|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/15/2005 : 04:34:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by DUDE
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Of course under your pseudo skeptic perspective you can think you have made no claims.
But you did. All were in your own bolded lines.
So.... let me get this straight....
Asking questions is, in your obviously denatured brain, the same as making claims?
In what language does the grammar of asking a question equate to the stating of a claim? None that I am aware of.
Of course you are not aware of. You are a pseudo skeptic.
When are you going to stop beating your mom and dad just for being religious?
Hmmmmmm.
Don't ask me to give evidence of my claim since it is “just a question”.
I am laughing at you…loser.
Go cry with Filthy now.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaawwwwhahahahaha.
P,D.
Dave , don't elude the Nobel Prize subject.
Yes Dude, come cry with me, que ce triste, peu de cheveux pubic pourrait promouvoir le duvet son moi. 
Ad hominim, it's all you have left, isn't it? No skepticism, no argument, no honesty, no honor. And the greatest sin of all; it's repetitious ad hom! You lack even the imagination to come up with something new. Or interesting. Or coherent.
It is rather like your unsupported, pitiful, little bit of codswallop about "New skepticism," you know? It has no foundation beyond some perverted, masturbatory fantasy, yet you have persisted in waving it about and bleating of it's nonexistant authority. And when called on your foolishness, you whine about moderator's abuse like a some ten dollar street whore trying to inspire pity, and shag another rock of crack.
You are no more than a montebank, latinijral, and not a very intelligent one. You sit at your keyboard with spit running down your chin, unable to think of more than to produce the same tripe over and over as though you were some degenerate and desperate political hack seeking support where none exists. And mayhaps, that's exactly what you are.
But you have obviously worked hard to become a crab louse infesting the pudenda of Truth, and you deserve your reward. As you have caused it a minor itch, so now you may bask in the luxery being scratched.
Your tenure here has been less than impressive due to your utter disregard and disrespect for others. Your behavior has been no better than what might be expected from someone with no mental discipline and an addiction to homebrewed crank. You dance with a snake, latinijral, at the same level, and call it ballet. Thus, your worth to these or any fora is less than that of that same serpent.
You have nothing to contribute beyond ill wind and reek. You can't even do a compentent job of casting insults, as you are too microchephalic to contain more than a few, and those of no more interest than what passes for your bog-spavined philosophy.
There. That, briefly, is how proper ad hom is done. As you can see, it takes some thought and effort to get it just right.
I do hope that you were paying attention because currently you're boring us to distraction. I further hope, but entertain grave doubts, that you have the cognitive skills to glean at least some of it.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 03/15/2005 05:41:00 |
 |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2005 : 06:36:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Edited: And the locked thread in the Religion Folder. Knowing Kil's position at SFN and calling hime a loser.
I won't speak for Kil on this matter, but latinijral's name-calling runs like water off this duck's back. It doesn't make any sense. Other people who've pissed me off had at least made their insults pertinent and personal (though none of them got censured because of it, either).
I do not doubt this, but perhaps in latin's mind name calling is significant. Just a gut impression, and only because he seems limited in his ability to develop and express ideas that are significant or compelling. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2005 : 07:40:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Dave , don't elude the Nobel Prize subject.
What's to elude? I asked you for evidence which would support your claim that everything has a rational explanation, and you failed to provide any evidence at all. You only spoke about some things having rational explanations now which seemed "paranormal" in the past, but that isn't predictive that all things will have rational explanations someday. This is a classic "hasty generalization" on your part. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2005 : 22:05:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by RICKY
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Of course you are not aware of. You are a pseudo skeptic.
When are you going to stop beating your mom and dad just for being religious?
Hmmmmmm.
Don't ask me to give evidence of my claim since it is “just a question”.
I am laughing at you…loser.
Go cry with Filthy now.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaawwwwhahahahaha.
That is known as a complex question. It assumes something, then asks about that which it assumes. In that question, the assumption is that the person is beating his mom an dad for being religious. If this assumption is false, the question is meaningless.
You are correct Ricky.
So , I proved to DUDE that questions can contain claims that need evidence.
He was ignorant of this part, in his effort to excuse FILTHY for not providing evidence of his claim ( in his bolded questions)
He needed a lesson.
Now both are crying. ( D & F)
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2005 : 22:54:14 [Permalink]
|
latinijral, have you failed to realize that the bolded lines, such as this one:
What is the new skepticism and what makes you the father of it?
are not complex questions? These do not assume anything that is not already well known. It is well known that you claim that you are the father of new skepticism.
You want evidence?
Look at your damn signature.
Edit:
Looks like I was mistaken, the above was not filthy's question. The following however are:
quote:
When are you going to admit that you haven't the least idea of what you're talking about, the 'New Skepticism' is nonsense, and that you are no more than trying to fluff your ego by irritating others with bullshit?
Thus far, you have proposed nothing but unsupported crap. When are you finally going to explain yourself?
You have debunked the old skepticsim, or so you claim. What pray, do you have to replace it? Tilting at Will o' the Wisp will not suffice.
You have debunked the old skepticism, or so you claim. Then what pray do you have to replace it with, other than bullshit?
The first is a complex question. It assumes you know you are only giving out bullshit.
The second is an opinion, it is filthy's (as well as most people here) opinion that you have "proposed nothing but unsupported crap." However, this has nothing to do with the actual question, "When are you going to explain yourself?" This is not a complex question.
The third is in no way a complex question, as it does not assume anything.
Same with the fourth. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 03/15/2005 23:33:05 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2005 : 02:36:01 [Permalink]
|
Well latinijral, I see that after you've been given what you've asked for, a seperate thread for explaining your "New Skepticism," you puked up some some of your usual, irrelevent garbage, then ran like the poltroon you are.
You don't have it, do you? And you never did, but of course, we all knew that from the beginning.
Go back there, you pussy, and either answer the question or admit that you have exactly jack-shit for any sort of skepticism, new, old, or factory second.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2005 : 03:03:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So , I proved to DUDE that questions can contain claims that need evidence.
He was ignorant of this part, in his effort to excuse FILTHY for not providing evidence of his claim ( in his bolded questions)
He needed a lesson.
Now both are crying. ( D & F)
You ARE retarded, aren't you.
A simple question is NOT a claim.
The "bolded" question that you have repeatedly refused to answer is also in no way a complex statement that makes any assumptions within its context.
Nonsense like your blathering about how you beat your parents isn't, technically, a proper question anyway.
Anyway, when are you going to accept that I have debunked, by it's own criteria as stated by you, your "new skepticism"?
Clearly you are incapable of reasoning your way out of that one.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2005 : 03:40:46 [Permalink]
|
"GAILY bedight,
A gallant knight,
In sunshine and in shadow,
Had journeyed long,
Singing a song,
In search of Eldorado.
But he grew old —
This knight so bold —
And o'er his heart a shadow
Fell as he found
No spot of ground
That looked like Eldorado.
And, as his strength
Failed him at length,
He met a pilgrim shadow —
"Shadow," said he,
"Where can it be —
This land of Eldorado ?"
'Over the Mountains
Of the Moon,
Down the Valley of the Shadow,
Ride, boldly ride,"
The shade replied, —
"If you seek for Eldorado !'"
-- Edgar Allen Poe
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2005 : 04:29:12 [Permalink]
|
To make it easy for Latin:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4067
Now answer the question already. We're asking for an answer a long time now. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2005 : 21:00:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Dave , don't elude the Nobel Prize subject.
What's to elude? I asked you for evidence which would support your claim that everything has a rational explanation, and you failed to provide any evidence at all.
I did it. You read it.
You told me I should get the NOBEL prize for it. 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
You only spoke about some things having rational explanations now which seemed "paranormal" in the past, but that isn't predictive that all things will have rational explanations someday. This is a classic "hasty generalization" on your part.
I made to you two question related to your assumption :
Do you think everything must have a rational explanation?
If the answer is YES , you can take the Nobel Prize for me.
If the answer is NO:
What kinds of things you consider will never have a rational explanation?
Until now, you eluded to answer those questions related to your assumption.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2005 : 21:10:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
I did it. You read it.
A hasty generalization is not evidence to support your claim that everything has a rational explanation.quote:
I made to you two question related to your assumption :
Do you think everything must have a rational explanation?
If the answer is YES , you can take the Nobel Prize for me.
If the answer is NO:
What kinds of things you consider will never have a rational explanation?
Until now, you eluded to answer those questions related to your assumption.
What assumption? I asked you to support your claim. You have failed to do so. Your questions are an attempt to shift the burden of proof for your claim. I've got an answer, but it doesn't have anything to do with you supporting your assertion that everything has a rational explanation. Quit trying to change the subject. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2005 : 21:18:54 [Permalink]
|
| Hey-- about that Geller guy. I think he's a fraud. |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2005 : 22:33:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
I did it. You read it.
A hasty generalization is not evidence to support your claim that everything has a rational explanation.
A hasty generalization is your assumption that you need first to know that I won the Nobel Prize just for using logic (the simplest) in order to “believe” in that logic.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
I made to you two question related to your assumption :
Do you think everything must have a rational explanation?
If the answer is YES , you can take the Nobel Prize for me.
If the answer is NO:
What kinds of things you consider will never have a rational explanation?
Until now, you eluded to answer those questions related to your assumption.
What assumption? I asked you to support your claim. You have failed to do so. Your questions are an attempt to shift the burden of proof for your claim. I've got an answer, but it doesn't have anything to do with you supporting your assertion that everything has a rational explanation. Quit trying to change the subject.
Failed? Prove it.
Changing your subject? Prove it.
You have an answer ?Prove it.
I made to you two question related to your assumption :
Do you think everything must have a rational explanation?
If the answer is YES , you can take the Nobel Prize for me.
If the answer is NO:
What kinds of things you consider will never have a rational explanation?
Until now, you eluded to answer those questions related to your assumption.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2005 : 22:37:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Failed? Prove it.
You're asking me to prove a negative. It looks like you have no potential to be a "new skeptic." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2005 : 22:46:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Failed? Prove it.
You're asking me to prove a negative. It looks like you have no potential to be a "new skeptic."
It was your positive claim:"You have failed to do so."
Prove it.
Changing your subject? Prove it.
You have an answer ?Prove it.
I made to you two question related to your assumption :
Do you think everything must have a rational explanation?
If the answer is YES , you can take the Nobel Prize for me.
If the answer is NO:
What kinds of things you consider will never have a rational explanation?
Until now, you eluded to answer those questions related to your assumption.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
