SpheresOfBalance wrote:
No! Bill should do as Bill wants to do, who do you think you are to tell Bill what he 'should' do.
I don't, I tell him what I think about what he's doing. I'm also confused that apparently you think you can tell me what I shouldn't be doing?
I could care less of your jokes, say what you mean and mean what you say.
I pretty much do and in clearer terns than you in the main but a joke is a joke, it either speaks to you or it doesn't. I tend to forget that for other nations a sense of humour is optional whereas for the British its obigatory(it's a joke!!).
I think you should leave it to Bill to say what he is or is not, again who do you think you are?
Someone on a Philosophy forum who reads others words and responds and I've being doing this with Bill for a fair old time now.. Bill is a ex-theist atheist, I'm a rare bird, a lifelong atheist and as such I can hear the theism in his thoughts. He appears not able to and that is understandable given what religious education is.
There you go again, professing to know someone better than they do.
Lmao! You've obviously not been following what Bill says.
From day to day we change, and we are not always sure, again who do you think you are to try and define Bill?
Is my definition of him wrong? Is he not an ex-theist?
Incorrect there is no common consensus amongst philosophers. Which is it, the Correspondence, Coherence, Constructivist, Consensus, Pragmatic, or Minimalist (deflationary), i.e., Performative or redundancy theories? All we get is a percentage of belief amongst philosophers. And so it goes with topics other than truth. "We," as if you speak for the one true belief. Get off your imaginary high horse, it makes you look small.
You're the idiot who thinks conclusions means a singular answer in Philosophy and that's because you've not bothered to study any but have much to wiki say about it. Philosophy has and is all about definitions and refining them, that you find this abhorrent or elitist is your cultural issue.
Yet you speak from an athiest's position.
Because I've yet to hear a philosophically sound argument to support the theists claims.
At least you's be asking for his words, instead of always trying to put them in his mouth.
Your shinning armour blinds you.
Often your so called help, seems to be fitted with barbs.
Only to those who have shown that they are not here to philosophise and a barb only hurts if it is an unacknowledged truth.
But OK, sometimes you actually do try and help him and not yourself, I'll give you that much.
Honestly I don't need such praise nor your psycho-babble.
With much work and time, as Rome wasn't built in a day.
With a blueprint things go much quicker but I think this thought the thought of the psychoanalysts who like long - term payment plans.
Maybe and maybe not, they way you sometimes treat him, I'm thinking not.
I'm thinking not because it's really not about change for Bill, he's a gnu at heart.
So who the fuck are you to judge him for it, with condescending diatribe? I find you to be extremely insensitive.
I don't care as this is a Philosophy forum not a self-help group for the deluded. Bill gives two tosses for what others think as if he did he'd change his posting behaviour given the inumerable requests he's had over the years to do so. What you fail to understand is Bill spams these posts over every forum he kind find that hasn't yet banned him.
Bull shit, that's just you fighting for your right to do what ever you please, no matter how twisted.
Bollocks, it's a fact. What you do is just try to create an entity that you can morally beat others with. But lmao given that you say you ignore your neighbours requests to stop firing your mini-gun.
Anyone that tries and speak for someone is a fool, which you often do in Bills case.
Show me where.
Get real, It was clearly a metaphor.
Then it needs to be on a poetry site or a psychoanalytic forum or just an English literature site.
You appear to think that people can produce nihilistic metaphors and not be challenged upon the inadequacy of them?
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the 'meaning' of life. And it was obviously a metaphor.
You asked me for fucking facts about our existence!!
The only metaphor it is is about Bill's wish to be a nihilist gnu.
In fact, some of those things you say you know, that you know, shall be falsehoods on some future day. The odds are against you.
The logical tautologies and contradictions will hold for all time.
No, I just know human motivation.
Lmao! Now what was it you were saying about not knowing what others think? All you know is your projection of your motivations upon others. If not then you are doing what you say I should not.
So spit this secret of yours out, or you're just blowing hot air.
I've told them to you numerous times but you don't wish to acknowledge them. They are the tautologies and contradictions of propositional Logic and as such they are the boundaries of reason and thought.
Not at all, I know very well where I am, I'm very lucid!
Hallucid I think at times.
So you characterize us, so as to demean, which is you problem not mine.
Not a problem for me as I don't have your issues about sparing another's thoughts just because they have them, philosophically speaking that is.
I do not talk philosophical nonsense, but of course you'd say so, you're vindictive that way.
Got bugger all to do with your pet psycho-babble and is exactly an example of what I talk about as up-post you claim that I cannot know the other person and yet here you are claiming to know me, philosophical nonsense.
You mean you have no idea! And I agree! I've often seen words go right over your head. One of your megalomaniacal tendencies, is to assert that it can't be, if you don't understand it. Visions of grandeur?
What you have seen is me not understanding your sage-speak and then you applying your psycho-babble to it.
Hey you're the fool that told me your personality type, don't blame me it's not as grand as you believe it is.
What are you babbling on about now, what personality type are you talking about?
