Cause you said the words ‘I guarantee it?’ Alright… you should be banned for that.
Do you have anything to say? This is the philosophy section, RU. Gotta be on your toes here.
college is for getting a certificate saying that you’re obedient. not for learning. if you think it’s for learning, you’ve been broken and duped. the only thing college teaches you that you can’t learn elsewhere is how to do useless busy-work and how to study for pointless tests. i’ve been to college buddy. i know.
That’s not the only thing college teaches. Nearly anyone who has been to college will agree with me. I’m not saying the institution is a good thing. If you read any of my posts you’d realize the irony in trying to lecture me on that.
I thought you’d never ask!
Huh??!
Who do you think you’re talking to here? I don’t need any advice.
No offense, but I found more ‘philosophical’ merit in this video than the one you posted.
Just because a youtube vid has “philosophy” in the title doesn’t mean it is significant or meaningful, or especially coherent.
i’m glad you agree with me debaitor, but i still can’t get over your logic that if one person is wearing reeboks nobody wears nikes.
I was actually discussing this very thing with a couple of my professors. I said basically the same thing, “There’s no information here that I couldn’t learn cheaper and faster elsewhere,” and they wholeheartedly agreed. So…well, I guess having some people agree with us doesn’t further either of our cases.
That’s your logic, not mine. I am not an absolutist like you.
Let’s stick to the topic at hand, shan’t we? 
no, i don’t think i can hold a rational, calm conversation with you after your previous display of mental illness in that thread.
You were the one who started inserting “all” and “none” into the conversation.
If you are so avid about it then we can resume argument in a more appropriate thread (like the one you dispute). 
no, we can’t resume, you say taht if one person wears reeboks then that means that nobody is wearing nikes. there’s no point going on with that kind of thought. it’s nuts.
I didn’t say or imply that. You only think I did because you inserted the “all” modifier into my statements, when I never stated such a thing.
It’s a simple mistake, on your part. I forgive you in advance, since I’m such a nice guy. 
they were implied.
if i say, “is this possible?” and you say “no, because that person isn’t an example of that,” that’s the reebok/nike logic.
You had no context at the time, no quantifier. You had no measure or gauge to what a person with purpose is or is not.
It is not my fault that you filled the abstractions with your own illogic. 
and this is exactly what makes your answer of “no” a universal no, an absolute “no.” to say no to this without a specific context means you say no to it in all contexts.
Wait, you are lecturing ME on logic??? 
You graduated college or dropped out? Did you pass the logic course?
I will teach you logic, for a fee. What do you say?
yes, i’m lecturing you. as long as you think that one person wearing reeboks means nobody wears nikes, i’ll be lecturing you.
glad you’re having fun with the quote function mr. herd.
You’re making stuff up, out of thin air.
I doubt you even know the categorizations of what you are referring to. I remember your error quite plainly.
If you wish to revisit the error then you know the thread. I request you quit derailing this one.
(You won’t listen to me though, or logic, perhaps a moderator/authority figure?)
you’re participating in the derailing of this thread as much as I am.
anyway, i made a permanent exit from the other thread. even if i wanted to post on it again, i can’t just because of principle. but, i don’t want to anyway. you’re just too bad with logic.