Debate: lixluke interviews sisyphus__ about truth

sisyphus__ said:
It does if it's "everything."

Everything you say, every word you present, every logic you spout, will be disregarded by me (to a certain extent), due to the fact that it has no truth.

And, that is what truth is unfortunately.
Let's settle this point which appears insignifigant, first, that way we can move on to the questions that you've forgot about which I posted.

Of course I'm just spouting a little bit of absurdity here but the fact is that what I say is true, and this is what I believe a very important truth to be. A truth which has been devoted by me for nearly my whole life.

Other truths include such examples you raise, and things which are by no means valid for everyone.
Imagine applying your meathod to anything. It's unacceptable.
A lot of what you say though does have its merrit, but that doesn't make it right. If it comes down to it we'll get into this if you want me to and we'll talk about it. Until then, please don't beg me to shove actual logic down your throat, or ask me any other examples. You realize most people are different than you in how they view things. I'm not talking about anything worthless either.
Click to expand...
All you want to do is disregard discuss the matter at hand, and attack character. You cannot get anywhere in any discussion about character attacks. <-This whole statement in fact has nothing to do with validity of subject matter, but is about your character. If you want to disregard the subject and bicker about character, you are the one that started it.
 
Moderator note:

This thread is really outside the terms of the Formal Debates forum. There seems to be no single topic of debate, or at least that isn't clear. The number of posts is not agreed to.

The participants in the debate are not specified, either. Initially, it looked like it was just sisyphus__ and lixluke, but a number of other posters are joining in.

sisyphus__: since you started this thread, you decide what happens to it. Options:

1. All posts by posters other than yourself and lixluke are deleted from the thread. You specify a time limit or post limit for the end of the debate, and a debate topic.

OR

2. The thread is moved to a different subforum (you specify where you think it would best fit).

---

Members are asked to review the rules of the Formal Debates forum, which are in a sticky thread at the top of the list of topics.
 
Moderator note: posts by posters other than sisyphus__ and lixluke have been moved to the [thread=89129]Discussion thread[/thread] relating to this debate.
 
lixluke said:
All you want to do is disregard discuss the matter at hand, and attack character. You cannot get anywhere in any discussion about character attacks. <-This whole statement in fact has nothing to do with validity of subject matter, but is about your character. If you want to disregard the subject and bicker about character, you are the one that started it.
Click to expand...

Actually I was bickering about subject matter, not character. I had clearly stated "everything". I was going to try something with you but it is failing so what do you want now?

Why does the entire surface of philosophy today have a different defination of subjectivity than you do?

If you fail to answer this question I place you on ignore close this thread hopefully, and be done with you forever- I'm sure everyone else would do something similar.
 
sisyphus__ said:
I was going to try something with you but it is failing so what do you want now?
Click to expand...
1. You have not answered questions I previously posted. I will not answer anything until my questions that I aksed first are answered.

2.
sisyphus__ said:
I was going to try something with you but it is failing so what do you want now?
Click to expand...
Try what? This is a clear violation of the rules of productive discussion. This shows that your intent is image.

1. The goal of each party in a discussion is to understand what the other party is communicating, and arrive at a conclusion regarding a matter.

2. Discussions can only be productive if they operate within the parameters of logic, and abide by the rules of knowledge.

3. Any party that approaches a discussion with intent to prove another party wrong is not acting with intent of understanding, but acting with intent of image. Such an approach is about discussion, but about debate and tactics used for debate for the sake of image.

According to #3, you are debating for the sake of winning and losing. What exactly is your intent here? Jamesr has stated there is nothing regarding topic.

There must be a specific statement. Such as "The Earth is round." Then people must take opposing t/f position, and continue from there. Yet there doesn't seem to be any specific stated topic.
 
lixluke said:
1. You have not answered questions I previously posted. I will not answer anything until my questions that I aksed first are answered.

2.

Try what? This is a clear violation of the rules of productive discussion. This shows that your intent is image.

1. The goal of each party in a discussion is to understand what the other party is communicating, and arrive at a conclusion regarding a matter.

2. Discussions can only be productive if they operate within the parameters of logic, and abide by the rules of knowledge.

3. Any party that approaches a discussion with intent to prove another party wrong is not acting with intent of understanding, but acting with intent of image. Such an approach is about discussion, but about debate and tactics used for debate for the sake of image.

According to #3, you are debating for the sake of winning and losing. What exactly is your intent here? Jamesr has stated there is nothing regarding topic.

There must be a specific statement. Such as "The Earth is round." Then people must take opposing t/f position, and continue from there. Yet there doesn't seem to be any specific stated topic.
Click to expand...

So so sensitive are we.
1. You have not answered questions I previously posted. I will not answer anything until my questions that I aksed first are answered.
Click to expand...

I've already answered what I thought were your questions. I can't find a "?" in your posts other than the ones I've searched for. Am I missing any?

2.

Try what? This is a clear violation of the rules of productive discussion. This shows that your intent is image.
Click to expand...
Wrong. There is no violation of productive discussion. Get it straight.
My intent is not image, but whatever it is that I desire. Get it straight.

2. Discussions can only be productive if they operate within the parameters of logic, and abide by the rules of knowledge.
Click to expand...
Entirely false. Please provide another logic other than the one we are presently abiding by .... For everyone who cares about you.

3. Any party that approaches a discussion with intent to prove another party wrong is not acting with intent of understanding, but acting with intent of image. Such an approach is about discussion, but about debate and tactics used for debate for the sake of image.
Click to expand...
[firstly if I cared about image any, I'd actually show you where you're wrong. Instead I'm taking my time and being humiliated, for your sake- it's probably whats best for your "image."]

According to #3, you are debating for the sake of winning and losing. What exactly is your intent here? Jamesr has stated there is nothing regarding topic.
Click to expand...
What a total slouch depending on untrue testomony from the authority.
You know precisely the intent. Don't lie to yourself.
Arriving at some agreement on truth.

There must be a specific statement. Such as "The Earth is round." Then people must take opposing t/f position, and continue from there. Yet there doesn't seem to be any specific stated topic.
Click to expand...
It's simply a debate to come to an agreement on truth.
We can debate however we like, I guess.


So. Please answer my questions.
 
Sure thing.
The question is irrelevant.
Proof:
1. If all philosophers in history agree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the information.

2. If all philosophers in history disagree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the inforamtion.


This is not a discussion about whether or not a philosopher in the past made a statement or who their ideas relate to information I have provided.

Why bother with insane illogical nonsensical claim that truth is relative? Because it makes you happy? Of course. What a total joke.
 
1. If all philosophers in history agree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the information.

:roflmao:

That leaves you with.
2. If all philosophers in history disagree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the inforamtion.


And they do.
So it is you aganist all the philosophers in history.
Who's more dependable?
Not satisfying?

Not satisfying?
Not insane yet are we?
Scan wiki-pedia over, and search for the word "philosophy."
 
Your question is irrelevant.

These are facts:
1. If all philosophers in history agree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the information.
2. If all philosophers in history disagree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the inforamtion.

Is anybody discussing any previous philosophers? No. Does any previous philosopher agreement/disagreement of information affect validity of information? No.
 
lixluke said:
Your question is irrelevant.

These are facts:
1. If all philosophers in history agree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the information.
2. If all philosophers in history disagree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the inforamtion.

Is anybody discussing any previous philosophers? No. Does any previous philosopher agreement/disagreement of information affect validity of information? No.
Click to expand...

question is not irrelevent.
Philosophers facts about that they do disagree with you is pretty straightforward.

But, I guess you'd say that you want SOMEBODY to help you with your theory because it IS THAT ABSURD.

I would guess, you want to state your rules and have everybody wondering exactly how they're wrong.

Am I wrong?
 
sisyphus__ said:
question is not irrelevent.
Philosophers facts about that they do disagree with you is pretty straightforward.

But, I guess you'd say that you want SOMEBODY to help you with your theory because it IS THAT ABSURD.

I would guess, you want to state your rules and have everybody wondering exactly how they're wrong.

Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I was willing to participate in a legitimate discussion you were the one that conveted it into a flame war. So go flame yourself because I'm not interested in ad hominem or ad populum nonsense.
 
Ok. Well that's what the whole rest of this forum is to you.
Trying to arrive with a point with you is like trying to reason with a retarted baby.
 
sisyphus__ said:
Ok. Well that's what the whole rest of this forum is to you. Trying to arrive with a point with you is like trying to reason with a retarted baby.
Click to expand...
* * * * MODERATOR'S NOTE * * * *

Personal insults are a violation of the SciForums rules. I realize the definition of "personal insult" is a little subjective, but this clearly crosses the line. If you want to criticize another member's style of argument or discussion, please cite an example of what you're objecting to. If your criticism is valid, then that shouldn't be difficult, should it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top