Why am I not banned?

[420Joey]

I give up your a better sciforumer than me, Dwy.
Congrats.

Your trying to look at the bigger picture through cracks.

1. Neccesitate because you require for use.
2. Whoops I meant "past" not "pass", your assumption is correct for once.
3. This works both ways dwy. If you believe in the Big Bang, Digital or analog reality, whatever you are obviously looking passed obvious obstructions to look at the bigger picture. Are you implying we understand everything in its entirety?
4. What evidence are you speaking of? Do you know what cogent evidence is? I'm being general and your being specific, what do you mean?

I dont need to give examples Dwy. Your proving the point I'm trying to make with every post.

5. You dont know how to read in context.
6. Asking questions cant be done in a passive agressive non-trying-to-understand manner?
7. I never said that topics shouldent require support for there arguments? I dont need to ask glaucon anything I know what trolling is and what isnt trolling. You literally go to religious, para, psuedo and philosophy subforums to insult and make fun of people. You deny this? Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez from the looks of it I thought you took pride in it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

1. Neccesitate because you require for use.

I ask for evidence. I don't necessitate it.
Unless you consider me to be more of a situation or condition than a person.

3. This works both ways dwy. If you believe in the Big Bang, Digital or analog reality, whatever you are obviously looking passed obvious obstructions to look at the bigger picture.

What rot. We come to those conclusions by looking at the evidence and seeing what it leads to. We don't "look past" anything.

4. What evidence are you speaking of? Do you know what cogent evidence is? I'm being general and your being specific, what do you mean?

When I ask for evidence none is provided. How is that "cogent"?

5. You dont know how to read in context.

Wrong.

6. Asking questions cant be done in a passive agressive non-trying-to-understand manner?

A question is a question. It's quite simple. I'm looking for answers, not looking for votes.

7. I never said that topics shouldent require support for there arguments? I dont need to ask glaucon anything I know what trolling is and what isnt trolling. You literally go to religious, para, psuedo and philosophy subforums to insult and make fun of people.

Asking questions is making fun of someone?

You deny this? Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez from the looks of it I thought
you took pride in it.

As I have previously stated: after a certain point (multiple refusals or displays of inability to provide support for arguments) THEN I make fun of someone. If all they're going to do is troll (by repeatedly making claims they can't (or won't support) then why should I take them seriously?

 

[420Joey]

I ask for evidence. I don't necessitate it.
Unless you consider me to be more of a situation or condition than a person.

Neccesitate to consider without resorting to trolling.

What rot. We come to those conclusions by looking at the evidence and seeing what it leads to. We don't "look past" anything.

So you "know" what not even the smartest scientests, theists, and people claim to know? You have the awnser to the worlds axioms? Or did we move on for the obvious reasons?? Theories are helpful and science sure as hell helped us tremendously but it describes the 'how' (after a certain point and extent) not the 'why'. Are you saying that we ascertained how or why we came to be allready?

When I ask for evidence none is provided. How is that "cogent"?

Are you implying that everyone is talking incoherently about nothing? I'm saying that we have some cogent basis for claims made not neccessarily emperical evidence as its not required in the para, psedu, religion, phil, etc.

Wrong.

But when I say it, its an assumption?

A question is a question. It's quite simple. I'm looking for answers, not looking for votes.

I thought the oposite it looked to me like youve allready made up your mind and your looking to increase some warped sense of popularity you have here with those on your bandwagon.

Asking questions is making fun of someone?

Yep under the pretense of insulting them.

As I have previously stated: after a certain point (multiple refusals or displays of inability to provide support for arguments) THEN I make fun of someone. If all they're going to do is troll (by repeatedly making claims they can't (or won't support) then why should I take them seriously?

Make fun of whoever you want but real progress isnt made this way. You don't purposely set people up and than report them, you dont try to conjure up witty ways of calling someone a dumb asshole, you dont invalidate a theory or someones perspective without providing one to contrast.
Your counter productive at best, at worst your trolling, that's all I'm saying.

 

[fedr808]

and for the record, i don't mind glaucon as a member posting in other subforas,
and i agree that sometimes a wakeup slap to a newcomer may do him more good than a spoon to his mouth.

Look at me for example. Some of my original posts that I have looked over again just out of curiosity are so silly, so arrogant, and so infantile that if I were to ever meet the past "me" that wrote those I might punch myself.

It wasn't till you guys kicked the crap out of me in numerous threads before I wised up. And I consider myself a better person for it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Neccesitate to consider without resorting to trolling.

Still wrong. I ask questions. The premise (and viability) of the arguments put forward may necessitate evidence though.

So you "know" what not even the smartest scientests, theists, and people claim to know?

And you haven't read my reply.

Theories are helpful and science sure as hell helped us tremendously but it describes the 'how' (after a certain point and extent) not the 'why'. Are you saying that we ascertained how or why we came to be allready?

Why do we need a "why"? None of those questions - Big Bang, whatever, ask it. It's not science's job to ask "why"

Are you implying that everyone is talking incoherently about nothing?

Everyone? Nope. A large number? Yep, absolutely.

I'm saying that we have some cogent basis for claims made not neccessarily emperical evidence as its not required in the para, psedu, religion, phil, etc.

Believable is not necessarily correct.

But when I say it, its an assumption?

Correct.

I thought the oposite it looked to me like youve allready made up your mind and your looking to increase some warped sense of popularity you have here with those on your bandwagon.

Ah well. What you think and what the reality is are, I'm sorry to inform you, two very different things. I wasn't even aware I had a "bandwagon".

Yep under the pretense of insulting them.

Oh surely not. If I want to insult someone I'm going to do it. Not just pretend to do so.

Make fun of whoever you want but real progress isnt made this way.

I agree. Which is why I usually make fun when I've given up all hope of making progress.

You don't purposely set people up and than report them

Correct. I don't.

you dont try to conjure up witty ways of calling someone a dumb asshole

Oh I hope I do.

you dont invalidate a theory or someones perspective without providing one to contrast.

Maybe you misunderstand how science works. It is not required to come up with alternatives AT ALL in order to show that an idea/ hypothesis won't hold up. All it requires is that the flaws be shown in the one presented.

Your counter productive at best, at worst your trolling, that's all I'm saying.

Well, if you're anywhere near correct I expect to be banned soon. Maybe you should start reporting me.

 

[420Joey]

Still wrong. I ask questions. The premise (and viability) of the arguments put forward may necessitate evidence though.

Incorrect. So since I dont believe in organized religion I should go to a religious forum talking about Jesus/scripture and say

"You believe in a jewish zombie resseructing and trying to punish me I find that insulting are you stupid you religious zealot freak get some education"

Or... should I ignore them? Possibly make a topic discussing the probable cause for this belief system without trying to be offending?

Why do we need a "why"? None of those questions - Big Bang, whatever, ask it. It's not science's job to ask "why"

So when we ask why in a topic or try to speculate or discuss something trying to make sense of an axiom and you come spousing your nonsense, we should than ignore it than because your only concerned with the how and you just like to create obstruction.

Everyone? Nope. A large number? Yep, absolutely.

Is it really your responsibility to call out everyone you think is rambling incoherently?

Believable is not necessarily correct.

Ok so is it necessarily incorrect?

Correct.

So you say....

Ah well. What you think and what the reality is are, I'm sorry to inform you, two very different things. I wasn't even aware I had a "bandwagon".

I'll be glad to inform you that what you think and what reality is are completely different things as well.

Oh surely not. If I want to insult someone I'm going to do it. Not just pretend to do so.

No, you'd rather "pretend" to avoid getting reported on.

I agree. Which is why I usually make fun when I've given up all hope of making progress.

Wow. You literally said your definition of progress needs to include emperical evidence. So most of the "non-scientific" sub-genres are subject to your ridicule? The cop out: "You've given up hope there will be progress" if everyone adopted this outlook can you imagine how this forum would be?

PS: You make fun initially based on your predisposed bias but whatever. Progress to you is something laid out in concrete. Making the term progress moot.

Maybe you misunderstand how science works. It is not required to come up with alternatives AT ALL in order to show that an idea/ hypothesis won't hold up. All it requires is that the flaws be shown in the one presented.

What an easy and annoying cop out. I dont need to think about anything if its not on text books or tv I just wont believe it. I'm going to ramble on how your wrong because I hate progress and like to make fun of people? I'm not advocating baseless assumptions all I'm saying is that just because we havent connected all the dots doesent mean there isnt something to be made of it.

Well, if you're anywhere near correct I expect to be banned soon. Maybe you should start reporting me.

I dont do that like you man. It's purposeless I dont neccessary go out of my way to bash people like you. If you dont believe it fine maybe someone reading this will see will get it next time they see your reply to something.

I learn from so much people here. I just dont ever recall learning anything from you besides maybe being a little more objective.

and thats fine I'm an ignorant kid whatever I've been here for like 8 years and have 800 posts. You've been here like 2 years and have 10,000 bro I dont claim to know shit I just like to read sciforums to learn and a source of entertainment.

Literally the reason you come here?? To insult people and make interactions with people about insulting

 

[Dywyddyr]

Incorrect.

How so?

So since I dont believe in organized religion I should go to a religious forum talking about Jesus/scripture and say
"You believe in a jewish zombie resseructing and trying to punish me I find that insulting are you stupid you religious zealot freak get some education"

If that's how you wish to conduct yourself, why not? Of course you won't last long...

Or... should I ignore them? Possibly make a topic discussing the probable cause for this belief system without trying to be offending?

Why not do it the way I do and ask questions?

So when we ask why in a topic or try to speculate or discuss something trying to make sense of an axiom and you come spousing your nonsense, we should than ignore it than because your only concerned with the how and you just like to create obstruction.

Your final conclusion is wrong. And your initial part also seems to be wrong. What "axioms"? What "nonsense"?

Is it really your responsibility to call out everyone you think is rambling incoherently?

Responsibility? Nope. But then again I haven't claimed that it is.

Ok so is it necessarily incorrect?

No. But if it can't be shown to be correct then why take it into account?

I'll be glad to inform you that what you think and what reality is are completely different things as well.

When it happens please do. I'll be glad to have it pointed out.

No, you'd rather "pretend" to avoid getting reported on.

Wrong again. When I insult someone I want them to know they've been insulted. Otherwise what's the point?

Wow.

Yep.

PS: You make fun initially based on your predisposed bias but whatever. Progress to you is something laid out in concrete. Making the term progress moot.

Hmm, let me think... wrong and wrong.

What an easy and annoying cop out.

False. It's not a cop out. It's how science works.

I dont need to think about anything if its not on text books or tv I just wont believe it. I'm going to ramble on how your wrong because I hate progress and like to make fun of people?

Oh, I rather suggest that's not true. You do need to thin about things.

I'm not advocating baseless assumptions all I'm saying is that just because we havent connected all the dots doesent mean there isnt something to be made of it.

And if, in the process of "making something of it" the assumptions ARE baseless what's the point continuing?

I dont do that like you man. It's purposeless I dont neccessary go out of my way to bash people like you.

And I don't go out of my way to "bash" people like you Or anyone at all in fact).

I just dont ever recall learning anything from you besides maybe being a little more objective.

One day, maybe, you will. And then you can go back, re-read my posts and realise what else you've missed.

Literally the reason you come here?? To insult people and make interactions with people about insulting

Assumption again. Please stop, it's gone beyond amusing now.

 

[420Joey]

How so?

Well your insisting that you ask questions to stimulate the discussion and not to insult, this is incorrect based on my observations.

If that's how you wish to conduct yourself, why not? Of course you won't last long...

I dont wish to conduct myself that way thus the hypothetical situation

Why not do it the way I do and ask questions?

It's obstructive causes regress and I'm not talking about "asking questions" as you so innocently construct it. I'm talking about typical dwy posts.

Your final conclusion is wrong. And your initial part also seems to be wrong. What "axioms"? What "nonsense"?

Axiom of our origin, are you even reading?

Responsibility? Nope. But then again I haven't claimed that it is.

So why is it on you to insult people you have no interest arguing meaningfully with

No. But if it can't be shown to be correct then why take it into account?

You dont have to take it in account!! You can move on!! you don't have to post in the parapsychology, psuedoscience, religious or philosophy subsections to prove anybody wrong because it's impossible to do!! The best you can do is just say "Your crazy its not 100% provable" which is exactly what you do. I said this ten times allready, if we knew it wouldent be under any of those genres!

When it happens please do. I'll be glad to have it pointed out.

I Just pointed it out.

Wrong again. When I insult someone I want them to know they've been insulted. Otherwise what's the point?

Wrong. You do passive agressively and mostly in an indirect fashion because your scared to get reported. The point is to insult them without getting in trouble for it. Obvious.

Yep.

Hum

Hmm, let me think... wrong and wrong.

As you say, sir!
Define progress than?

False. It's not a cop out. It's how science works.

We are not talking about scientific subjects? Are you oblivious or what to what I'm saying.

Oh, I rather suggest that's not true. You do need to thin about things.

Thin?

And if, in the process of "making something of it" the assumptions ARE baseless what's the point continuing?

What is the point of the genres; get them deleted than I'll go elsewhere. It's BASELESS to you. Another hyperbole.

And I don't go out of my way to "bash" people like you Or anyone at all in fact).

Dishonesty.

One day, maybe, you will. And then you can go back, re-read my posts and realise what else you've missed.

If I missed your true intentions than I apologize. It is what I am led to believe and deduce from your posts.

Assumption again. Please stop, it's gone beyond amusing now.

Report me if you don't like it. All you do is thread on assumptions.

 

[birch]

Yeah right. Those sub-forums still require support for arguments. Just ask Glaucon, for example. Specious and unfounded suppositions do not lead to reliable conclusions.

dwy is not the only one who is an idiot at times. as this above example so clearly shows he is among them, though he and others believe they are not.

there is no understanding of context. for instance, philosophy is largely based on suppositions and opinions.

You dont have to take it in account!! You can move on!! you don't have to post in the parapsychology, psuedoscience, religious or philosophy subsections to prove anybody wrong because it's impossible to do!! The best you can do is just say "Your crazy its not 100% provable" which is exactly what you do. I said this ten times allready, if we knew it wouldent be under any of those genres!

this is what a lot of people don't understand. something so simple as this because they are the true idiots. they are not really thinking but priding themselves that they are. they are the ones stuck in a mental loop.

they've been taught what to 'think' is reality similar to telling someone to stay within a certain boundary. they don't think volitionally except for what another has programmed to do. speculation is completely out of the picture unless it is already established or considered 'acceptable' speculation by approving authority.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Well your insisting that you ask questions to stimulate the discussion and not to insult, this is incorrect based on my observations.

Then your observation in incorrect.

I dont wish to conduct myself that way thus the hypothetical situation

Hypothetical situation? And the point of that would be...?

It's obstructive causes regress and I'm not talking about "asking questions" as you so innocently construct it. I'm talking about typical dwy posts.

Please quote one of these "typical posts" and show how it causes "regress".

Axiom of our origin, are you even reading?

Hmm, where in the phrase "You have the awnser to the worlds axioms? " does it mention "origins"? Please outline these "axioms"

So why is it on you to insult people you have no interest arguing meaningfully with

Where have I claimed it's "on me"?

You dont have to take it in account!! You can move on!! you don't have to post in the parapsychology, psuedoscience, religious or philosophy subsections to prove anybody wrong because it's impossible to do!! The best you can do is just say "Your crazy its not 100% provable" which is exactly what you do. I said this ten times allready, if we knew it wouldent be under any of those genres!

You're still missing the point. I have an interest in those subjects and spouting untenable crap does NOT progress the topic.

I Just pointed it out.

Nope, you just made an accusation based on your assumptions.

Wrong. You do passive agressively and mostly in an indirect fashion because your scared to get reported.

Utter bullshit.

The point is to insult them without getting in trouble for it. Obvious.

Ah, you're blind too.

As you say, sir!
Define progress than?

Moving toward a tenable answer.

We are not talking about scientific subjects? Are you oblivious or what to what I'm saying.

And why do think that alternatives should be offered to show that a proposed "hypothesis" is wrong in subjects other than science?

What is the point of the genres; get them deleted than I'll go elsewhere. It's BASELESS to you. Another hyperbole.

Of course it's baseless. That's why I post there.

Dishonesty.

Incorrect assumption on your part.

If I missed your true intentions than I apologize. It is what I am led to believe and deduce from your posts.

You have been told before that you're making assumptions. You have been told why I post. Yet you persisted in the accusations.

Report me if you don't like it.

If I ever consider your post to be reportable I won't hesitate.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Oh this is rich!
You post this:

dwy is not the only one who is an idiot at times. as this above example so clearly shows he is among them, though he and others believe they are not.

And then claim this:

for instance, philosophy is largely based on suppositions and opinions.

THEN you compound it with this:

they've been taught what to 'think' is reality similar to telling someone to stay within a certain boundary. they don't think volitionally except for what another has programmed to do. speculation is completely out of the picture unless it is already established or considered 'acceptable' speculation by approving authority.

:roflmao:

 

[birch]

Of course it's baseless. That's why I post there.

though you are not the only one with this view, this is exactly an example of being anti-scientific which is ironic.

you don't know it's baseless, you are assuming as much.

science has become a religion to you to the point that there is a belief that all that we've uncovered or currently understand of how things work is the end.

this is no different than religious dogma or bigotry.

 

[birch]

Oh this is rich!
You post this:


And then claim this:


THEN you compound it with this:

:roflmao:

and you still don't get context and taking things out of context. many who post in philosophy believe that their suppositions are not because it is considered more 'respectable' than say topics under 'pseudoscience' but it's not really true. it is considered acceptable suppositions. you are an idiot for laughing but you don't understand that.

there is lots of examples of this type of stupidity such as one who believes in religion but doesn't believe in spirits, ghosts etc., when that is part of the religion. people are not really thinking, they are programmed to adjust to societal expectations.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Looks like beat on D -Day . Oh you got to love this forum . I do . Love and kisses to all . Kissy Kissy

 

[birch]

Looks like beat on D -Day . Oh you got to love this forum . I do . Love and kisses to all . Kissy Kissy

no, because his lack of real logic and understanding at times is evident in a lot of people here, not just him.

 

[Dywyddyr]

and you still don't get context and taking things out of context.

Wrong.

many who post in philosophy believe that their suppositions are not

Agreed. But they get stepped on swiftly for the most part.

because it is considered more 'respectable' than say topics under 'pseudoscience' but it's not really true.

How not?

there is lots of examples of this type of stupidity such as one who believes in religion but doesn't believe in spirits, ghosts etc., when that is part of the religion. people are not really thinking, they are programmed to adjust to societal expectations.

Yeah. Or the type of idiot that thinks untrammelled speculation constitutes "thinking". Or repeating a supposition constitutes support for that speculation.

 

[Dywyddyr]

though you are not the only one with this view, this is exactly an example of being anti-scientific which is ironic.

You did notice the didn't you?
Maybe you missed the sarcasm.

you don't know it's baseless, you are assuming as much.

Um, what's the word I'm looking for here? Oh yeah. CONTEXT!

science has become a religion to you to the point that there is a belief that all that we've uncovered or currently understand of how things work is the end.

Utter nonsense.

 

[birch]

Yeah. Or the type of idiot that thinks untrammelled speculation constitutes "thinking". Or repeating a supposition constitutes support for that speculation.

the rest of your replies are basically nothing so i will use this.

you implied that topics under philosophy are not based on suppositions or opinions as if there is some concrete proof that it's not specious. even many of glaucon's opinions are specious because that is the nature of that type of subject to a large extent though we can tell ourselves it isn't. there is no concrete support, it is largely subjective or as being understood by others. but if someone speculates or makes suppositions in pseudoscience, then it's not acceptable. this is what i meant by people who don't think but are just conforming to artificial bs and designations for ego or to not look stupid in the eyes of others.

that you don't understand this truth makes you and many others here the real idiots.

 

[Dywyddyr]

you implied that topics under philosophy are not based on suppositions or opinions as if there is some concrete proof that it's not specious.

No I didn't.

even many of glaucon's opinions are specious because that is the nature of that type of subject to a large extent though we can tell ourselves it isn't.

Links please.

but if someone speculates or makes suppositions in pseudoscience, then it's not acceptable.

I see you can't distinguish between "reasonable (and supportable) premise" and "unreasonable speculation". Never mind.

 

[Randwolf]

no, because his lack of real logic and understanding at times is evident in a lot of people here, not just him.

I'm confused. Did you mean "no, because his [the] lack of real logic and understanding at times is evident in a lot of people here"? Or something else?

Also, could you please clarify what constitutes "a lot of people"? How many? And how do you know this?

P.S. What is "real" logic? Is there some other kind?