iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Mr Reasonable » Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:31 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Maybe I found the ghost in the machine.

Where the anti-objectivist bot is objectivist.



he fundamentally misunderstands the distinction and he has explained a million times just what his mistake is but he insists that its not a mistake and he just keeps on with it going in a loop forever confused


this is what he cannot accept. his brain is broken he does not possess the aptitude to actually understand the nature of distinction in and of itself he is not a philosopher. it enrages him that i point this out and walk away to go back to talking about turds which are more interesting than him and also nunchucks
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 28323
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:06 am

Nunchucks are cool.

Communism isn't though, Reas. When are you gonna drop that shit?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby iambiguous » Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:16 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:
Mr Reasonable wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Maybe I found the ghost in the machine.

Where the anti-objectivist bot is objectivist.



he fundamentally misunderstands the distinction and he has explained a million times just what his mistake is but he insists that its not a mistake and he just keeps on with it going in a loop forever confused


this is what he cannot accept. his brain is broken he does not possess the aptitude to actually understand the nature of distinction in and of itself he is not a philosopher. it enrages him that i point this out and walk away to go back to talking about turds which are more interesting than him and also nunchucks


This is the sort of lamebrain stuff that he peddles from thread to thread to thread to thread to thread to thread. On all the boards.

Sometimes he disappears for weeks at a time. But that's only in order to spend time, uh, brainstorming. To think up really, really deep stuff like his insights above.

He'll bounce it off the other Stooge and then off they'll go into yak yak yak land. 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39713
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:17 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:My point here was that some will insist it is genes, some will insist it is memes, while I see it as the third option.



But you insist, you, imabiguous, insist that it is either genes, memes, or a combination of the two, a paradigm introduced by Dawkins. And you state this is true objectively for everyone.

Am I wrong?


Be a man iamcommunist.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby iambiguous » Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:20 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:My point here was that some will insist it is genes, some will insist it is memes, while I see it as the third option.



But you insist, you, imabiguous, insist that it is either genes, memes, or a combination of the two, a paradigm introduced by Dawkins. And you state this is true objectively for everyone.

Am I wrong?



Be a man iamcommunist.


This coming from a bot coward!

And clearly a disgrace to both genes and memes. :lol:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39713
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:23 am

No you don't get it.

The reason they call you a bot is that you say the same script over and over, with no human reactivity.

Like for example, a human could easily answer this:

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:My point here was that some will insist it is genes, some will insist it is memes, while I see it as the third option.



But you insist, you, imabiguous, insist that it is either genes, memes, or a combination of the two, a paradigm introduced by Dawkins. And you state this is true objectively for everyone.

Am I wrong?


Be a man iamcommunist.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:26 am

And, well, we call you a communist because when an out-and-out genocide promoting dogmatic Marxist came along, which was actually me cleverly in disguise, cause I understand you fools, you wished him luck and accepted the title of comrade.

That's why we call you communist.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:27 am

And coward because, when asked to explain your own objectivist theories, you refuse:

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:My point here was that some will insist it is genes, some will insist it is memes, while I see it as the third option.



But you insist, you, imabiguous, insist that it is either genes, memes, or a combination of the two, a paradigm introduced by Dawkins. And you state this is true objectively for everyone.

Am I wrong?


Be a man iamcommunist.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:28 am

Don't think this thread is just going to go away, iam.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby iambiguous » Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:59 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:No you don't get it.

The reason they call you a bot is that you say the same script over and over, with no human reactivity.


All I can say is that if I am a bot here, shudder to think what that makes you! The irony being that Julian used to play you back in the day. That you don't even grasp how you come off here is perhaps the biggest reason I continue to play the cat to your mouse.

As I have noted to others, with the Kids here, the idea is not to actually reason with them but to humiliate them by letting them be themselves. In fact, I suspect those speculations about women and chess were fed to you by phoneutria. Either that, or you are but a character that she plays here.

8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39713
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby iambiguous » Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:01 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Don't think this thread is just going to go away, iam.


Since you are utterly oblivious to how foolish I am able make you appear here, I don't expect it to.

And I certainly don't want it to. 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39713
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:31 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:My point here was that some will insist it is genes, some will insist it is memes, while I see it as the third option.



But you insist, you, imabiguous, insist that it is either genes, memes, or a combination of the two, a paradigm introduced by Dawkins. And you state this is true objectively for everyone.

Am I wrong?


No dice?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby iambiguous » Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:46 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:My point here was that some will insist it is genes, some will insist it is memes, while I see it as the third option.



But you insist, you, imabiguous, insist that it is either genes, memes, or a combination of the two, a paradigm introduced by Dawkins. And you state this is true objectively for everyone.

Am I wrong?


No dice?


Surely, you will not be foolish enough to take this back to the philosophy board? There, above all, you expose just how shallow your thinking can become.

No dice?

We'll need a context of course.

How about...the 2nd Amendment?

Now, you insist that I insist that "it is either genes, memes, or a combination of the two, a paradigm introduced by Dawkins. And you state this is true objectively for everyone."

Cite examples from this thread and from the 2nd Amendment thread of what you think I mean by a complex combination of genes and memes in regard to a particular individual's reaction to the 2nd Amendment.

What in particular are you claiming that I am claiming is true objectively "for everyone"?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39713
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:48 pm

iambiguous wrote:We'll need a context of course.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:My point here was that some will insist it is genes, some will insist it is memes, while I see it as the third option.



But you insist, you, imabiguous, insist that it is either genes, memes, or a combination of the two, a paradigm introduced by Dawkins. And you state this is true objectively for everyone.

Am I wrong?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby iambiguous » Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:51 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:We'll need a context of course.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:My point here was that some will insist it is genes, some will insist it is memes, while I see it as the third option.



But you insist, you, imabiguous, insist that it is either genes, memes, or a combination of the two, a paradigm introduced by Dawkins. And you state this is true objectively for everyone.

Am I wrong?


Good call. If you are going to embarrass yourself further, it's best to stick with your own tedious rendition of zinnat's "groots". :lol:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39713
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:55 pm

All I am asking you is to deliver your reasoning behind this objectivist paradigm.

Why you would so staunchly refuse to do so, I leave to the reader to decide.

But it does make you a coward.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby iambiguous » Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:10 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:All I am asking you is to deliver your reasoning behind this objectivist paradigm.

Why you would so staunchly refuse to do so, I leave to the reader to decide.

But it does make you a coward.


Okay, perhaps, but what does an idiotic post like this make you?

Again:

No dice?

We'll need a context of course.

How about...the 2nd Amendment?

Now, you insist that I insist that "it is either genes, memes, or a combination of the two, a paradigm introduced by Dawkins. And you state this is true objectively for everyone."

Cite examples from this thread and from the 2nd Amendment thread of what you think I mean by a complex combination of genes and memes in regard to a particular individual's reaction to the 2nd Amendment.

What in particular are you claiming that I am claiming is true objectively "for everyone"?


Roll the dice my friend. Actually put your intellect on the line.

Finally, make phoneutria proud of you!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and just out of curiosity, what do you know about this:

iambiguous wrote:
phoneutria wrote:well start by reading the fucking thread
and then writing your own goddamn posts
instead of asking other people to do it for you
then i'll respond according to whatever argument you manage to put together
until then
fuck off you lightweight


This from the Marxism thread.

And, in my view, it has far less to do with what she thinks Marxism really is, and far more to do with how she reacts to those who don't concur.

Where does this fierce anger and hostility and contempt come from? Is it all "staged"? Just part and parcel of a "character" she is playing her her.

Or, again, is it derived from her own embodiment of this:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Or perhaps it is derived from parts of her life that precipitate outrage but she is unable to "get back" at those who are causing it. So she comes in here and takes it out on those who don't or won't at least concur with her in regard to all things political and philosophical.



Are you the reason she is so pissed off at the world?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39713
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:16 am

Well, but here is the thing.

I didn't posit the gene meme paradigm as objectively true for everyone. You did.

And so

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:We'll need a context of course.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:My point here was that some will insist it is genes, some will insist it is memes, while I see it as the third option.



But you insist, you, imabiguous, insist that it is either genes, memes, or a combination of the two, a paradigm introduced by Dawkins. And you state this is true objectively for everyone.

Am I wrong?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:54 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Nunchucks are cool.

Communism isn't though, Reas. When are you gonna drop that shit?


just because you call me something doesnt mean thats what i am

refusing to lick trumps boots doesnt make someone communist
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 28323
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:32 pm

Hey, at least I don't straight up insult you like you do us.

I just call you what you are, that you refuse to admit, because you know it's shameful.

But it is what you are. You are a commie.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby iambiguous » Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:05 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Well, but here is the thing.

I didn't posit the gene meme paradigm as objectively true for everyone. You did.


Again, I challenge you to point to specific things I posted establishing that "in fact" this is what I "posited".

I mean, come on, in regard to the role that genes and memes play in all of our lives, you can't really be as stupid as this makes you appear.

Unless, of course, you are just a character that phoneutria plays in her own rendition of a "production".

I mean, wow, sometimes I think, "Holy Shit, what if phoneutria is really Rebecca playing me here!"
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39713
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:46 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Hey, at least I don't straight up insult you like you do us.

I just call you what you are, that you refuse to admit, because you know it's shameful.

But it is what you are. You are a commie.



feel free its fine really
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 28323
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Nov 26, 2020 1:28 am

Don't mind if I do.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Nov 26, 2020 1:30 am

iambiguous wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Well, but here is the thing.

I didn't posit the gene meme paradigm as objectively true for everyone. You did.


Again, I challenge you to point to specific things I posted establishing that "in fact" this is what I "posited".


iambiguous wrote:
Pick one:

1] genes
2] memes
3] an unimaginably complex and convoluted labyrinth of both.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

Postby iambiguous » Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:50 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Well, but here is the thing.

I didn't posit the gene meme paradigm as objectively true for everyone. You did.


Again, I challenge you to point to specific things I posted establishing that "in fact" this is what I "posited".


iambiguous wrote:
Pick one:

1] genes
2] memes
3] an unimaginably complex and convoluted labyrinth of both.



I asked you to pick one. For example, in regard to something you did today. There are the parts derived from nature. The parts derived from nurture. The parts derived from a more or less complex intertwining of both.

I never argued that this is a "paradigm" that, objectively, every one of us is required to grasp in exactly the same way. The one and the only right way in which to think about why we do the things that we do. That's what the objectivists like Satyr do.

Now, truth be told, I have almost no interest in exploring what you think about them. Why? Because I have almost no respect at all for your intelligence. As often as not it is just Kidstuff. Silly Kidstuff.

Phoneutria's intelligence, on the other hand, does pique my interest.

If only because if we ever did sustain an exchange about genes and memes, her contempt for my intelligence would at least revolve around really sophisticated repartee.

I'd love to exchange ripostes with her. The more caustic the better.

I think I could take her there too.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39713
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users