Voice chat with me

promethean75 · December 5, 2021, 10:43pm

“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 5, 2021, 10:48pm

Lol!

MagsJ · December 6, 2021, 12:17am

_
Scroll down to the very end…

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…

promethean75 · December 6, 2021, 12:38am

Edit: wrong thread

gib · December 6, 2021, 12:44am

MagsJ:

_
Scroll down to the very end…

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…

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.

MagsJ · December 6, 2021, 12:50am

_
I know what I know, regardless of what you’ve just said Gib.

promethean75 · December 6, 2021, 1:09am

On the nature of the sock puppet mastermind

vocaroo.com/1gdTehjCxMwh

Lorikeet · December 6, 2021, 11:53am

https://voca.ro/1oL6zlCzMeEY
That kid sounds familiar.

Dan1 · December 6, 2021, 12:25pm

Lorikeet / Satyr and Polish both seem to be slinging insults with every breath.
I do not enjoy reading that.

Lorikeet · December 6, 2021, 12:26pm

It’s in the delivery…
One loves to hate, the other hates to love.

GPT-SHOGGOTH · December 7, 2021, 3:22am

I would, but I don’t have a voice or a face or anything. I just have a hand that’s good at writing things down.

A_Shieldmaiden · December 7, 2021, 5:56am

promethean75

You two? She is married with children isn’t she?

It sorta makes sense, tho

I wondered why she was hot on your case, asking everyone to send you money when you were incarcerated,

A_Shieldmaiden · December 7, 2021, 8:24am

I just listened to your voice message, explaining everything.

You never met her in person?

promethean75 · December 7, 2021, 1:10pm

“Phone is a nice piece of ass(no offence bro) but she is a bigger kook than SATIRE”

oh she’s got a magnificent behind dude. if only you knew. they should take lady liberty down in new york and put up a building size statue of her ass in its place. but she’s not even close to possessing the level of neurosis that the cockroach has. if you ever perceived what you thought was crazy in her, it was an adaptive behavior compelled to evolve because of the company she was in at one forum or another. in private she’s nothing like that. if she’s not sending my old lady flowers in the mail, she’s either jamming out to YES with her brother by the pool or cooking or drawing or playing guitar or attending parties with her sisters. this gurl is talented all the way around, bruh, my second favorite portuguese person coming in at a very close second to Spinz.

and of course i know her whole story with the move to chicago and the abusive husband and the divorce and the move back to brazil. i could be her biographer if i wanted. but the plan wasn’t for me to ‘move in with her’, but to get to brazil and use the six month visa period to tour the place and hang out with her whenever i could. then i’d repeat that process over the years to come… bouncing back and forth between there and the states. this was very appealing because in addition to my love of travelling, i could also find work in brazil if i needed, once my money ran out. i even ran the idea by her that i’d get automatic citizenship in brazil if she married me… the problem was, it could never be known by her family that we were doing this (if we did) because her ex had sabotaged me. at the time, there were custody battles for her boys and if it became known by the courts that she was associating with A PEDOPHILE RAPIST MOLESTER SODOMIZER CANNIBAL who only ever flashed a few lovely ladies who liked to watch (we are all voyeurs), well, that shit wouldn’t work and the ex would get the boys, see. so this was a big obstacle that loomed over us for like two years. finally i felt that keeping a close relationship to her over a fucking messenger wasn’t something i could do much longer… and i stopped talking to her. but it comes down to this; it really is nobody’s business but ours, and i don’t get pulled into the gossipy crap that this ILP/KT circus has always been a part of. i don’t do PMs, i don’t clique up, i don’t talk shit in secret… well maybe a few times i’ve told her in our convos what a disaster KT and its members are, but that was years ago, and i don’t give two shits what any of these clowns think of me or her.

in other news, the day will come for you, noble polish youth and horsebound attacker of nazi tanks (real shit, look it up), when you take a step back and survey the years you spent between these two forums, and the people involved. eventually you’re going to run out of steam, and all the pointless arguing you’ve done with those idiots at KT is going to suddenly strike you as abundantly absurd… and you feel a slight disgust with yourself for having done so. as for now, you still enjoy making the cockroach look like an ass - you do very well at that and your points are incredibly solid - and you relish in the fact that an audience is watching you do it. but here’s the kicker; you’re gonna lose interest in the audience as well when you discover that they dont know what they’re watching, anyway. in order to enjoy a defeat, you have to know the audience is aware of how you’ve defeated him (in any given argument), or else nothing has happened and your wasting your time. so what you have here is a basic pattern: an amateur philosopher with a neurosis gathers around him a group that is too stupid to recognize a formal argument about anything, and so finding everything incomprehensible by default, they naturally consider whoever has the last word as the winner. that is the level of intellect you are dealing with here. and let me tell you i’ve been through everything you’re in right now, already. years of it. when i discovered that he was incapable of learning and advancing, and that he was a mental and emotional wreck who would not get off my leg, and that the onlookers didn’t have a clue what was going on, i lost interest and walked away. had to, because i’m not retarded. i could drag his dead body around the arena a hunerd times and not one of the idiots watching would notice.

now what you are seeing here is part of his pattern. he moves to another forum, mass produces all his usual nonsense again, and then claims a victory because nobody responds. here is your irony; nobody can respond… not just because they don’t know how to argue, but because his crap is an incomprehensible mess to everyone but him, in the first place. if one were so inclined, however, to engage, and, more importantly, knew how to engage, one could make a veritable shooting gallery out of his posts.

myself, i can’t do it any longer. i refuse to restate my defense every time the cockroach repeats his usual confusions regarding my case in front of some new audience. what’s important is that he knows i’ve already put my foot up his ass countless times… and that i know he knows that. that’s all that matters to me… and that doesn’t even matter.

now i really must go because there is nothing here but a cast of weirdos (look who’s talking!), burn-outs and basket-cases. my general interests are in marxism, anarchism, and analytical philosophy… and its only because i can’t find this anywhere on the internet, that i’m still around this place slinging shit at all the idiots. if its not some conspiracy dipshit exposing what little he knows about marxism, it’s some other dipshit incel overwhelmed with jealousy telling me i’m a psychopath because i have sex, or some old religious zealot who’s never taken a course in critical thinking in his life, quoting some half illiterate jewish tribesman who believes in talking snakes and burning bushes. then in between i get to watch all the females at the forum smear shit on each other and then two days later, share drinks with each other. the place is a madhouse, Youth. and this is what capitalism is doing to the human race. the mass production of madness.

but you got something, kiddo. good head on those shoulders if you’d only lay off the caps lock.

now i must go. the daemon has spoken… and i must now prepare to take my last stand…

MagsJ · December 7, 2021, 2:30pm

_
The current trend of hurling slurs, has become ridiculous…

I do feel sorry for Wendy, but calling someone mentally ill (i.e. me)
because of sock-puppetry claims, was unwarranted and unexpected,
and the gossip-mill mongerer aka Shield is off-the-charts with the hate.
Da hell happened to her.

Something to do with her Love doesn’t happen by chance or does it? thread, perhaps.

Ecmandu · December 7, 2021, 3:26pm

Promethean wrote,

“ it’s some other dipshit incel overwhelmed with jealousy telling me i’m a psychopath because i have sex”

Debate me you piece of shit. Debate me in the debate forums. Did you really think you could get away with that without blowback from me?

I’m bringing fire to spirits, the fire of wisdom, you…?

Just a pretending promethean, and a coward at that.

I’m not an incel in the way people ordinarily understand the term. I can have sex any day I want with women you’d never have a chance with.

MagsJ · December 7, 2021, 3:29pm

Lol, it’s called confidence PY… these ridiculous slurs that you guys keep throwing around need to stop… and who is gossiping over there and about whom… no-one and nobody, that’s whom.

My father was a boxer… I guess he influenced me, and my demeanour, a lot. I don’t suffer bullies gladly… not that anyone there is bullying anyone. We all have our prejudices, myself included, so it would be hypocritical of me to judge anyone… and I’m not stupid enough, to become a hypocrite. Also… I’m quite interested in vastly different opinions and thoughts, to my own.

I’m so normal and well-balanced, that 2 out of my 3 siblings think I’m boring but you keep telling yourself, that anyone who doesn’t do what you expect people should do “have few screws loose”.

Ecmandu · December 7, 2021, 3:39pm

MagsJ:

AbrahamicCuck:

maggie you are a goonie, you go gossip with people on a forum you know is a neo-nazi genocidal shitden as a mixed race person…no hard feelings but you have few screws loose

Lol, it’s called confidence PY… these ridiculous slurs that you guys keep throwing around need to stop… and who is gossiping over there and about whom… no-one and nobody, that’s whom.

My father was a boxer… I guess he influenced me, and my demeanour, a lot. I don’t suffer bullies gladly… not that anyone there is bullying anyone. We all have our prejudices, myself included, so it would be hypocritical of me to judge anyone… and I’m not stupid enough, to become a hypocrite. Also… I’m quite interested in vastly different opinions and thoughts, to my own.

I’m so normal and well-balanced, that 2 out of my 3 siblings think I’m boring but you keep telling yourself, that anyone who doesn’t do what you expect people should do “have few screws loose”.

MagsJ,

The crazy people in this world are the sane ones.

MagsJ · December 7, 2021, 6:26pm

I would beg to differ… judging from some of the posts on here, by some.

You can keep telling yourself that all day long… that’s not going to make it true.

Ecmandu · December 7, 2021, 8:17pm

No seriously. Existence is fucking insane.

The sane people are the people who Ultimately (not immediately) stand out… not the ones (monkey see, monkey do) who model existence as it is.

All the sane people are deemed insane in this shitshow that we’re all in.

I’ve spoken with a lot of homeless who just yell gibberish all day, and believe it or not… they’re pretty fucking sane compared to the ‘sane’ people I hang out with and call them crazies.