• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

ANOMIE | TimeAsylums' Utter Lack of Ethics | [lol: "utter lack of integrity"] ( TRIVIAL )

Status
Not open for further replies.

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#1
HOLY FUCKING SHIT??? THIS NARCISSIST IS MAKING ANOTHER GODDAMN THREAD ABOUT HIMSELF???!!!!!!!

Because:
Everyone wants to rub elbows with TA.***
Recently [Thread on Chalmers, Other threads on TA, TA's 2 Meta Threads] (and not so recently) [Witch-Hunt Thread et al],

Many people seem concerned with my ethics, or rather the lack thereof. I would not address this point if it were only a few, but it isn't and judgment of ethical character has begun to leak over to multiple threads.


Because constantly addressing (my own) moral principles is inane and boring, I will calm (put to death) these qualms, once and for all.





I, TimeAsylums, am a condescending, pretentious, unethical bastard.


Would you like to know why this does not concern me whatsoever? (If the answer is "no," you probably shouldn't have clicked the thread)

I am only EVER concerned with the (CORRECT) answer of a discussion/argument. I am unconcerned with ethics and the associated scruples.

[bimgx=200]http://ialwayshaveaplan.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/house_md_poster4.jpg[/bimgx]

You might think it humorous of me to link this^ image, but it's point is referential, opinions of my character are irrelevant to any matter that is important to me.

Something that I would like many of you to get through your skulls:

ego =/= validity

validity = validity



I am concerned purely with whether a line of reasoning is logical and rational or whether it is illogical and irrational. My ethical concerns of such arguments are nil.


Evidence in favor of the OP and thread title (That TA is indeed a condescending, pretentious, and lacks "good ethical character":

See above statement: pompous, presumptuous, amd subjective, I didnt realize I was here making arguments so you and monstressor could celebrate my birhday with me.
IF i did desire respet, it would be from those worthy of respecting, not people who have the inability to grasp because they presume to know exactly how i think, i dont want respe t from such narrow, close minded people.

Im here to form theories based on typology (1001th time) not earn your damn respect wtf
My main concern is that you're wrong. Do tell me if this argument is about my ethics and character or whether it's about my statements in the thread being wrong/incorrect. I'm infinitely more concerned with the latter.
I don't give a fuck WHO is right(correct), I give ten fucks however about WHAT is right(correct).

The idea/discussion is 1,000x more important and larger than any individual ego taking part in it


The questions that should be asked of the individual should not be "am I right" (ego centered), but "Is this line of thinking correct?" etc
irrelevant if someone else wants to boost up/show off their own presence/ability/ego, only thing that matters is whether its true/valid

ego =/= validity

honesty >>> modesty
That is, to me, it's relatively/rather easy/simple to separate the information from whatever ego is saying it.

e.g.,

forever a great (fictional) example, House -> ego =/= validity

I don't care/it bothers me zero if someone is egotistical or modest, all that matters is whether they are correct or incorrect, whether they are valid or not. Ego is entirely and completely irrelevant.

Whether you're a pretentious, condescending dick-wad, or whether you're entirely modest, or a rug, the only relevant question is

"are you right or not?"



-You don't "like" me : That's OK!
-You don't "like" my ethics : That's OK!
-You don't "like" my character : That's OK!
-You don't "respect" me : That's OK!

If you ever have any concerns of the previous^, please do address it here.

How you feel about me, how I make you feel are irrelevant, inane points to me.

I'm a slimy, untrustworthy, condescending prick and douchebag.



BUT AM I RIGHT, OR NOT?



***Note: I have zealously been quoting @JennyWocky when it comes to concerns over my character/ethics, I am not attempting nor hope to imply that she has any opinion(s) on the matter other than what she says, I simply enjoy her posts about me. lol.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
258
#2
Re: TimeAsylums' Utter Lack of Ethics [lol: "utter lack of integrity"]

HOLY FUCKING SHIT??? THIS NARCISSIST IS MAKING ANOTHER GODDAMN THREAD ABOUT HIMSELF???!!!!!!!



Recently [Thread on Chalmers, Other threads on TA, TA's 2 Meta Threads] (and not so recently) [Witch-Hunt Thread et al],

Many people some concerned with my ethics, or rather the lack thereof. I would not address this point if it were only a few, but it isn't.


Because constantly addressing (my own) moral principles is inane and boring, I will calm (put to death) these qualms, once and for all.





I, TimeAsylums, am a condescending, pretentious, unethical bastard.


Would you like to know why this does not concern me whatsoever? (If the answer is "no," you probably shouldn't have clicked the thread)

I am only EVER concerned with the (CORRECT) answer of a discussion/argument. I am unconcerned with ethics and the associated scruples.

[bimgx=200]http://ialwayshaveaplan.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/house_md_poster4.jpg[/bimgx]

You might think it humorous of me to link this^ image, but it's point is referential, opinions of my character are irrelevant to any matter that is important to me.

ego =/= validity

validity = validity


I am concerned purely with whether a line of reasoning is logical and rational or whether it is illogical and irrational. My ethical concerns of such arguments are nil.


Evidence in favor of the OP and thread title (That TA is indeed a condescending, pretentious, and lacks "good ethical character":




-You don't "like" me : That's OK!
-You don't "like" my ethics : That's OK!
-You don't "like" my character : That's OK!
-You don't "respect" me : That's OK!

If you ever have any concerns of the previous^, please do address it here.

I'm a slimy, untrustworthy, condescending prick and douchebag.

BUT AM I RIGHT, OR NOT?
What the hell are you rambling on about you freaking vampire?
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#5
Re: TimeAsylums' Utter Lack of Ethics [lol: "utter lack of integrity"]

Thanks! What's an arena?
In my narcissistic, egotistical, self-centered mind it's the intellectual coliseum where I spank people for being bad.


IRL it's some bits floating around somewherez in Deutschlandz adding to the spam entropy of teh universe...

[bimgx=400]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eyZL6xiBWTA/TaiTwD_bhqI/AAAAAAAADBs/Yn-IgLjDQhs/s1600/hobbes.jpg[/bimgx]
 

higs

My word is my bond.
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
1,693
Location
Armchair
#6
You didn't add anything to the thread though... Well actually, you called me out on a badly expressed line of thought, which I then acknowledged was bad and corrected, after which you didn't address my points...again. You didn't even acknowledge the correction actually. Otherwise, you dismissed the problem on the grounds that it was "metaphysics" without addressing any actual point as to why. Why are metaphysics immediately rejected? Post on the other thread if you feel like discussing it, but only debates where people address each other's points and facts are interesting, and you have to say WHY in order to get anywhere.

First time I've really bothered to debate anything on the forum and I'm pretty dissappointed actually...I don't see a will to get anywhere with the debate, merely to try and discredit the opponent, which is fucking sophist behavior and though it seems scientific, it's not. There's no desire to actually solve a problem.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,845
Location
California, USA
#8
Referencing this post

TimeAsylums, my point from the start was a character/moral issue (see "hypocrisy"). Whether you were familiar with Chalmer's ideas beforehand is irrelevant, what does matter and what actually happened is that you dismissed a thread based on your own whims like what happened to you before in your own thread and you were discontent that you didn't get any real discussion.

A forum is one part social and one part intellectual, so while I can understand that a person's character is sometimes beside the point(i.e. ad hominems), in the grand scheme of things I don't agree that social integrity on forums should be neglected.

As it grows though I recognize the increasing subjectivity so I would like to stop(derailing higs' thread) at this point and higs apparently wants you to continue with ontopic discussion if you're interested and willing to engage.


Wait...the Arena.. it's a trap :eek:
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#10
[Chalmers/Consciousness/Metaphysics]​


Why are metaphysics immediately rejected?
As it grows though I recognize the increasing subjectivity so I would like to stop(derailing higs' thread) at this point and higs apparently wants you to continue with ontopic discussion if you're interested and willing to engage.
Very well then. I am glad we can at very least be reasonable. I will choose to explicate why I reject metaphysics (although I thought @Cognisant had did a good job, and it seems @RedBaron is okay with metaphysics)
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#11
[Ethics]​



A forum is one part social and one part intellectual, so while I can understand that a person's character is sometimes beside the point(i.e. ad hominems), in the grand scheme of things I don't agree that social integrity on forums should be neglected.
i fundamentally disagree. There is a joke in my thread title referencing @wonka's thread "The Utter Lack of Integrity on INTPf," now his thread was primarily about the bible and slightly being dogmatic, but it was still humorous, but I'm digressing. Call it a slippery-slope of mine if you wish, but choosing to uphold this principle is also choosing to uphold a lot of other principles here. Because this is an online community and not an actual (physical) community, very little worry and concern has to go into the integrity for individuals in my opinion. What concerns me is your concern with ethics
Define Ethics google said:
moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
which then obviously needs to look up morals
define morals google said:
a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
Do you see how increasingly subjective that gets? What the fundamental ethics are built off of? MORALS! And those are built off of BELIEFS! Concerning "what is and what is not ACCEPTABLE!"

As far as I am concerned, Ragnar et al set the general "laws" (rules) here long ago, and those are the rules of conduct. -> http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=7

If you believe your "ethics" can and should govern better than these^, then I would truly think you deluded.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#12
[idiots]​


Lol. This is The Arena, nonetheless a thread I made for people to bash my ethics if they choose to do so, I look forward to having you and @bronto here ...Because that's all you're good at ;) (Yes, I cast the first stone...here at least, whereas other places you two have been throwing ad-hom stones like you're pillaging an entire village)
[bimgx=250]http://thecripplegate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/stoning-stephen.jpg[/bimgx]


no you're not right. you're a hipster kid juggling wiki articles.
No bronto, you are truly the "hipster kid" ;)

//Where as others have come forward and actually addressed me in manners greater than PURE ad hominems, you still sit there in your diaper full of shit, hoping someone will change the diaper soon, yet you don't know how to ask for it.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#13
//sometimes I want to ask those zealously over-concerned with ethics and moral character whether or not they would accept cancer treatment from a pedophile, or whether they would get surgery from a rapist, or allow a genocidal-dictator to be your dentist?

Maybe they would be too busy recoiling in revulsion and disgust about the moral actions of that character to even answer...

...and die in the interim :cat:
 

Blarraun

straightedgy
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,124
Location
someplace windswept
#14
Stop TA from worshipping himself and prove him wrong.

If he ignores your valid arguments you will not score any moral victories, he resists morality, but you will be able to ignore him on the rational level. Maybe you already did, the detail is when both sides hold a piece of truth and they don't want to trade, common theatrical display.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#15
Stop TA from worshipping himself and prove him wrong.
I promote this^

FWIW: THIS is my worshipatorium http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=17875
And every subsequent thread of mine, and post of mine, and thought of mine, and molecule of mine...but I digress
If he ignores your valid arguments you will not score any moral victories, he resists morality, but you will be able to ignore him on the rational level.
This is correct as well. Which has yet to be done, to my knowledge
Maybe you already did
I am assuming this statement means you haven't read anything and are just interjecting, nonetheless...
theatrical display.
This is very much a theatrical display, unfortunately called for by those concerned with my personal ethics.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#17
If you're primarily concerned with truth then why go through all the trouble of painting it pink?

I think you're a total fraud. You wouldn't know truth if it fucked you in the ear.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#18
You'd be right to suggest that ego does not equal validity however it's awfully presumptuous to compare yourself to an idolized version of an unethical genius in an effort to suggest that you're in any way similar to this person when it comes to actually 'knowing stuff'.

You ought to just re-title this thread: TA experiments with Dunning-Kruger.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#19
If you're primarily concerned with truth then why go through all the trouble of painting it pink?

I think you're a total fraud. You wouldn't know truth if it fucked you in the ear.
I hope you're not confusing my use of "right/correct" with some weird "universal 'truth'" I claim zero of the latter.

otherwise, carry on

it's awfully presumptuous to compare yourself to an idolized version of an unethical genius in an effort to suggest that you're in any way similar to this person when it comes to actually 'knowing stuff'.
.
Below the image I linked I stated "you may find this humorous, its point is referential" never did I say "omgz we are so alike wows." I anticipated this response, hence the "humorous and referential."
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#21
it's awfully presumptuous to compare yourself to an idolized version of an unethical genius in an effort to suggest that you're in any way similar to this person
never did I say "omgz we are so alike wows."
Referential = comparison of similarity

TA = walking strawman and spinster of truth

You absolutely did compare yourself to that fictional character in an effort to illustrate the nature of your personality in more meaningful terms.

You're using the backpedal strawman as a caveat to ensure infinite validity of your comparison. This is what's wrong with most of your posting.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#22
Referential = comparison of similarity

You absolutely did compare yourself to that fictional character in an effort to illustrate the nature of your personality in more meaningful terms.
Regarding the bold, "in an effort to illustrate...in more meaningful terms

awfully hasty generalizing there ;)

Something you are prone to do...a lot
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#23
Regarding the bold, "in an effort to illustrate...in more meaningful terms

awfully hasty generalizing there ;)

Something you are prone to do...a lot
Uhh... ok. I don't see how you've made any effort to prove this is true whatsoever. If anything, it's symptomatic of a bruised ego. But ego doesn't equal validity.

So simply because it's a shot at your ego you reply with one in kind?? HAHA. So much for the entire premise of this thread you moron.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#24
Now if you could explain why it's a hasty generalization in one clear succinct post then it would be evidence that you're actually interested in discussion of ideas without involving the ego.

However, I anticipate some vague rambling about meta this and big word that with random links that are supposed to explain everything because you're too busy ... probably different sizes of text and different colors and links to different threads ... all the while explaining nothing whatsoever.

You're a smoke and mirror circus performer, nothing more.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#25
Uhh... ok. I don't see how you've made any effort to prove this is true whatsoever. If anything, it's symptomatic of a bruised ego. But ego doesn't equal validity.

So simply because it's a shot at your ego you reply with one in kind?? HAHA. So much for the entire premise of this thread you moron.
Now if you could explain why it's a hasty generalization in one clear succinct post then it would be evidence that you're actually interested in discussion of ideas without involving the ego.

However, I anticipate some vague rambling about meta this and big word that with random links that are supposed to explain everything because you're too busy ... probably different sizes of text and different colors and links to different threads ... all the while explaining nothing whatsoever.

You're a smoke and mirror circus performer, nothing more.


Very well then, shall I try again?

Referential = comparison of similarity

You absolutely did compare yourself to that fictional character in an effort to illustrate the nature of your personality in more meaningful terms.
Define reference Google said:
The definition of referential was useless (containing or of the nature of references or allusions.)

, so here's reference:

use of a source of information in order to ascertain something.

You state that "referential = comparison of similarity," according to the denotation of reference, that is neither accurate nor correct. Is it a possibility I am "using this source of information [the picture] in order to ascertain" a "comparison of similarity?" Yes it is possible. Given the denotation however you have no way of proving that.

Your argument is that I "ABSOLUTELY compare myself to that character. Take a look at the denotation.

Regarding the second half of your statement, would you explicate what you mean by "meaningful terms?"
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#26
You state that "referential = comparison of similarity," according to the denotation of reference, that is neither accurate nor correct. Is it a possibility I am "using this source of information [the picture] in order to ascertain" a "comparison of similarity?" Yes it is possible. Given the denotation however you have no way of proving that.

"The definition of referential was useless ... "

containing or of the nature of references or allusions
useless to you maybe, because it proves my point was valid.

You're resorting to more smoke and mirror bullshit to spin it around. Not working, moron.

Your argument is that I "ABSOLUTELY compare myself to that character. Take a look at the denotation.

Regarding the second half of your statement, would you explicate what you mean by "meaningful terms?"
This is another strawman, pal. My argument was not that you absoutely compare yourself to a character my argument was that you absolutely did compare yourself to that character. Major difference. Smoke and mirrors, TA, that's all you are.

Now, "meaningful terms" ... sure I will explain what I mean. House represents an archetype of character traits that you use as a reference in order to establish a firm footing as to what the traits are that you're trying to illustrate in yourself.

The archetype ... presents it in meaningful terms. You communicate far more with this archetypal reference than you could in fifty words.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#27
useless to you maybe, because it proves my point was valid.
Explain? The definition of referential merely lead to the defining of reference
This is another strawman, pal. My argument was not that you absoutely compare yourself to a character my argument was that you absolutely did compare yourself to that character.
Fair enough, my saying that was indeed a syntactical error. Now, I'll address this then, you say that I ABSOLUTELY DID compare myself to that character, let us again apply the definition of referential/reference, my point still holds true, you can not prove that, it is simply a possibility, is it plausible, yes, is it absolutely true, no.
Now, "meaningful terms" ... sure I will explain what I mean. House represents an archetype of character traits that you use as a reference in order to establish a firm footing as to what the traits are that you're trying to illustrate in yourself.

The archetype ... presents it in meaningful terms. You communicate far more with this archetypal reference than you could in fifty words.
"in order to establish a firm rooting as to what the traits are that you're trying to illustrate in yourself"

I linked a picture, and made two sentences, you're basing your entire argument off of something that isn't provable.

prove to me that I ABSOLUTELY did compare myself to him FOR more meaningful terms

otherwise your argument is shaky at best


//^congrats, if you can prove that, then my back is really against the wall and I'll be forced to change the nature of my argument, but if you can't prove it then you've got nothing
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#28
The definition of referential used in the same context that you used it in is a plain-faced claim or statement that it was an allusion or reference of some sort. Are you stupid?

Here you are denying what I'm saying is valid because I can't prove it because they're suggestive statements about the quality of your character which is a subjective reference-frame.

Maybe you need a lesson in classical reference frames ... but just because it's subjective to you doesn't mean it can't be subjectively perceived by others as objective traits in character.

If this is going to be your primary standpoint then there was no need to create this thread at all except as a means to feed your ego some more as you can use the same recursive reasoning to dispute any arguments of this kind. It's absolutely equivalent to explaining to me that I'm prone to "hasty generalizations". If I dispute it on subjective grounds, then you are wrong. See how pointless it is?

This also happens to be the context of the thread and it's the exact thing you claim to be open and willing to discuss however it's perfectly clear that you will not entertain any opinions to the contrary (i.e. that ego is ALL you care about).
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#29
it was an allusion or reference of some sort
"of some sort"

oh, eh? Does "of some sort" "ABSOLUTELY" prove anything?
Here you are denying everything I'm saying is valid because I can't prove it because they're suggestive statements about the quality of your character which is a subjective reference-frame.
So you acknowledge they are suggestive statements.


do these suggestive statements "ABSOLUTELY" prove that I compared myself?

ouch.


This also happens to be the context of the thread and it's the exact thing you claim to be open and willing to discuss however it's perfectly clear that you will not entertain any opinions to the contrary
From my perspective, it looks like YOU are doing this. It SEEMS you have a single-minded view that I "ABSOLUTELY" did this, yet you have since been unable to prove this. I acknowledged it as a plausibility and a possibility, but you can't PROVE it.

subjective reference frame
you're the one who used "absolutely" pal ;)
define absolutely google said:
1. with no qualification, restriction, or limitation; totally.

2.
independently; not viewed in relation to other things or factors.
//walks away from the ropes/wall :D this was fun BG
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#30
More smoke and mirrors. Total bullshit. Nothing can be proven. Your standards of proof are obviously objective and absolute?? Horse's ass.

So the point of this thread is ... what? To objectively prove once and for all that ... you're a fucking idiot?
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#32
You're just twisting my words around and around to weave a web of lies. Why would I participate in this with you? I have half a mind to unmask you completely except that I have far more pressing business.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#33
You're just twisting my words around and around to weave a web of lies. Why would I participate in this with you? I have half a mind to unmask you completely except that I have far more pressing business.
Twisting your words? By using standard accepted denotations? I used the definition for a reasons, to assure you that I didn't twist your words. If you think I am incorrectly explicating your own views, then speak up, or explicate better ;)


you lost that argument because you couldn't "absolutely" prove it. you repeatedly used absolutely and bolded it just as I did.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#36
Lack of content? Lack of content??? I've already explained everything to you.

You're twisting a web of lies with misquoted context and deliberately making my words mean something they did not.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#37
deliberately making my words mean something they did not.
Define Denotation google said:
The literal or primary meaning of a word, in contrast to the feelings or ideas that the word suggests.
I used denotations for all relevant/included words in these arguments. I did not make your words "mean" something they did not. I went by the literal definitions of the words that you used. I did not attempt to "make up or provide" the definitions myself, all verbatim definitions from google. If you either intended certain connotations or meant to use different words, I am not responsible.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#38
in all seriousness, that WAS fun, and I seriously fucking thought I had my back against the wall for a second.
Evidence of an egotistical standpoint.

At the risk of committing the "no true scotsman" fallacy, I would suggest ...

...that somebody who only cares about validity and reasonable truth such as yourself might not have or even consider this perspective in an argument. "My back against the wall" is clearly indicative of a personal involvement, which contradicts the original premise. You don't see it as arguing against your points or your statements you see it as arguing against you.

If you either intended certain connotations or meant to use different words, I am not responsible.
You are responsible for the context you interpret them in and you are responsible for portraying them in the correct or accurate context when you reply.

It stems from this, that if you ignore this responsibility, then people might think lowly of you; you will be called stupid, moronic, idiotic. These aren't wanton ad hominems because I'm 'butthurt' (fucking idiot), these are responses to your failure to maintain clear lines of communication. I'm calling you these awful things because you're obscuring the meaning of my posts behind strawman arguments and out-of-context reasoning/pedantry.

~ At this time I'd like to remind you that you conveniently dismissed a definition of a word you used when it could be shown that it was evidence or proof of a statement I was making.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#40
You are responsible for the context you interpret them in and you are responsible for portraying them in the correct or accurate context when you reply.
Yes, and for said interpretation, I used all denotations. Which you are now claiming that I twisted your words...now how can I do that using denotations? :confused: <--Yes, I am using socratic irony.

At this time I'd like to remind you that you conveniently dismissed a definition of a word you used when it could be shown that it was evidence or proof of a statement I was making.
If at this time you believe that the semantic denotation difference between "referential," and "reference" to be of the utmost dire importance, than state your argument case and how that factors in. But I will remind you that regardless of the difference between those two words, you can not remove "absolutely." Which is what I tore you down on. So my "absolutely" point-in-case remains, even if you would like to refute some other part of your own argument.


YES!!!! I was hoping you would edit this word into your post!!!

So, I'm being a pedant by using denotations to explicate your reasoning, while you aren't being pedantic by attempting to find minuscule differences between "referential" and "reference" despite that reference is the core word of referential?
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#41
There is only EVIDENCE there is no PROOF.

This statement is universally true from both an absolute standpoint and a subjective reference frame.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#42
There is only EVIDENCE there is no PROOF.

This statement is universally true from both an absolute standpoint and a subjective reference frame.
Disregarding denotations for once in our argument, and instead choosing to look at this using connotations and just to make fun of you because you can't prove your argument ;)

"TA, I acknowledge that I can not absolutely prove my argument is true even if it is a plausibility, and I am incorrect because I said that you "absolutely did" do this when it can not be "absolutely" proven."
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#43
In the chalmers thread you only started putting any effort whatsoever in once your intellectual integrity was being questioned. Before that you were happy to attack the easiest statements to attack which higs made and act the lapdog of cognisant forming a duo of ignorance, meanwhile ignoring among other things my arguments which you likely had no answer for or didn't understand at all.

Even after your integrity was being questioned as you put it, you never answered my posts wherein I called you intellectually dishonest, again probably because you couldn't. However at that point you started writing long and elaborate posts (though those were not concerned with the subject matter either), shortly thereafter, you even made this thread solely to talk about yourself.

That's not the behavior of a person who cares only about the subject matter.

And what has happened in this thread? Base Groove pointed out the vanity evident in your comparison of yourself to a certain fictitious character. But then it turns out that you only made that comparison for the sake of making that comparison. Again using a bunch of unnecessary clutter to make a point is not indicative of someone who cares only about what is right and what is not.

In fact all this unnecessary clutter, the caps, the colors, the "humorous" comparison, they are all just things which you can take refuge behind, they are all ways for you to say that you're not being serious, not meaning what you wrote, that people don't get the hints etc etc.

Problem is its pretty easy to see through lol. The actions you've taken and the manner in which you've taken them speak for themselves. I wouldn't say you are an idiot, but this is moronic.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#44
All further statements of yours regarding this argument will not be addressed until you address how I am "twisting" your words, when I am using the absolute denotations ;)


:elephant:

it's a good day :smoker:
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#45
You absolutely did compare yourself to this character by making an explicit reference while describing yourself. It is an absolute. I'm not sure why you're arguing this one, like it even matters. Clearly you don't understand what I mean if you take it as some admission of defeat. This is what I mean by twisting words.

The point I'm making is you can sit there and deny any statement to the ends of the earth because it's a subjective point of view however that doesn't absolutely deny the validity or truth of any of the aforementioned statements.

This is because an absolute perspective does not exist in any fashion except for a subjective one.

My original point hasn't changed.

Stop fucking winking at me ;) you condescending twat. The wink stands in place of
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#46
Yes change the rules of discourse in order to get yet another thing to take refuge behind, gj lol.

"I didn't mean what I meant I only wrote it for the sake of writing it whatever that means"
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#47
I thought this might come up

the lapdog of cognisant forming a duo of ignorance
I feel the need to address this. Idk if you've noticed but Cog and I have (to my own knowledge) have had somewhere around minimal interaction ever. Do we have the same stance on metaphysics? It seems so. However asserting that we are a "duo" or a "lapdog" is incorrect, simply because both of us were against metaphysics does not make your statement valid.
meanwhile ignoring among other things my arguments which you likely had no answer for or didn't understand at all.
The only post I saw of yours *worth* addressing was...oh wait...none. :cat:
That's not the behavior of a person who cares only about the subject matter.
A personal judgement of what behavior should fit what act, huh?
And what has happened in this thread? Base Groove pointed out
Hopefully, I've pointed out my own vanity a million times. As far as what happened in this thread?

BaseGroove asserted that something "absolutely" did happen, but then he couldn't "absolutely" prove it
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#48
In the chalmers thread you only started putting any effort whatsoever in once your intellectual integrity was being questioned. Before that you were happy to attack the easiest statements to attack which higs made and act the lapdog of cognisant forming a duo of ignorance, meanwhile ignoring among other things my arguments which you likely had no answer for or didn't understand at all.

Even after your integrity was being questioned as you put it, you never answered my posts wherein I called you intellectually dishonest, again probably because you couldn't. However at that point you started writing long and elaborate posts, shortly thereafter, you even made this thread solely to talk about yourself.

That's not the behavior of a person who cares only about the subject matter.

And what has happened in this thread? Base Groove pointed out the vanity evident in your comparison of yourself to a certain fictitious character. But then it turns out that you only made that comparison for the sake of making that comparison. Again using a bunch of unnecessary clutter to make a point is not indicative of someone who cares only about what is right and what is not.

In fact all this unnecessary clutter, the caps, the colors, the "humorous" comparison, they are all just things which you can take refuge behind, they are all ways for you to say that you're not being serious, not meaning what you wrote, that people don't get the hints etc etc.

Problem is its pretty easy to see through lol. The actions you've taken and the manner in which you've taken them speak for themselves. I wouldn't say you are an idiot, but this is moronic.

Thank you, for helping me explain something that I could not do on my own.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#49
You absolutely did compare yourself to this character by making an explicit reference while describing yourself. It is an absolute.
Ooooh. again. failure of denotations, man.
define explicit google said:
stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
You're wrong because if it was explicit, there wouldn't even be an argument to begin with, it would be fact. You're also wrong because I didn't "absolutely" (see previous denotations) make an "explicit" reference.

It is absolutely NOT an absolute
It is seems to be a plausibility, one that I acknowledged
however, an absolute, is again incorrect.
Stop fucking winking at me ;) you condescending twat. The wink stands in place of
I thought I mentioned in OP that I was massively condescending, I reserve that right.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
1,866
#50
You're also wrong because I didn't "absolutely" (see previous denotations) make an "explicit" reference.
What the fuck are you even trying to say right now??

The picture in the OP is not real?

It's not intended to be referential even though it is explicitly stated?

It's a random image that means nothing even though it's explicitly stated that it's referential to the context of this thread?

;);););)


~ more:

Why does it even matter about the picture?

What does it have to do with anything?

Are you making a hasty generalization of your own?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom