I was kicked off those boards for sexual selection theory Uccisore. The women complained and the men were the knights in shining armor. Iāve never been kicked off for this type of stuff. And actually, like I said before, youāre trolling again, this is intended to rile and not argue your point. I am making these āerrorsā sincerely. Read the rest of my chain posts and get back to me, or not, whatever, maybe someone who doesnāt troll will come into this thread and discuss this with me. In case you havenāt noticed, James hasnāt said Iām wrong yet. I think heās starting to understand the point Iām making, but I donāt want to put words in his mind.
I just explained to you what Only_Humeans comment means. Why are you arguing with me?
Well, I take that back. YOU say thatās Only_Humeanās comment. Who the hell knows what he actually said.
The reasons you give for being kicked off those other boards are,
1.) Probably lies given your track record of mispresenting people, and
2.) Do nothing to explain why you would need other peopole to explain Only_Humeansā very straightforward comment to you.
An argument is a series of statements that come to a conclusion - the defining feature of an argument is that there are opposing views that have come together. When someone makes a statement, they are drawing from an infinite number of statements in argument form (opposing views that come together) run a series of statements in their minds that they donāt explicate (within fractions of a second) to come to the conclusion to use that statement. These are all arguments Uccisore. I actually take the time to run arguments, even proofs for what I should and should not say from the infinite number of things that can be said, because they are most relevant to the complaint ratio of society. I actually formulate proofs for why I post half the stuff I do on these boards. PROOFS.
Iām not misrepresnting peopleā¦ I wanted someone to explain to me, to paraphrase you, āthis obvious and profound mistake Iām makingā. Everything is right here in THIS thread Uccisore.
No. A troll is someone who makes provocative and offensive posts meant to rile people up, intentionally to make them angry and upset them. Not just arguments or assertions.
Most of the time they bring up details of someones life or past in attempt to piss them off so they flame and get in trouble.
Dude, you donāt even read what other people write to you before you respond to it, you use words that donāt make any sense or that you donāt know the definitions of constantly, you continually use the wrong word even to your own mind and have to correct yourself, and about every third post you make is a bunch of capitalized words and exclamation point because you got all mad at somebody who dared to call you wrong. When you arenāt doing these things, you are claiming to have magical powers, claiming to be the worldās-greatest-this-and-that.
So no, you are quite clearly not running all of your statements through a wide variety of possibilities before settling on the correct one.
What's more, I thought you had a problem with infinite regress. If every statement is is an argument, and every argument is composed of a series of statements, then every statement is composed of a series of statements, making every statement an infinite number of statements, and you would never successfuly say anything- or if you did, it wouldn't have any meaning. I've seen you use this type of point over and over.
Thirdly, a thing isn't identicle to the process that leads to it's existence. Even if it were true that all statements were arrived at through a process of argumentation, that wouldn't mean that statements were arguments, for the same reason that mushrooms aren't shit* or bread isn't the act of baking. So for example:
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is a mortal.
Isnāt an argument. Itās a conclusion. It being arrived at through a very famous argument does not make it, itself, an argument.
You have utterly failed to show that statements are arguments. You have at best showed that [i]the choice of which statement to utter is arrived at through an argument,[/i] which isn't even close to the same thing. Even then I don't agree with you, but examining that italicized claim isn't necessary to refute your claim that statements are arguments.
Now, the funny thing is, I've come at your position three different ways, each one being stronger than the one before it. You being you, there's a very low chance that you'll actually read this far before writing your reply, and will try to make the conversation about whether or not what you say goes on in your head actually does. But anybody else reading this will see my refutation of your argument, and your failure to respond to it, and this will be fine with me.
- Thank you Xunzian, wherever you are.
I think trolls are people who donāt run logical proofs for why they post what they post, and what they post, logical proofs being formulations that exclude all other possibilities. Otherwise youāre just trying to rile people up, like uccisore and only Humean have done to me. Uccisore very rarely argues, and he doesnāt care much at all about rigor, thatās trolling. only_humean said I am so far out of it, I canāt even understand the error Iām making, without actually sitting down for one second to write his proof. What would it take, three paragraphs to write a proof? That is TROLLING! The person being riled is me, whoās sitting here writing proofs.
I capitalize words because i donāt use the bold feature, not because Iām mad. Statements are still arguments if they havenāt had proofs run through them. Wellā¦ Iām not claiming to have an infinite amount of information in my head (even though i said that we all draw from an infinite amount of information), I correct myself because Iām not perfect and because Iām dealing with highly abstract concepts which are new and difficult to articulate. Theyāre only highly abstract because theyāre new, and new things donāt often get articulated well the first time or even the hundredth timeā¦ it takes time to perfect communal language. I canāt articulate anything if you donāt actually talk to me about my points, which I admit, you just did.
This is what this discussion is aboutā¦ and almost every discussion that goes on between Ucci and Ecc.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQB4nAjZIdE[/youtube]
And to my point, that is an assertion, and in the absence of a proof, an argument.
See the bolded portion above. So there you have it, proof that Ec doesnāt read peopleās posts before he replies to them, in the very same post as the refutation of Ecās claim that assertions are arguments. It doesnāt get any better than that.
I read the entire post. My comment about your conclusion section was summed up in my comment about all of it, unless statements are proofs, they are arguments. (bold takes so much longer to use sigh) This is again another instance where you didnāt run a proof for your post. This is actually how you post Uccisore. Thatās why I keep calling you a troll.
Sure you did Ec, sure you did. What really happened is right there.
Out.
We both know you donāt keep your word Uccisore.
My assertion is a deductive argumentā¦
Proof is when all other possibilities have been excluded and there is no longer an argument.
When all other possibilities have not been excluded, anything uttered is still an argument, because itās running against all of the other assertions and arguments still.
This includes statements, assertions, arguments, conclusions, and whatever the hell else you want to throw in there that are statements, because these are all statements.
Where did I misquote you?
I read the whole thing.
Where did you find this fantastic song, Artimas?
I was just talking to Lev, whoās found a home in the philosophy now forums, as a case in point for this threadā¦ before I came back to ILP with a new username (because I couldnāt remember my password, and the retrieve password function failed (the one they sent me in e-mail here at ILP) I posted sexual selection theory at philosophy now. They immediately banned me and deleted my posts. Thatās why I say this is the best philosophy forum online. Iāve literally been banned from 15 boards, not for philosophical or mathematical or even logical or paradox discussions, but the SECOND I say that women have sex with jerks more than nice guys, Iām banned, usually deleted. Do you know how serious it is to have all your threads deleted on a message board? I kid you not.
I want to show you something as a demonstration! points index finger upwards
If I posted this as my opening OP at philosophy now, I would be banned and it would be deleted: ILP will NOT ban me for posting this in this thread (some of it Iāve said before).
Every security agency has banned my IP address, this is a short e-mail, I keep trying to explain to people that this is a matter of national and global security.
Ecmandu wrote:
99.99999999999% of species are engaged in the selection of conspicuous consumption aggression and are sexually stratified.
James wrote:
I think that you need to start a thread on that topic (Philosophy Forum) and realistically, philosophically, support exactly why you believe that ā¦ and more importantly, try to elaborate on exactly, precisely, what you mean by it.
Thereās a concept called run-away sexual selectionā¦ thereās the most famous example which is the Irish Elk, the females selected so heavily for the traits of large horns at the expense of more agile males (presumably ganging up on the more agile males so they could mate with the crippled ones) that the Irish Elk evolved to the point that when it reached maturity, itās horns were so large on the males that they couldnāt lift their heads up off the ground anymore. The species went extinct from this. Plumage on the male peacock is another famous (and current) example.
That is the selection of conspicuous consumption. They are basically the same concept, run-away sexual selection and the selection of conspicuous consumption.
In most species it is the strongest males who get almost all of the mates, even though from a game theory PoV there are so many other weaker mates that they could all gang up on the strong one, and have more of a communityā¦ they would fundamentally be more intelligent animalsā¦ running consent through group decisions rather than fighting (conspicuous consumption aggression) (fighting which decreases the overall security of the group). [Not many species actually enjoy their orgasms, so there arenāt many species that have sex outside of heat.] This pressure causes whatās called āsex dimorphismā, where one gender is larger than another. It is noted in any species where one gender is significantly larger than the other gender, that this process has occurred, we can rewind and see the conspicuous consumption aggression rather than other forms of game theory being implemented by these creatures. It is noted that the larger one has more aggressive traits in all of these species (it was the aggression which came from being the largest with the most sexual choice that was selected for), though mothers can be quite aggressive to protect the young when the father is gone, she is neither as aggressive as the father or as large in most species.
Sexual stratification occurs throughout the entire animal kingdom with some exceptions. Sexual stratification is defined by two metricsā¦ the first metric is the number of partners one has in a life time, the second is access to at least one sexual resource. As noted above, the largest males are the ones with the most sexual choice, they can and often do (depending on the size of the group), pick hundreds of partners in the wild. This is why conspicuous consumption aggression gets the most partners in terms of species sexual stratification. You can tell just from the sex dimorphism that this is the case.
I didnāt cite a damn thing! This argument stands on its own. Through random mutations some are going to be larger than others, when an entire gender is larger than another gender, itās proof of sexual stratification, and also conspicuous consumption aggression for the choices in the context of that sexual stratification. Social game theories work better for species survival than āking of the hillā game theories do. Sexual stratification interferes with apathy, depression, agitation (and I forget the other oneā¦ Iāll look it up later) in the part of the population which is sexually stratified, particularly in species that enjoy their orgasms, which ends up dividing the community and making the species less adaptive from a game theory PoV.
The word I was looking for was āstressā, sexual stratification causes increased stress, depression, apathy and agitation in animal populations for the stratified members. Or to put it in laymens terms, the ones who arenāt getting laid will experience this. What sexual stratification does is it leaves one gender with these symptoms and the other gender without these symptoms, in a relative sense. When you have say 1 out of every 10,000 males getting 10,000 lifetime partners and 4,000 of every 10,000 males getting 4 partnersā¦ it causes problems in the species.
A very simple example of this, is that itās obviously the men who are being sexually stratified in this speciesā¦ Iāll be brief. The defining characteristic of a psychopath is being able to detect othersā emotions and simply not care (narcissists cannot accurately detect the emotions for example). Every women in the world knows that the world would be a better place if they slept with more men, and it is exceedingly obvious that these men want to sleep with them, women as a gender in this species, just like in the irish elk, are effectively psychopaths.
Iām also sending you this:
Iām trying to send this to the international community at large, I thought you might be interested in this last e-mail, itās brief, and is my final and last word on the subject.
Itās called: Game Theory
Last e-mail, please read thisā¦
The game theory (which doesnāt require intent) is that sexual stratification (when one gender gives another gender most of the sexual variety, in this species it is males who are sexually stratified) causes PSTD (the same reason you donāt rape people) which decreases cognitive functioning and makes it less likely that theyāll contribute positively, it causes increased apathy, depression, agitation and stress in all animal populations. Itās responsible for the acting out (war) and the existential depression (suicide in human populations - more males commit suicide every year than all the deaths from war (I can prove itās not because of testosterone), homicide and female suicide combined - I can correct the statistics with facts) which makes everything worse for everyone. The other aspect of the game theory is that if you just kill anyone who their sleep who claims to go to war (a. it makes you not an abetter of the crime, and b. in game theory prevention works better than any other form), thereād be world peaceā¦ the motivational system would shift. If you did those two things, youād foster innovation and have no more war, youād also decrease rape and homicide rates.
If you do these two thingsā¦ youāll have world peace. There is no secondary effect of increased or stabilized psychopathy with this game, these rules.
Itās PERFECT game theory. For all those nah sayers out thereā¦
And I did study this hard, I read over 400 papers on sexual selection in different species over the course of 2 years, Iāve studied suicide for 22 years.
Also, because conspicuous consumption aggression is the trait most selected for (including things like marriage and sexual jealousy - the most common forms (which also cause war and suicide)) we effectively place the motivational system on contradicting our motives (which is what is selected for, particularly in the male population - contradiction of motive is this species form of conspicuous consumption), which contributes to environmental degradation as well and social stratification as well. If males accept the female sexual blackmail system to fit into society, they will be happier than males who speak out about this.
So thereās all the game theory you need to make a better world, I invented it.
I like explaining this game theory to peopleā¦ because itās what theyāre always complaining about and it reduces those things, it even reduces social stratification. Outside of that Iāve lost interest in the arts, because I realized this is the only thing worth doingā¦ it took all my interest away from what I used to be passionate about. I like developing theories for alternate realities so some being can compromise with me and facilitate an escape from this one.
I carry the heaviest burden here because Iām itās discoverer, which means my sexual selection (and men arenāt supposed to approach women because it causes suicide) is 100% value in this species. So every second I go through my days not being approached by heterosexual women Iām in a deep existential depressionā¦ technically EVERYONE who didnāt solve world peace game theory is an asshole by definition, which means women ONLY have sex with assholes. Itās the same thing from grade school when I first noticed it, except intensified to critical mass now because my selectability is 100% and everyone elseās is zero percent.
When you explain the worlds only game theory for world peace to women, they spit on you. I canāt do anything about how much depression that gives meā¦ I donāt explain it in offensive ways, even if they agree with me wholeheartedly, they wonāt have sex with me, and to make matters worse, Iām very attractive. Soā¦ actually this statement is not true, when you are surrounded by a world full of psychopaths relative to you, that statement is empty (the statement that Iām responsible for my own happiness and that itās not interconnected). The amount of depression is something almost impossible for someone to fathomā¦ Like I said, I invented all of this, so I carry the heaviest burden for it.
I actually know more on this subjectā¦ if you have any questions, ask me. Oh yeah, you can prove that sexual bonding holds community together better than other forms, and community raises children better than families by absorbing many of the problems family causes or cannot solve. Polyamoury and polysexuality actually decrease suicide rates.
I can prove every statement in this e-mail. Iābe been banned from every government site online. Itās on you to get this message out there.
This isnāt a suicide letter, my suicidal tension (a term I coined when I was 16) is too high, Iām being kept alive against my will, which is a sign of a very sick society. Suicidal tension can be internal and external, it is the means youād use and the access you have to those means. With a suicidal tension of zero and a zero suicide rate, you have a perfectly healthy societyā¦ with high suicidal tension, you can obscure the sickness that is actually in society. This species is engaged in run-away sexual selection. The Bonobo is not.
to dholtgrave (Johnās Hopkins University, #1 ranked university for sociology)
Mithus wrote:
Oh Ecmandu, you better rewrite it!
They wonāt take you serious at the International Community when you come up with terms like āassholesā and tell them that they are all psychopaths. (Iām sure many of them have a woman or are women themselves).
Youāre a friendly person, you donāt have to change your personality in order to get a woman.
No woman wants a complete asshole. And no woman wants a man who does everything she wants. As you refer so often to James, maybe he can tell you something about Impedance Matching, or you just start here.
But asshole is a technical term defined by all the premises (which I can prove), you know the phrase ānice guys always finish lastā I can actually disprove that phrase and prove they donāt finish at all. Richard Dawkinās who made a video on ānice guys finish firstā is MARRIED, which causes WAR and SUICIDEā¦ the guy is an asshole!!! And yes, there are 7 billion psychopaths on this planet, I can prove it! You HAVE to tell a woman that sexual stratification causes war and suicide to NOT be an asshole, because itās the ONLY POSSIBLE PHRASE ON PLANET EARTH THAT PREVENTS THESE TWO THINGS!!! Selection of conspicuous consumption aggression is a secondary to sexual stratification. Even if you begin sexually stratifying towards those not engaged in conspicuous consumption aggression, and render sexual neglect for those engaged in conspicuous consumption aggression, they will modify their behavior to not be sexually stratified, because it runs with the grain of logical ethics, thereās nothing a nice guy can do, because they cause their own destruction by simply hitting on a woman (all the metrics of approach stratification that cause war, suicide and decreased innovation). Women only approach men who they āsmellā have increased signs of contradiction of motive, one of which is not talking about this topic at all. I can write it longer, but thatās besides the point, I can prove everything I said in there.
You folks mistreated me. But the past is the past, and it was a nice reprieve to be at Austin Riggs.
Alsoā¦
Andā¦
Basically I innovated evolutionary psychology (actually I solved it), solved world peace game theory, AND I also found the meta solution to ethicsā¦ axiomated
Do you really think this is the argument of a pre-schooler or a mentally ill person?
Iāll do this in number form since you folks love that so muchā¦
-
definition) Contradiction: the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
āthe second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the firstā
synonyms: denial, refutation, rebuttal, countering
āa contradiction of his statementā -
definition) Axiom: An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. The word comes from the Greek axĆÅma (į¼Ī¾ĪÆĻĪ¼Ī±) āthat which is thought worthy or fitā or āthat which commends itself as evident.ā
1.) If everything is relative, than this statement is relative.
3.definition) relative: considered in relation or in proportion to something else.
2.) If everything is relative than nothing can be in proportion to something else, which means nothing else exists.
3.) We know this statement exists as an axiom (read definition 2)
4.) From this axiom we know that all statements are absolute and not relative on the meta-level.
5.) Moral axioms in language derive from statements
6.) Moral axioms in the form of statements have to be absolute and not relative on the meta level
4.) meta-level (definition) the irreducible level of an argument structure.
7.) (read definition 1) None of these statements contradict themselves, and any statement that contradicts them contradicts themselves, because they are using the steps in this process
8.) Ethics is about motive, action and response (positive or negative), ethics is positive (you must use ethics to argue against these axioms, which means youāre arguing for them).
9.) In order for ethics to not contradict itself, it must be non-contradictive of motive.
10.) There must be, per axioms above, ethics as statements that donāt contradict themselves on the meta-level, absolute statements, that are objective.
11.) number 9 is such a statement.
Final comment: ultimatum to the cosmosā¦
If I canāt mutually consentingly sleep with every woman I want to sleep with at all stages of their growth process (not children of course - lesbians but not bisexuals are exempt unless that lesbian has slept with a man consensually before), I will kill myself forever if I can. There are men who had zero percent sexual selection value who slept with 50,000 women in a lifetime, everyone before me had zero percent sexual selection valueā¦. that billions of sexual selections that didnāt deserve it, hundreds of billions, perhaps over 1 trillion.
I once said I never wanted to see that again (bullies get the most sex), and I meant it. What we really need is community to decide who has sex with whom based upon the quality of contributions to society, how many people someone gets to choose.
Alsoā¦
What men do, who donāt get sex, is something called trying to reduce the complaint ratio of people.
Females in this species specifically look for signs (conspicuous consumption) that males add to the complaint ratio for individuals and the species at large. They are literally like the Irish Elk to this regard.
Incredulity is not an argument. No I was pointing out the obvious that something being existent does not lead to it necessarily being effective in demonstrating the existence of other existent objects. In fact, generally it does not.
There seems to be a missing step in your argument. Somethign like existent objects can prove the existence of other existent objects. Words are existent objects so thereforeā¦
I was trying to point out the problem with that line. So what if they are existent objects. Tradition concrete existent objects cannot be used to prove the existence of other existent objects - unless physically used to, say, dig up the corpse of Harry to show Harry is dead. With words, however, no empirical evidence can be ādug upā. If you line up rock, bottle and tree, this will not demonstrate unicorns or tigers exist. Or any other existent object not already in the argument. This becomes even clearer if we bring in your oddity about assertions being arguments. A rock is an existent object. Imagine how a rock could prove the existence of some other object?
Well, sure I can. To call assertions arguements is to do away with the use of the two terms. ARguments do work with several ideas to build a case. Statements merely make a claim. They do not show how a conclusion is correct, they present a conclusion without support. In everyday speech the two terms may overlap, but in a philosophical context it is sloppy use of words. And this was not a step up to a higher meta-level, it was an argument based on the usefulness of separate definitions of the two key words. By showing the problems that ariseā¦
The soul does not exist.
That does not amount to an argument. It is a position/conclusion. In the culture of philosophy it obviously lacks an argument and will not be taken seriously as an argument by a philosophy. (nor will it be taken seriously out on the street either). Imagine the grade on that essay. Imagine the reaction at a debate, to a journal entry or letter to the editor. And not simply because it is a weak argument, but because it offers no support for its position. It is NOT an argument, which is a specific kind of social act that a statement is insufficient to be considered as. If you assert something to people, even on the street, they will, if they have minimal intelligence, demand an argument to support that assertion. They may be weak analyzers of arguments, but they understand, at least often, that a statement by itself is not an argument. It is an opinion. There may be an argument behind it or the person may be parroting what they just heard as part of echolalia but it is not an argument.
Further deductive arguments are problematic in determining existents. That āstuffā can be both particles and waves, for example, would have been and was and still is denied via deduction. What seems to make sense in deduction, in these types of arguments, is based on our limited knowledge, so categories and logical necessities can turn out to be false.
Take a look at the history of rogue waves.
Fluid scientists, oceanographers and other scientists, dismissed claims that rogue waves were as big as the sailors and other claimed. They used deduction to decide this. As technology changed over time it was demonstrated that rogue waves did in fact exist. Then the scientists went back to the drawing table. If they exist, how do they exist. Now assumptions hidden in their previous deductions came to light - what had seemed like AN ARGUMENT with true assertions and logical formation, in fact including incorrect assumptions.
And whining about how you have beaten Uccisore is just more speculation.
This is what I wrote in the thread Iām working about Uccisore in help and suggestionsā¦
"An argument is a series of statements that come to a conclusion or are a conclusion - the defining feature of an argument is that there are opposing views that have come together, the argument is in opposition to something; when there is a proof, there is no opposition, so itās not technically an argument, itās a proof. So long as you have statements that arenāt proofs (even assertions), they are arguments, the person is using the argument structure even though itās not being explicated.
Thatās my whole point about that. Do I seem absurdly confused to anyone here in saying that? (To address Stat and mr reasonable and Only_Humean) and you Moreno"
The point Iām trying to make is that someone has used an argument to choose this statement (the assertion) and theyāve chosen an argument for why theyāre making that statement (an assertion), that is not explicated, but in the absence of proof, itās still an argument. They just gave you the reason why they believe it, they posted it or they said it, whether theyāre lying or trolling is besides the pointā¦ the argument structure is being used but not explicated. Thatās my point. The same is true of conclusions. If theyāre not proofs, theyāre still just arguments.