Given this is a Philosophy forum surely if one has made a mistake in their thinking then they would like to have it pointed-out to them, innocent or not? But it's not so much mistakes but contradictions and inconsistencies that I tend to notice as that is partly what a philosophical training is for. Any abuse from me mainly comes about in response to abuse and that abusive response is normally fuelled by an inability of many who post upon Philosophy forums to take critique of their thoughts.Philosophy Explorer wrote:Chicken man only looks for mistakes and abuses those who innocently make them and I'm not the only one he does it to. ...
And unlike you if the argument against me is logically irrefutable or I'm shown contradicting facts I'll admit(painfully I admit) I was wrong.Links, in general, don't take you to spam sites with few exceptions. What really irks him is when he gets caught with his pants down which he'll clutch for any excuses to get out of. Yes chicken man, you make mistakes too.
Do I tear down all posts? No, just those that appear obviously philosophically wrong. You are in the wrong place if you, one, think you are the judge as to whether your post is worthwhile, two, if you think that number of views and replies is the judge and three, if you are unwilling to have your ideas examined and critiqued and are unable emotionally to deal with this, as this process is the process of Philosophy now and it exists to enable you to change and strengthen your ideas so that you can defend them in future or, if one is truly philosophical, abandon them and create new ones if they are proven to be completely illogical and unfixable.Again think about it, why does chicken man come here? To put up worthwhile threads or to try to tear down others?
The Onion is a satirical publication.Philosophy Explorer wrote:Artistic, he did throw the first punch when he brought up about The Onion, a pub that put out a phony story that took me and chicken man in. He's not challenging my idea, he's looking to try to say he doesn't like me putting up links that in his twisted mind are spam as he calls them. There was no need for him to do that and he should have tried to stay on issue instead of going off-topic.artisticsolution wrote:I second that. I don't get all the hate towards him. He's just saying....and I never have seen him throw the first punch. Phil, if you don't like having a philosophical discussion complete with having your ideas challenged, then why even bother posting in a philosophy forum?vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I've always thought of the foghorn as being reasonable and rather aloof. The opposite of a troll.
It's not Arising...it's you. You need to read his words more carefully...
PhilX
Take a real close look at this forum you dimwit, there is no advertising, it does not monetise itself, unlike your spam links, it is just about the cleanest forum I've ever seen and long may it remain that way as it is a pleasure upon the philosophical eye. What you obviously fail to understand is that there is a third way PN makes its money and that is from subscriptions to the magazine and it very kindly uses some of those profits to fund the forum so that, unfortunately, idiots like you can post their verbiage. Do you subscribe to the magazine? I doubt it.Philosophy Explorer wrote:...
Well birdbrain, you just trapped yourself idiot. You're saying this site is spam too. PN can make money in two ways, from posts and views (more from the former). And it's certainly spam from what you're posting numbskull.
To logically clarify it, I'm an abuser of abusers and do it pretty well if I say so myself.Philosophy Explorer wrote: To boil it down, you are an abuser.
Oh nitwit, there is advertising on this website. In order to post onto the Articles in Philosophy Now section, you must subscribe to their magazine which is (self) advertising. For all I know, they may cut you in on some of the action so you just laid an egg.Arising_uk wrote:Take a real close look at this forum you dimwit, there is no advertising, it does not monetise itself, unlike your spam links, it is just about the cleanest forum I've ever seen and long may it remain that way as it is a pleasure upon the philosophical eye. What you obviously fail to understand is that there is a third way PN makes its money and that is from subscriptions to the magazine and it very kindly uses some of those profits to fund the forum so that, unfortunately, idiots like you can post their verbiage. Do you subscribe to the magazine? I doubt it.Philosophy Explorer wrote:...
Well birdbrain, you just trapped yourself idiot. You're saying this site is spam too. PN can make money in two ways, from posts and views (more from the former). And it's certainly spam from what you're posting numbskull.
It figures you would pat yourself on the back, abuser.Arising_uk wrote:To logically clarify it, I'm an abuser of abusers and do it pretty well if I say so myself.Philosophy Explorer wrote: To boil it down, you are an abuser.
Fair point but that is a fairly new feature in this forum and one that they put in for subscribers so they can discuss the articles in the mag as you must first already be a subscriber to post them here. But out of the kindness of their hearts they also allow free access to many of their articles so that non-subscribers can post them to discuss, if they wish.Philosophy Explorer wrote:Oh nitwit, there is advertising on this website. In order to post onto the Articles in Philosophy Now section, you must subscribe to their magazine which is (self) advertising. ...
Just goes to show how all you know is very little.For all I know, they may cut you in on some of the action so you just laid an egg.
That's because you re an ungrateful and mercantile git.Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
This is the way I picture Rick & the Moderators:
Except I think they could do without your content as its more likely detrimental than beneficial to any image they wish to have with respect to Philosophy and since you've been banned from pretty much every other philosophy forum they appear to agree. So you ought to be a little more humble and respectful to this site as its your last refuge.This is the way I picture us active members furiously supplying free content:
You've not contributed one red cent to Philosophy Now and Rick lives in Britain where our kids education is free. Any big fancy home Rick has has been paid for by his own efforts, although I can say he doesn't have one. The moderators do this function for free and i think you should stop insulting them, your posts do that enough.
We are like slaves to philosophy...I alone have probably paid for Rick's children's educations and the big fancy new homes for the Moderators -
They treat you better than you deserve in my opinion and they should follow all the other forums and have banned you long-ago.They treat us like shit & STILL we cannot stop what we do. We are in-love with Sophia.
Stop repeating your lies and slurs. I think they should ban you just for this....they, with lucre.
Just conspiracy nonsense, that disaster capitalism may exist is one thing but to think you could fake all the science is just plain unlikely.Pluto wrote:It makes sense that it's a hoax, we can lump it all together with the other problems. To do globalisation you need a smoke-screen, that is the fox in the chicken house, while you're not looking, the floor has been removed. It enables leverage too.
