Well… interestingly enough, you not only didn’t correct me, this was the post in the thread where you said I ceded the debate… that’s a complete endorsement of that post. I think you’re either scrambling for reputation or don’t remember the thread that well.
I said you ceded the debate because you said this:
Claiming you ceded the debate is an endorsement of NOTHING other than the above clause “you win the debate”. The rest of the nonsense you spouted was just that, nonsense. It’s not as if I didn’t tell you so enough times.
See how easy quoting is?
That’s because I tried to take a different angle after you ENDORSED the last post. I tried to come at it from rote memory, and I tried to come at it from making assertions arguments, you can look back in the thread and see it…
Once i realized that i couldn’t debate an assertion (because you endorsed it) I went to rote memory, and once I realized that rote memory doesn’t work, I couldn’t think of anything else except to turn assertions into arguments. Hindsight is 20/20 I suppose.
I want to add something else Uccisore… My debate about rote memory was a bit more nuanced than I made it out to be in that concession, but that’s besides the point… I went hard on this debate. I took Uccisore’s point and didn’t even try to debate it, that assertions could not be debated (you did actually assent to that) so I figured, “Ok, this is what uccisore and james are saying, so I’ll invent a new debate.” I actually took the hardest possible debate, which was to turn assertions into debates… and you kept ignoring me. What’s ironic about this, is that the metal gymnastics it took to make my argument far exceeded the mental gymnastics you and James were using… and you can’t see it. I had to redefine the way logical operators are used with existents for the entire field of philosophy and logic. And the funny thing is, you were calling me “tard” the whole time.
Uccisore, by not pointing out that assertions could be argued against and declaring victory on that point, I just said… well fuck it, I’ll just invent new logic!!! That’s the HARD way. That you didn’t say this proves you’re not a self-respecting debater… but I took it where it laid and made something you didn’t expect. I showed that all assertions must be debates, because they are different from different assertions (the debate) and one was chosen (the winner of the debate). I actually thought circles around you with my arms tied behind my back in this debate.
So why don’t you make a thread about how all assertions must be debates (or is it arguments, they aren’t the same thing you know), call it something that’s actually descriptive so somebody other than me and James click on it, then an entirely new group of people can laugh at you? I’ve already had my fun.
“Rote memory” is of words. If words are arguments, then rote memory is argument (you could have chosen to memorize something else).
Only_Humean said to me…
“At the moment, I think you’re so wrong that you don’t know why you’re wrong. But there’s going to come a point at which I think you’re a troll.”
Can someone please explain this to me?
I forget what that type of memory is, rote is like the autonomic nervous system, it’s the type used mostly as a child.
You can come at the issue via the idea of logic. Assertions are looked at more as true or false or nonsensical. Arguments can be looked at to see if they are logical. If the connections - between the various assertions that form parts of the argument - are logical. You build an argument and you make an assertion.
A troll is someone who makes assertions (and sometimes arguments) meant to rile people up. Someone stubbornly making a mistake will function very much like a troll. Given that people do not know, always, what they are doing, the stubborn person in error and the troll are overlapping sets.
He is not saying that the issue is moot, which one you are, and his post implies that the sets are not overlapping. In a sense it is a compliment - not morally but as far as intelligence - if someone moves from treating you like someone stubbornly making an error to the category of a troll. The troll would be considered smart enough to know what he or she is doing.
I’m also interested to know why I’m wrong Moreno. My thesis is that every assertion is drawn from an infinite number of assertions (conflicting points that come into contact with each other - an argument) and when one is presented, the argument was settled. And yes, I know debate is different than argument, it was a typo.
More to the point… once the argument was settled, there are still an infinite number of assertions floating around out there, and we use theorems to isolate which one is right or wrong. So the assertion, absent a theorem is still an argument in support of its position. Or it could just be trolling. =)
Yup… assertions (arguments by default) without theorems to prove them are forms of trolling. That means I have been thoroughly trolled by only_humean and uccisore. I provided theorems (where all other possibilities are excluded), in the context of my assertions (in the form of arguments). For example, when I say a word is a concrete object, this is by definition, so when i say all assertions have words and all arguments have words, I can use deduction by excluding all other possibilities, and state in proof form that deductive arguments can prove the existence of concrete objects. Thus denying Uccisores assertions. When I define argument as “conflicting points of view that come into contact with each other”, which is not an unreasonable definition, I can show that all assertions are arguments and that without theorems, they are meant to rile. I can prove that all assertions are trolling without theorems. I can prove that I’m the only one who hasn’t been trolling. I’ve been turning all my arguments into theorems or proofs, always trying for proofs.
Sure. You are making errors so obvious and profound that it is hard to believe anybody can make them. Only_Humean presently believes that you really are making these profound errors sincerely, but it’s straining credibility so much that he’s sooner or later going to assume that you’re actually just playing dumb, and saying ridiculous thing to antagonize people.
This would be a good example. It’s hard to believe that an adult man who has been kicked off of many forums in the past would sincerely not understand the above quote and would need people to explain it to him. It’s easier to believe that you’re pretending not to understand it as some sort of act.
I was kicked off those boards for sexual selection theory Uccisore. The women complained and the men were the knights in shining armor. I’ve never been kicked off for this type of stuff. And actually, like I said before, you’re trolling again, this is intended to rile and not argue your point. I am making these “errors” sincerely. Read the rest of my chain posts and get back to me, or not, whatever, maybe someone who doesn’t troll will come into this thread and discuss this with me. In case you haven’t noticed, James hasn’t said I’m wrong yet. I think he’s starting to understand the point I’m making, but I don’t 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 that’s Only_Humean’s 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_Humeans’ 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 don’t 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.
I’m not misrepresnting people… I wanted someone to explain to me, to paraphrase you, “this obvious and profound mistake I’m making”. 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.