an experience, regardless of what Descartes said. That's pathetic. I wasn't calling you a Jew dimwit, I was mocking you calling me a Jew. Side: Facts
2
points
While presenting his own criticism of Descartes, Kierkegaard demonstrated that the cogito statement is a tautology. Christ you are so fucking stupid. He demonstrated nothing. Philosophy is not science. There are no practical experiments to see who is right and who is wrong. Someone puts forward an argument or thought experiment, and others critique it. That's philosophy. While Kierkegaard did criticise Descartes' argument, plenty of other philosophers have written in support of it. Bertrand Russel for one. Side: No Facts
2
points
Philosophy relies on appealing to reason. I don't expect you to understand. Disagreements in philosophy prove that philosophers have vastly divergent opinions about what constitutes reason. You misrepresented a lone critique of Descartes as a "demonstration" Descartes was wrong, when in fact there are many other philosophers who believe him right. When you misrepresent things to win an argument about something you are wrong about, that has nothing to do with reason. That's good old-fashioned intellectual dishonesty. Side: No Facts
Disagreements in philosophy prove that philosophers have vastly divergent opinions about what constitutes reason Print this and frame it. It's the best thing you've ever said. You misrepresented a lone critique of Descartes as a "demonstration" Descartes was wrong Is that what I did? when in fact there are many other philosophers who believe him right Do you? Side: Facts
Realizing that once again he is missing something relevant, the BurritoLunch slowly backs away from the question hoping no one will notice. He suspects the question may reveal him, and needs to create distance. Let's see if he is successful: You misrepresented a lone critique of Descartes as a "demonstration" Descartes was wrong Is that what I did? when in fact there are many other philosophers who believe him right Do you? Side: Facts
1
point
The BurritoLunch has successfully slipped away nearly undetected. But he remains cautious. He knows the Amarel saw his dodge. You asked me something I had already answered in the actual post you replied to you utterly stupid idiot. Let me be absolutely clear. I am not encouraged to converse with you because your ego and your intelligence have an inverse square relationship to one another. Side: Facts
1
point
The answer to my first question is no, that's not what I did. So, to clarify, I'm "dodging" your own rhetorical questions which you always intended to answer yourself? Rarely do I witness such stupidity anywhere else in life pal. You never answered the second question of your own position. You quoted one of my paragraphs then asked me, "Is that what I did"? Then you quoted another and asked, "Do you?" In both cases the answer you need is in the paragraph you quoted you jaw-droppingly stupid fucking idiot. Side: Facts
1
point
I'm not a philosopher. An extreme understatement. If you can't manage an opinion about any of the countless things philosophers have said, I'm not surprised you can't manage an accurate understanding of the facts of science. Honestly, I bet you could understand if I hadn't been the one to present the facts of the matter. Side: No Facts
Philosophy relies on appealing to reason. I don't expect you to understand. Youâre an intolerable little bully you quote another of your idols kierregaard and fly into a rage when his babble are is accepted by all Furthermore I don't think you understand my point, per our usual arrangement. Surely you mean kieregaards point that your now claiming as your own 𼹠Side: No Facts
If you ever had an original thought you would be able to see why Neitzsche was wrong. If you had an original thought it would die of boredom , I havenât quoted Neitzsche you fucking idiot But given your love for other people's thoughts in the absence of your own consider the following. I still havenât quoted Neitzsche you idiot While presenting his own criticism of Descartes, Kierkegaard demonstrated that the cogito statement is a tautology. Ha , ha you attack me for quoting someone I didnât quote and claim Iâm using someoneâs thoughts and here you are quoting Kierkegaards thoughts đđđđđ Youâre priceless This critique doesn't undermine the validity of the statement, rather it attacks the presentation as tautological and trivial. My criticism attacks the idiotic assertions of Descartes who claimed he was excercising extreme scepticism , he wasnât as he didnât take his scepticism to the extremes he claimed Kierkegaard was a miserable lunatic his writings pure dross , Iâm surprised you could even spell his name Furthermore, it demonstrates that Neitzsche's critique is fallacious insofar as it claims the tautology is untrue, which can't be the case for a tautology. Take that up with Nietzsche as you seem to be arguing with him not with me But the most important aspect of that whole argument, is that you are so dependant on other people thinking for you that you can't even tell that doubt is an experience, regardless of what Descartes said. That's pathetic. Do you actually know what the Cogito states ? I think not I wasn't calling you a Jew dimwit, I was mocking you calling me a Jew. Oh you were mocking me calling you a Jew ......ooookay ....you got me real good Iâm truly hurt đ Side: No Facts
2
points
Jace and I are complete opposites at the most fundamental levels. Ahahaha! That's priceless. You are both walking case studies in NPD who think the key to a good argument is impenetrable language. It's surprising we don't clash harder and more often. Oh Amarel, you are so delusional it is horrifying. You compliment each other's burning desire to convince yourselves that you are intellectuals. Your conversations could literally be packaged and sold as comedy. Side: Facts
You compliment each other's burning desire to convince yourselves that you are intellectuals. Your conversations could literally be packaged and sold as comedy. đđđ They try and outdo each other in attempting to say something they think is intelligible using utterly ridiculous language thinking they soundâacademicâ đ........Jace several years ago went into a hissy fit that a âfriend â of his was âmisgendered â 6 gun Amarel ( his bitch ) jumped in to salve his buddies butt hurt .....Things have cooled since then as J branded him an ignorant idiot last week ......I agree Side: No Facts
2
points
He claimed it to be tautological. That's the opposite of contradictory. At worst he thought this tautology supposed conclusion assumed the premise. While it was a tautology, it is not begging the question so much as stating the self-evident. I presented what Kierkegaard got right and left out what he got wrong. Side: Facts
He claimed it to be tautological. That's the opposite of contradictory. At worst he thought this tautology supposed conclusion assumed the premise. While it was a tautology, it is not begging the question so much as stating the self-evident. I presented what Kierkegaard got right and left out what he got wrong. Nonsense , Descartes was wrong to have used the words â I think â he should have said âthere are thoughts â if he wanted to remain true to his sceptical approach , he made the assumption that if there are thoughts there must be a thinker , this is open to doubt, prehaps thoughts could exist independently of thinkers Side: No Facts
Yes, I know that's what people smarter than you have said and you have adopted it because it's different from what I have said...but it's still wrong . And I was spot on that this is where you pretend verbs are independent of subjects. (Hint: the weary is what is raining. What's the weather doing? It's raining). Verbs necessarily presuppose a subject. In his skepticism he could not be be sure of any verb except his cognition (the fact of experience). Since the fact that his experience cannot be doubted, he now has a reliably factual verb from which a subject is necessarily derived. There is no thinking without a thinker. If there is thinking then it cannot be doubted that there is a thinker. And one cannot say with certainty that there is thinking unless one is doing it. It is tautological in that the existence is on both sides of the equation. But the verb on the left side (thinking) necessitates the redundant verb on the right (am). I'll say here that my position has always been that the more appropriate verb is experience rather than think, but think is easy language, which I know you love. Which reminds me, this entire post is over your head. But feel free to reply anyway simple one. Side: Facts
Yes, I know that's what people smarter than you have said and you have adopted it because it's different from what I have said...but it's still wrong . Yes, I know what Kierkegaard who was 100 times smarter than you has said and you have adopted it because it's different from what I have said...but it's still wrong And I was spot on that this is where you pretend verbs are independent of subjects. (Hint: the weary is what is raining. What's the weather doing? It's raining). Verbs necessarily presuppose a subject. In his skepticism he could not be be sure of any verb except his cognition (the fact of experience). Since the fact that his experience cannot be doubted, he now has a reliably factual verb from which a subject is necessarily derived. There is no thinking without a thinker. If there is thinking then it cannot be doubted that there is a thinker. And one cannot say with certainty that there is thinking unless one is doing it. It is tautological in that the existence is on both sides of the equation. But the verb on the left side (thinking) necessitates the redundant verb on the right (am). I'll say here that my position has always been that the more appropriate verb is experience rather than think, but think is easy language, which I know you love. Which totally proves you are totally out of your depth no matter how many appeals you make to Kierkegaard or others , when you read my last post and respond to what I actually said and not what you think I said I may correct or not , itâs rather tiresome really I do like âeasy language â rather than the convoluted garbage you and Gender Issues Jace use in an attempt to sound ( and fail) at sounding âphilosophically sound â I do accept it is amusing watching two idiots attempting to out Bull shit the other Which reminds me, this entire post is over your head. Which reminds me if this was the case itâs pretty funny that something thatâs over âmy head â still has you raging about it 5 years later, also itâs hilarious to note the last time you took a trouncing on this topic a young man from India gave you a fair old pummelling on the same topic and he also accused you of being an egotistical bully with an vastly overrated opinion of itself đ But feel free to reply anyway Youâve no choice as you cannot do your usual ban as I know how unimportant freedom of speech is to you yanks Side: No Facts
And that's where it ends. Over your head. You say something stupid, I respond and show why it's wrong, and you say I didn't respond all while failing to address what I said. From here it's just a lot of "I did address it and your the one who didn't". Mind numbing. If after years of study you comprehend what I posted (it's my position, not Kierkegaard's you ignoramus. They aren't very similar), you'll comprehend the stupidity of the position it counters that you presented (I hesitate to call it your position). But for now you will spout off some irrelevant and often made up bullshit and that can be your last word on the matter. Go ahead. Side: Facts
And that's where it ends. But you said I could have the last word , itâs wonderful how I get you jumping back in such is your desperation to âprove â yourself đ Over your head. Translation.......I corrected you and youâre butt hurt got ya đŞ You say something stupid, I respond and show why it's wrong, and you say I didn't respond all while failing to address what I said. Correction I find another fault in your âargument â and you accuse me of your stupidity ......same ole , same ole đ From here it's just a lot of "I did address it and your the one who didn't". Mind numbing. Youâre babbling ......again If after years of study you comprehend what I posted (it's my position, not Kierkegaard's you ignoramus. Itâs not which is why you quoted Kierkegaard misunderstood what he said and are now as usual backtracking They aren't very similar), you'll comprehend the stupidity of the position it counters that you presented (I hesitate to call it your position). You didnât nor couldnât address what I said so again your deflections are telling , you may appeal to another authority if you wish ......do you ever have an opinion of your own just for a change ? But for now you will spout off some irrelevant and often made up bullshit and that can be your last word on the matter. Go ahead. Ahhh I have the last word ...again đđđ𼹠I honestly think youâre better off arguing with Jace on people who may have been misgendered a topic close to both your hearts although maybe not as even he deemed you an ignorant buffoon ....ouch !đŞđąđąđą Side: No Facts
This is right about the time you begin to imagine verbs can actually be independent of subjects. This is right about the time you as usual get all butt hurt at getting called out on your Bull Shit again That's not really a thing, so you can join BL in your magical thinking. He imagines infinity is a physical reality. Youâre off on one of your rants again , youâre a very constantly angry little fellow and worse people like you are allowed guns Side: Facts
2
points
Oh it's worse then that lass. âThen â your grammar is appalling....đ âlass â ......meaning for stupid Americans...... Scottish English or Northern English girl ......đđđđđ I'm encouraged to carry a gun. Yes I know as you admitted your wife always asks if you have it when youâre out ( she has Mace as she cannot trust you with a gun ) ......do try and keep up you idiot Side: Facts
My wife never asks me that. You're making shit up again. Seriously ? đ You claimed before she did ??? Also sheâs carries mace you carry a gun and itâs never mentioned......seriously ? But I suppose it's fun to make-believe, where ethereal thoughts float independent of a thinker and concepts take on physical form. Why who is saying that ? âEthereal thoughts â I think youâre reading too much Descartes....... Thatâs 3 times now you said â you may have the last word â ......I click and you come back .....watch and see đ¤ Side: Facts
2
points
2
points
He said his wife has a license to carry so 7 guns and mace between the pair of them but itâs nothing to do with feeling safe Amarel strikes me as the George Zimmerman type of character. Goes out late at night looking for black guys to shoot in situations where there are no witnesses and he can claim self-defence. Side: Facts
She really only has one to make it easier for her to travel with mine if needed. Here's a strange thing, you consistently lie to people about what they did on a site where the evidence of your lies is completely verifiable. Additionally, when I tell you that you are going to behave in some specifically stupid way, you very often do exactly as I predicted in the very next post. You also insult your imagined details of an anonymous person's personal life. Not to get a rise out of me either since you post it to BL. Fuckin weird. Your general behavior is far stranger than me having a gun. Side: Facts
She really only has one to make it easier for her to travel with mine if needed. âIf needed â so 6 guns and mace ainât enough đđđđđđ Here's a strange thing, you consistently lie to people about what they did on a site where the evidence of your lies is completely verifiable. Pointing out your bullshit is to me a public service ......youâre welcome Additionally, when I tell you that you are going to behave in some specifically stupid way, you very often do exactly as I predicted in the very next post. You were saying 6 times now I could have the last word and I predicted you would come crawling back for attention and here you are ........ Itâs too easy You also insult your imagined details of an anonymous person's personal life. Not to get a rise out of me either since you post it to BL. Fuckin weird. Your general behavior is far stranger than me having a gun. No mate trust me on this only a raving nut would admit its ânormalâ to need 6 guns and mace to protect him and his dog đ of a wife from possible âattacks â ........youâre quiet safe mate any would be burglar would be met by a wall of Amarel- speak on the validity of a break in from a philosophical standpoint and run for his life ....... Side: Facts
1
point
A lot of people are averse to the idea of killing someone, even if it were necessary and would save them. You are making some very basic false assumptions about the nature of reality. There is no crystal ball to look into to discover what would have happened had you not shot your victim to death, so you therefore cannot state with any level of confidence that it, and it alone, would save you from anything. This is just simply what you do on a consistent basis. You invent facts to rationalise your own preconceived personal bias, even (especially) if your preconceived bias happens to be self-evidently irrational. Side: Facts
1
point
A lot of people are averse to the idea of killing someone Also, the sentence above drops some strong clues about your psychology. Obviously, you are implying that you are not averse to the idea of killing someone, but it is also evident from your writing that you have traits symptomatic of a narcissistic personality disorder. It would not be a radical assumption therefore to conclude that you could well be a psychopath. A psychopath with 6 guns. Side: Facts
1
point
Pepper spray is a reasonable alternative for many people. It's common and highly available in a way that guns are not. I congratulate you on refuting the "necessity" of guns, even if you are seemingly oblivious to the strange manner in which you incessantly contradict yourself. If a big angry man comes at you wanting to cause damage you can pepper spray him in the eyes, cattle prod him in the nuts, or even rear naked choke the dude if you are felling horny. All of these options and the guy gets to wake up and face justice at the end of it. But of course, when you're a psychopath, you're not really looking for justice. You're looking to kill people and get away with it. It's true. I saw it on Dexter. Side: Facts
I've never said that a gun is necessary for everyone. I specifically said they are not necessary for everyone, but for me. This is a great example of how you misunderstand what you read and conclude there is a contradiction where there is none. I don't have a gun for circumstances that call for pepper spray or a rear naked choke. Those are not useful tools where the big angry man has a gun. I watched a few episodes of Dexter, but I don't remember if he carried a gun. Side: No Facts
1
point
I'm nearly always responding to talk about guns. I bring up drug issues (a bigger problem than guns) You laughably stupid moron. You don't want to talk about guns which is why you keep trying to change the topic to drugs. You then make up your own facts about drugs (like they are "a bigger problem than guns") and pretend like that's an argument for guns. Drugs are a completely separate issue to guns. There is absolutely no relationship between the two and there is a mountain of medical data showing that drugs save lives. Besides which, the fallacy at the heart of your argument is so stupid it is offensive. It is the classic, "this problem justifies that problem because two wrongs make a right". The Holocaust isn't justified by the fact that Genghis Khan killed more people, so why on Earth do you believe 40,000 completely unnecessary and preventable deaths each year is justified by 80,000 drug overdoses? Side: Facts
I brought up one debate about drugs and you were incapable of engaging. Drugs are a demonstrably bigger problem. They kill more people. I've repeatedly referenced the data showing this fact. I know guns and drugs are separate issues. I had to remind you of that repeatedly to try to keep you on topic. But you were more concerned with the issue of guns for some reason, even though they kill less people. It's strange that you would point out that drugs are created to save people since it further undercuts your position. Drugs should save lives, and yet they kill more people than weapons designed to kill. Hm My debate topic about drugs had nothing to do with guns. You came into a topic about drugs and said "what about guns!" As if gun deaths justify the larger death toll from drugs. You called that a fallacy. It's one you committed. Side: No Facts
1
point
I brought up one debate about drugs and you were incapable of engaging. You are a pathological liar who has serious problems dealing with reality. Drugs are a demonstrably bigger problem. False. Problems are abstract, not physical. They are therefore neither big nor small and hence you are claiming something is demonstrable which is not demonstrable. You are inventing fake facts, as per usual. I know guns and drugs are separate issues. I had to remind you of that repeatedly Why do you abuse the truth so much? What do you feel you gain by telling so many lies? But you were more concerned with the issue of guns for some reason I have explained the reason to you today and I also explained it to you at the time, so your feigned ignorance only proves your own dishonesty, Amarel. You opened that debate to make a false comparison between drug deaths and gun deaths, and if that were not true it is extremely unlikely that three different people would have turned up and made the exact same accusation. You are a liar. Simple. What you lack in intelligence you try to make up for in brute dishonesty. Side: Facts
False. Problems are abstract, not physical. They are therefore neither big nor small and hence you are claiming something is demonstrable which is not demonstrable Word games. Super clever. I'll let you pretend that "big" is a word reserved strut for physical phenomenon. One has no hope of correcting your stupidity. The rest of you post appears to be responding to the facts I present by calling me a liar. Great strategy. A bit overused. Side: No Facts
1
point
Word games. Super clever. Are you stupid? Big and small are terms which describe the physical size of something. Problems have no physical size. You can't abuse the meaning of language and then accuse me of word games when I point your fallacy out. Fuck off you idiot. Side: Facts
I'm nearly always responding to talk about guns. A topic you keep bringing up and responding to I bring up drug issues (a bigger problem than guns) and all you and your dad can say is "guns guns guns!" No thatâs incorrect when you were questioned about your love for guns a while back you started wailing about drugs yet another example of you deflecting Jace still not talking to you? Donât take it to heart heâs probably composing a 60 page response to one of your incredibly boring plagarised opinion pieces . Then I respond and I get the kind of stupid shit you just posted. When you learn to actually engage correctly I may stop treating you like a child Side: Facts
1
point
I constantly post the data on guns. You donât , you misrepresent the data which is why you ban when corrected That's not me getting my assed kicked. Self awareness is not your sting suit There was no faux comparison. The only ones who brought up guns were you and your fluffer. You really are sulking , did the wife stop your ammo allowance ? Side: Facts
Your superior says I don't want to talk about guns. Got ya .......youâre still sulking because gender issues Jace called you an ignorant buffoon , would you like me or BL to put a word in for you? You two better put your heads together on this one. Mixed messages and all. When you make your mind up what youâre on about let us know , youâre talking about guns ,drugs , Descartes all at the same time , maybe you should throw your other failed topics in as well as in abortion you know the one where you think you should have the right to dictate what women should and should not do according to you ? Side: Facts
Oh yeah, I forgot I kicked your ass on abortion. đđ You mean the part where you couldnât explain why a a 2 year old does not have the right to use a motherâs body without consent yet a fetus should ? Yet youâre either ok with a fetus using someoneâs body without consent I remember now. It's cool to kill babies in some locations but not others. Yes it absolutely fine for a woman to terminate a pregnancy without finger wagging bullies like you telling them otherwise Side: Facts
2
points
|
