I am not saying you never provided any argumentation. Of course you did, plenty of it. But the last time you addressed him you provided nothing but that which can, and will, irritate him (as well as every single person reading the exchange and hoping for the discussion to move forward.)
As far as I’m concerned, as long as someone is making an attempt to explain why they think what they think and/or why they don’t believe something someone else believes, it’s all good. I don’t care about their motivations, all I care about is their reasons. Their reasons are either convincing or they are not. And he appears to be meeting that criteria.
And it doesn’t seem like he’s aggressively pushing his ideas, so how exactly is he spreading a disease? It looks like he’s merely saying what he believes and why he believes it – he’s merely doing it frequently and persistently. He also seems to be pretty interactive. He might not be someone who’s easy to convince and/or someone you can easily learn from, but then, how are you going to change that without ruining his self-esteem? I don’t think that what you’re doing – rolling your eyes, showing how bewildered you are, saying he’s a bad philosopher – is going to do the trick. In fact, it seems like only bad things can come from it.
And you appear to be one of those who actually believe that O’Biden is making innocently poor decisions (assuming you know anything about it at all). O’Biden is NOT at all innocent – neither is MD - although far far less dangerously so.
You said as long as someone is giving their reasons you have no complaint – I just gave my reasons - so by your own reasoning - you have no legitimate complaint of me.
When I count, I count 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0 and then I have to change the ones number 9 to a 0, and place a 1 in the “TENS” decimal position. It looks like this 10.0, then 11.0, 12.0, 13.0 and finally 14.0
I have a name for 14.0, it’s “fourteen.”
You are so used to calling the decimal 14.0 “fourteen” you think there is a number 14 but there isn’t, that is the decimal 14.0 which is the number 1 in the Tens position, and the number 4 in the Ones position.
So how do you divide 1.0 Stick into 4 parts, and end up with 1.0 Square, if you claim 1 divided by 4 equals 1/4. If so, then it’s 1 Stick divided by 4 equals 1/4 Stick.
It is not 1.0 Square, it is 1/4 Stick, because 1.0 divided by 4 equals 1/4 according to you.
You are mixing units if you claim you divide 1.0 Stick into 4 parts, and end up with 1.0 Square. You did not end up with 1.0 Square, you end up with 1/4 Stick.
It doesn’t seem like you answered my question. Is there a number of replies in that thread I linked to? What’s that number? Can’t we represent that number with “14” and “fourteen”?
I think you’d have to explain to us what’s so bad about Motor Daddy and I think you’d have to do it in terms of his forum activity (what he posts, where he posts, how frequently he posts, etc) rather than in terms of his psychological makeup. You will have to show that there’s a significantly high probability of his past, present and future posts having a seriously negative impact on the readers of this forum. You will have to convince us that there is a very good reason to restrict his forum activity. And if and when you convince us, the solution would probably be to take moderator action (delete some or all of his posts, warn him, ban him, etc) rather than to roll our eyes and show how bewildered we are at what he believes.
I complained about you doing nothing but showing how frustrated you are that he’s holding certain beliefs.
There are 14.0 posts in that thread. It’s a language issue calling “fourteen” a number. Fourteen is not a number, fourteen is a name that represents decimal 14.0
It is YOU who claims to cut 1 Stick into 4 equal parts and end up having 1 Square.
According to you, 1 divided by 4 equals 1/4, so the FACT is that you end up with 1/4 Stick, not 1.0 Square. You know damn well what we are talking about. You created the stick square scenario to claim that dividing 1 stick into equal pieces means you have 1 square. You do not, you have 1/4 Stick. I’m sure you know the difference between 1/4 and 1.0, right?
according to you, 1 divided by 4 equals 1/4, so where does the .25 come from?
Going 100 m/s is faster than going 50 m/s, but neither are accelerating.
If it takes 10 seconds to go from 50 m/s to 100 m/s, what is the acceleration rate??? How much distance did the object travel in those 10 seconds while accelerating at that constant rate??
No you do NOT have “cubes.” Dividing 1 stick into 4 equal parts means each part is .25 Stick. If you think there are 4 cubes in a stick, then you are saying 1.0 Stick divided into 4 parts means each part is 1.0 Cube.
You are claiming 1 divided by 4 equals 1.0 when you say that.
Because it’s a stupid discussion unbefitting any message board, still less one that purports to be a philosophy board.
Your pearl clutching, vapor sniffing and concern trolling at what people write here, and how they write it, is annoying, and in fact insulting — while you claim to oppose insults, you are the most insulting of all, in your smarmy passive-aggressive way.
Instead of fretting over how people post — you are not a moderator — why don’t you go back and finish addressing my latest post to you?
It is a stupid discussion when someone claims that it takes 6 years for Earth to make 40,000 laps around the Sun. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
The next stupidest thing I’ve heard is that a meter stick is both a meter and a 1/2 meter at the same time.
Then there’s the claim that dividing 1 Stack into 3 parts means you end up with 3 Stacks.
So the number of posts in that thread is 14, right?
“Fourteen” is a symbol, a name, a word and a string of 8 letters representing a number. The word is not self-referential. It does not stand for itself. When we say “fourteen”, we are not talking about the string of 8 letters that are “f”, “o”, “u”, “r”, “t”, “e”, “e” and “n”. When we say “There are fourteen eggs in that basket”, the word “fourteen” is indicating how many eggs there are in the basket i.e. a number. It’s not talking about the word “fourteen” and its letters. It’s talking about the quantity of eggs in the basket.
I don’t think so and I don’t see how. I’d say you don’t understand what I said.
Yes, 1 divided by 4 equals 1/4. It also equals 0.25.
In mathematics, an equation is a statement expressed as “a=b” that states that the number represented by the expression on the left side of the equation (“a”) is the same as the number represented by the expression on the right side of the equation (“b”).
I think you’re making a mistake by focusing too much on how calculators work. A calculator will never tell you that the result of “0.25” is “1/4”. But in mathematics, “0.25 = 1/4” is a valid expression and a true one. Calculators are machines that take a complex expression of a number as an input (e.g. “2 + 2 x 10”) and give the simplest possible expression of it (within the desired base) as a result (e.g. “22”.)
Yes, 100% divided by 4 is equal to 100%/4 for the simple reason that both expressions represent the same number. But it’s not the only thing it is equal to. It’s also equal to itself e.g 100% divided by 4 is 100% divided by 4.
He’s using the infinite regress argument to destroy language.
All linguistic tokens don’t refer, including his own.
At this point, he’s arguing like iambiguous.
Iambiguous takes it one step further though… “unless of course I’m wrong”
Iambiguous doesn’t accept very basic things like, “existence exists”… because as a narcissist he can’t understand that something exists outside himself and has an identity.
