I challenge Uccisore

Uccisore is actually deleting my threads from ILP.

Not even ranting them.

Uccisore says I’m completely crazy.

I challenge Uccisore on this!!

Now I have zero opinion on your mental health Ecmandu but Satyr thinks
you are the craziest person here on a forum where every one is a psycho

Satyr is a fake objectivist…

Not my problem.

Just like InfoWars is the revolution…


Uccisore, seriously, I challenge you.

You’re debate is that I’m completely insane.

My debate is that you are.

Care to debate me?

It brings up a paradox, but I know how to get rid of it …

You deleted three of my threads and their replies…

Time to put up or shut up

Uccisore… I have it out for you …

Billions of years ago we had a debate about assertions and statements, and I lost by a hair.

Debate me now.

I will obliterate you !!!

I have zero tolerance for your kind.

You are a male, and I will destroy you.

You once told me if I knew who you were I’d just break…

Uccisore, I came from the depths of the deepest hells to even type this shit…

I travelled through space and time to even be here with any of you…

Put a feather in your cap and win the debate!!!

Uccisore, the best quality in an apd, is that they’re manipulative!!!

They seek approval.

Uccisore, you’re not a monster to me.

I’ve met real ones.

I think you need to put your mouth where it’s been with me.

Apds hate confrontation.

Step out of your comfort zone

I challenge both Uccisore and Carleas (they both get a post each round) to a debate that I am not as insane as they are.


That’s my challenge

Only Humean can judge it.

I’ll be at my sharpest fellows

My advice to you : post your philosophical findings and don’t bother debating anybody’s sanity. :smiley:

I can win this debate with standard human perception arguments …

Doesn’t matter how crazy other stuff I posted seems…

If I can make them look crazy on the standard stuff, and myself sane, I win the debate…

Thanks, but no thanks for the advice :slight_smile:

It’s an issue of what mods can get away with in terms of treating people here

That might be an interesting debate … what can mods get away with? what are the limits on moderation? can they be blatantly biased? is it reasonable that moderation is different in subsections of the forum? are the mods bound by the stated forum rules?

No one is bound by the rules, evidence of this is the near universal disregard for the rules, and remarkable incapacity on the staff’s part to reason them.

They certainly don’t make discussions more orderly, after all, the rant house is no more disruptive than the rest of the sight.

We aren’t here for the rules, but philosophy, and to piss off Magnus Anderson, cause it is funny.

Can you play any game - including philosophy - without rules? :evilfun:

I debated you as a joke and to amuse myself. I’ve already told that joke, and already had that fun. You don’t take that last debate to be a sign that I think you’re worth the time to seriously talk to, do you? I’ve said the opposite over and over again.

Why, other than as a joke, would anybody debate somebody who’s so mentally incompetent that they can’t even reliably express a coherent thought? All our discussions including that one have gone the exact same way- I make a point, you ramble a bunch of incoherent nonsense, I make fun of you until there’s something good on T.V. That’s it. That’s what you’re for. That’s why you should take up something like wood carving or curling or baking- some field that doesn’t require the parts of your brain that don’t work, so you can finally stop being a joke.

Imagine how cool that would be- if you could make really good bread, and everybody thought your bread was great, and wanted to eat your bread and buy your bread and know your secrets of breadmaking, and you didn’t have to constantly pretend to be intelligent or rational and frustrate yourself? I don’t know. Maybe baking is too much to ask of somebody with your challenges- but you get what I’m saying, right?

We never play by ANY rules, even when stayed. Take the dreamscape actions we decide upon, are we IN a Dream, or OF the dream, and it’s chaotic chorse and collapsing narrative? Is schema at best periphial or even just added on after the fact, and we determine how reasonable it is from perception and willingness to engadge?

Even when we add strict rules of objective, third party arbitrators, such as a referee, are we still playing by the rules? Why are they so very frequently broken then, and open up to debate by angry players and coaches doing chicken dances on the field?

What we call rules, are they a means or a end? How well are we accepting of them on a unconscious level, and what does this say about the nature of ontology and telelogy? What does it say about who we are as a species? What did it evolve out of? Our ability to track a projectile? To organize a hunt? Do we actually believe cavemen had open enrollment and posted rules for their caves? Was JSS presumption remotely correct here:

Isn’t science just a presumptive side effect of parallel processes like play, descended from a awareness we can privledge focus on aspects and yet disregard other aspects of thought? Is science just another form of Homo Ludens at play, a sub classification of a much larger activity we all engadge in, but insist must be different? It really isn’t that different in many areas of thinking, and it isn’t the rules that determine the remaining operations of desiderata, but rather identity and social justification that what we do here is worthy of pay and relaxation, but there is fun and games. It is all the dialectic in the end, we’re just primates thinking, manipulating with our hands and thoughts, screwing around. Most mental operations aren’t aware of “the rules”.

I made the argument that all assertions in and of themselves are arguments…

I am walking

The sky is blue

Ecmandu’s an idiot

They are arguments without additional content

Uccisore argued the opposite…

That just because there’s reference doesn’t mean it’s an argument.

Carleas gave it to him.

If I had that debate today, I’d win …

Turd actually thinks someone more intelligent than him is his lab rat.

You guys are assholes

This cycle of rage and disappointment is never going to stop unless you do something different. Take your meds, and get a non-intellectual hobby or trade.

I’m allowed to feel anger about anti intellectuals such as yourself and Turd if I want.

The most intellectual concept in the universe is that unless you are working to solve the overlapping and mutually exclusive desire problem:

A.) you deserve no resource
B.) you are an anti-intellectual

Anti-intellectuals are people who contradict themselves for social status …

You actually think calling me schizophrenic or using the decades old “take your meds”, and then merely asserting my posts never have content enough times that then finally everyone will believe you.

You are a rotten man Uccisore …

You don’t even deserve to be on these boards, and yet here you are with the handing over of the reigns.

I’ll also debate you on that :

Whether you’re an power hungry anti intellectual

Uccisore, why don’t we actually have a real philosophy topic for a change.

I defined intellectualism.

If you can defeat my argument I’ll accept the title of dunce…

Assuming don’t want to play for my banning like last time

Read the last one:

Also, you get Carleas too!!

Nobody should be rooting for me who likes underdogs to win.

This will be hilarious… I will destroy you two in debate

Actually, I’ll give you guys Turd and phyllo if you want as well…

4 rounds to 1 round, and I only get one post per round!!

I’m trying to make it fair Uccisore!

See, right there. You already sound like a retard. Philosophers, academics, ‘intellectuals’ and hell, adults, don’t talk that way. You would be a lot happier with life if you could realize that this kind of thing really isn’t your bag.

Seriously, have you tried baking? Everybody likes bread. Are you lucid enough to wash your hands, follow a recipe, etc?