A nod to Phyllo

Weā€™ll need a context of course.

Again, I have provided you and Wendy with a framework [above] in which to discuss what I construe to be your fulminating fanatic ā€œnarrativeā€. One I would venture to suggest is more conduce to a philosophy forum: where introspective intelligence actually matters.

But, again, from my frame of mind, you are too chickenshit to go there.

Why?

Here I can only speculate further. But I suspect itā€™s because in that sort of discussion you would be sorely exposed as just another ā€œfulminating fanaticā€ with little or not depth in which to defend yourself.

Or, sure, you can go there and prove me wrong. Expose me as the fool. Come on, you know you are itching to, right? Iā€™m thumping you here. Turn it around.

But: Can you?

Oh, almost forgot: a nod to Phyllo.

As promised, I created that new thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ā€¦ 1&t=196576

So, pass the word on to any other members of the Coalition.

You and they can choose both the truth to defend and the context in which to defend it.

Here is an opportunity for the Coalition to at least expose me as an archenemy of the Truth.

[b][i]Look, Iā€™m expecting some really deep thinking here, okay?

In fact, letā€™s make this thread the one that turns it all back around for ILP. The thread that actually brings philosophy back!![/i][/b]

Yo, Only_Humean, Faust, Moreno, Phyllo, Mo, carleas, zoots! Weā€™ll be looking for you!!

False dichotomy in all contexts

Context number one:

1] the Earth is flat
2] the Earth is round

or

Context number two:

1] Trump is a great president
2] Trump is not a great president

Or, sure, I am missing your point regarding what you mean here by a ā€œfalse dichotomyā€.

Looks around at the present forum board Everything. :sunglasses:

Wrong Thread

This sure sounds like a chickenshit answer to me.

If he knows what I mean.

Or, sure, he can take up my offer above and put me in my place. :laughing:

Youā€™re really not worth the effort Biggie, Peter is more interesting than you are and thatā€™s saying quite a lot. :sunglasses:

Youā€™re like a pre-recording that is on eternal repeat.

They trashed the place and now rule over the garbage pile. =D>

Those arenā€™t actually contexts.

Whatever they are, there is a ā€œrealā€ component and a ā€œunrealā€ component in the position that a person takes in both cases.

Thatā€™s actually what I thought this place was with all the moderators, one manā€™s trash is another manā€™s treasure. I like it here now, has that Wild West kind of vibe.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCEwUFtjAr4[/youtube]

Come on, you canā€™t even be honest with yourself.

On the ā€œis iambiguousā€ I actually got you to post this:

I took you seriously and posted this:

Note to others:

Go to the thread and see what he allowed that exchange to devolve into: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ā€¦ 5&start=25

He blinked. He chickened out. He reconfigured back into the Fulminating Fanatic Zero_Brains cartoon character instead.

He showed me that he can go to a more introspective serious frame of mind, but, once challenged by my ā€œframeworkā€ there and here, it was no longer any ā€œfunā€.

Youā€™re a knit picker Biggie, you ask people why they believe in everything and anything that at the first recourse youā€™ll refuse to do for yourself by comparison. ā€œIā€™m Biggie, I am here to tell you why Iā€™m right on everything and why youā€™re wrong, but remember everybody, Iā€™m a nihilist.ā€

At least when I go about explaining peopleā€™s errors I at least explain for reasons why, you on the other hand donā€™t bother explaining anything at all where it is all dasein, ā€œwe cannot know anythingā€, or your usual political masturbations of why neo-liberalism is always right [You ironically believe in without question amusingly] but without calling yourself a neo-liberal of course because you think youā€™re so clever.

Youā€™re a waste of time, cringe worthy and embarrassing really. Iā€™d rather take a cheese grater to my own nut sack then listen to you because you offer nothing. In comparison I would find more insights in Ecmandu than I would with you. :laughing:

Gasp! More chickenshit tripe from Zero_Brains!!

Again, as with so many others of his ilk here, he is absolutely shameless.

Nothing embarrasses him anymore.

Nor me, right? :wink:

Now itā€™s only a matter of tuning in to see just how far down into the drivel he will allow himself to go.

Yo, Pedro! Youā€™re being challenged here!! :laughing:

Also, a nod to Phyllo.

Sticks and stones Biggie. :laughing:

Of course here heā€™s just channeling Pedro. Another Chickenshit.

Lol reminds me of bill hicks. Hope youā€™re all well.

Agree, we should make it so that if someone loses a debate within the premise of philosophical rules, they are prone to bans or mutes if they keep going on with bs.

Like why have logical fallacies as a concept if never enforced? They are there for a reason. I think itā€™s good to have an open mind and less censorship but not when people spout completely irrelevant shit that has no ending point in anything or anywhere logical or improving.

There are no books in history worth remembering that have any irrelevant spouting of non-philosophy in the section of philosophy, like what is allowed here.