promethean75:
Wendy, darling. The point is not that he sent nude photos to someone. People do that all the time and there is nothing wrong with that.
The point is that he’s a dirty fucking weasel who’s constantly lying or trying to embarrass someone. But he picked the wrong one again. Numbnutts didn’t learn his lesson the last time we did this.
Unwanted nude photos is a problem unless you are on an adult website where it is commonplace to advertise your wares.
“There are essays about Trixie? Link please.”
Like I keep up with his garbage. At some point, this piece of shit has over-analyzed nearly every single member ILP has ever had. You go digging for it if you want it.
“bro i am suprised you have such deep and personal history with this goon???how the fuck did that happen???”
He envied me for getting Natalie. Simple as that. He’ll weave you a tale fit for kings if you have the patience to listen to the bullshit… but I’m afraid it was only that. Envy.
Nobody here can know how I know how sad this person is. It’s our little secret, and he depends on you all never finding out.
MagsJ
December 5, 2021, 8:41pm
65
_
I miss Trix… why does everybody keep saying that he’s probably dead? I hope not.
“Only if they ask me to, and they send me one first.”
Watch this:
So you’re NOT a pedophile if an under age girl asks you to send nude pics?
(watch him scramble)
When will those who wronged me apologize?
… and I don’t even have a big dick. A little above average… something like six and three quarters… but it’s workable and gets the job done, by god.
I bet u do got a big dick you tall, skinny bastard.
Those tall skinny fucks always got big dicks. Wtf is up with that?
WENDY i dont want you to feel blue Id invite you for a tea and cake and a walk but
Thank you. Adults own their mistakes, right?
Thanks for the offer but the post has done enough cheering up.
“i am taking steroids”
Oh my god what are you doing with THAT shit?!
Who put it into your head that you need to take steroids?
“Dan is going to see this shit and ban you.”
Dan is not coming back. I’ve locked him in the fifth dimension with a group of Jehovah’s witnesses, and they witnessed the whole thing. I warned him about the dangers of astral travel, man, and now you’re gonna have to send P. Youth to hell, yourself.
But remember… sending someone to hell is the mother load of consent violation, and you’ll have to live with that… for trillions of years.
MagsJ
December 6, 2021, 12:17am
78
_
gib:
On causation and natural law:
voca.ro/1eTF0baY0coi
On logical possibilities and physical possibilities:
The idea of a priori knowledge and concepts and its role in logic is very interesting. It’s one of the areas of logic that could use a whole lot more development. Ever since we debated whether Einstein’s theories of time dilation are a logical impossibility over in the Petition to ban Sculptor thread (obviously, another digression), I’ve wanted to start a thread on just this subject: the logic of analytical arguments and how it fits into predicate logic and the other standard modern day cannons of formal logic. It is truly undeveloped and I see a lot of potential for it to give us deeper insights into the nature of logic. I think you may arguably have a point with Spinoza’s take on our intuitive assumptions about cause and effect and natural law, but we have to be careful when drawing logical conclusions based on analytical arguments. It isn’t a black and white matter like predicate logic is. For one thing, there may be as many different ways of conceptualizing something like causation or time or matter or energy, etc., as there are people to conceptualize it. So if it follows from the existence of causal laws that chaos is impossible according to one person’s concept of “causal laws”, that doesn’t mean it follows according to another person’s concept. It’s also not necessarily the case that our concept of this or that natural phenomenon matches perfectly with the reality of that phenomenon, so even if our logic in analytically drawing conclusions from our concepts of said phenomenon is perfectly valid, it may be moot if our concepts don’t match reality. And finally, it can be exceedingly difficult to tease apart instances when we are truly thinking with strict analyticity and when we are haphazardly jumping from one thought to another because it “seems right” or “I like it” or “it works for my current argument”–difficult in a way that isn’t difficult when it comes to predicate logic (i.e. it either follows the rules of logic or it doesn’t).
At the thread I linked to above, my contention with Magnus Anderson’s point that Einstein’s idea of time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity had to be a logical impossibility by definition (which is another way of saying it is analytically false given our a priori concept of time) was that all three of the caveats above applied in his case. But it nonetheless did inspire me to want to explore the more general notion about the role a priori concepts and analyticity play in logic and how the field could be enhanced by further development on this front. Because despite how pour an example our a priori concept of time (Newtonian time) is of what makes Einstein’s theory wrong, I think Anderson did have a point that there is sometimes more to logic (at least the logic I brought up) than the formalities of propositions and the rules that allow us to draw conclusions from them. Analyticity is more about the internal logic of single propositions themselves… as if stating P → Q (where P and Q are different propositions) is a valid move in logic even without reference to any particular rules that allow you to do so. So long as the concept of P itself intrinsically entails Q, there is a kind of logic at play that logicians since Kant have not fully fleshed out yet. In Anderson’s case, I think his was just a naïve or outdated concept of time that the scientific community now-a-days rejects. In your case, I think you’re dealing with a much less naïve concept (of causation/laws), although I still think there’s room for doubt (quantum physicists would certainly want to say something).
I’ll really need to flesh this long winded ramble out in more detail in a future thread–the crux of the issue being: what rule is P → Q following, assuming it is analytically true, such that we can say some other proposition, say R → S, is not following it and therefore is not logical. It seems to me these are a lot more subject to opinion than the objective certainties of predicate logic, and yet if there is such a thing as analytic logic at all, some opinions have to be objective right.
Anyway, back to WendyDarling and her legion of sock puppet accounts…
gib
December 6, 2021, 12:44am
80
Mags, that was a joke! Jesus, don’t get me caught up in this. I gave no consent to quote me out of context. Besides, how the hell would I know whether WendyDarling has any sock puppet accounts? How do you know? All this smacks of conspiracy theory drama brought to the level of delusion.
