Philosophy Now Forum

PhilX, it was a good question you posed, and got me thinking on what I am willing to accept as good evidence. It's a shame, then, that the thread was vandalized by Melchior.

Dalek Prime wrote:PhilX, it was a good question you posed, and got me thinking on what I am willing to accept as good evidence. It's a shame, then, that the thread was vandalized by Melchior.

No, I did not vandalize it. I merely pointed out that this is a very complex topic, and thus that law and science books are the places to find out what good evidence is.

Melchior wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:PhilX, it was a good question you posed, and got me thinking on what I am willing to accept as good evidence. It's a shame, then, that the thread was vandalized by Melchior.

No, I did not vandalize it. I merely pointed out that this is a very complex topic, and thus that law and science books are the places to find out what good evidence is.

"You say po-tay-to, and I say po-tah-to..." Ah, let's call the whole thing off.

This pertains to the topic:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015051 ... future_rss

PhilX

Melchior wrote:There are law books on evidence and philosophy books on evidence and science books on evidence. Read them. Evidence is evidence. Why are you so lazy that you think you can get a quick answer on a forum? Do your own damn research!

https://www.google.com/#q=textbooks+on+evidence

Because he likes to ask silly selfexpanatory questions for the mere sake of getting attention.

If you look at some of his early posts here, he says he had copied some topics from other fora, and there he had plenty of forfilling answers, yet he asks the same questions over and over.

Many not-sho-bright-people doesn't grasp such simple things, and will happily run a fool's errand and give him answers to all his silly questions.

HexHammer wrote:

Melchior wrote:There are law books on evidence and philosophy books on evidence and science books on evidence. Read them. Evidence is evidence. Why are you so lazy that you think you can get a quick answer on a forum? Do your own damn research!

https://www.google.com/#q=textbooks+on+evidence

Because he likes to ask silly selfexpanatory questions for the mere sake of getting attention.

If you look at some of his early posts here, he says he had copied some topics from other fora, and there he had plenty of forfilling answers, yet he asks the same questions over and over.

Many not-sho-bright-people doesn't grasp such simple things, and will happily run a fool's errand and give him answers to all his silly questions.

Define "silly, self-explanatory questions." (I corrected your spelling).

You forget this is a forum where we exchange ideas. Melchior complained the question is too complicated (judging from what he wrote, he's supposed to be a lawyer. If a lawyer says it's too complicated, then I wouldn't want him for a lawyer).

So HH, did you come to this forum to complain, from your POV, about silly questions or did you come for philosophy?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:You forget this is a forum where we exchange ideas. Melchior complained the question is too complicated (judging from what he wrote, he's supposed to be a lawyer. If a lawyer says it's too complicated, then I wouldn't want him for a lawyer).

So HH, did you come to this forum to complain, from your POV, about silly questions or did you come for philosophy?

No, you forget this is a PHILOSPHY forum, you know "love of wisdom" asking and answering utterly stupid questions serves no purpose, thus it's not wisdom, thus it's cozy chat and cozy chat isn't philosophy.

I came here to teach people to do philosophy, and stop their foolish cozy chat. Something you will never understand because you lack very basic cognitive abiliteis.

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:You forget this is a forum where we exchange ideas. Melchior complained the question is too complicated (judging from what he wrote, he's supposed to be a lawyer. If a lawyer says it's too complicated, then I wouldn't want him for a lawyer).

So HH, did you come to this forum to complain, from your POV, about silly questions or did you come for philosophy?

No, you forget this is a PHILOSPHY forum, you know "love of wisdom" asking and answering utterly stupid questions serves no purpose, thus it's not wisdom, thus it's cozy chat and cozy chat isn't philosophy.

I came here to teach people to do philosophy, and stop their foolish cozy chat. Something you will never understand because you lack very basic cognitive abiliteis.

You didn't answer my question so I guess I spoke over your head.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:You didn't answer my question so I guess I spoke over your head.

I refuse to answer it directly, because it serves no purpose to answer it, and I have already indirectly answered it.

So I say again, STOP ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:You didn't answer my question so I guess I spoke over your head.

I refuse to answer it directly, because it serves no purpose to answer it, and I have already indirectly answered it.

So I say again, STOP ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love cozy chatting with you.

PhilX

I repeat: there are many books about evidence (in law, science, philosophy, etc.). That's where to turn!

You might start with these:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/catalog ... odId=10333

http://www.textbooks.com/BooksDescripti ... aQodCxQAig

http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Oxford-S ... 0195171713

Melchior wrote:I repeat: there are many books about evidence (in law, science, philosophy, etc.). That's where to turn!

You night start with these:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/catalog ... odId=10333

http://www.textbooks.com/BooksDescripti ... aQodCxQAig

http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Oxford-S ... 0195171713

You waste your breath, Phil X doesn't wan't links to knowledge, he wants tiny bits served for attention sake, he doesn't give a shit about facts. He have had the same things told time and time again to him, and he will continue to ask the same questions over and over, he gets the same answers on various forums ..but he doesn't care, because he ONLY wants attention.

He displays some of the same signs as ppl who have suffered massive head trauma, and will acutely lose their short term memory, thus they lay there in a traffic accident and ask the same question over and over without remembering the answer.
Tho I don't believe he has lost his short term memory, but asks out of compulsion, it's OCD that drives him to these stupidities.

HexHammer wrote:

Melchior wrote:I repeat: there are many books about evidence (in law, science, philosophy, etc.). That's where to turn!

You night start with these:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/catalog ... odId=10333

http://www.textbooks.com/BooksDescripti ... aQodCxQAig

http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Oxford-S ... 0195171713

You waste your breath, Phil X doesn't wan't links to knowledge, he wants tiny bits served for attention sake, he doesn't give a shit about facts. He have had the same things told time and time again to him, and he will continue to ask the same questions over and over, he gets the same answers on various forums ..but he doesn't care, because he ONLY wants attention.

He displays some of the same signs as ppl who have suffered massive head trauma, and will acutely lose their short term memory, thus they lay there in a traffic accident and ask the same question over and over without remembering the answer.
Tho I don't believe he has lost his short term memory, but asks out of compulsion, it's OCD that drives him to these stupidities.

Correction, you're the one who seeks attention.

Since we're talking through the internet doesn't mean you know squat about me (nor anyone else). Why don't you go back to Broom Hilda and hurl free insults at anyone who comes your way? Or do you want to continue your cozy chat here.

So far you have not contributed anything philosophically over here.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Melchior wrote:I repeat: there are many books about evidence (in law, science, philosophy, etc.). That's where to turn!

You might start with these:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/catalog ... odId=10333

http://www.textbooks.com/BooksDescripti ... aQodCxQAig

http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Oxford-S ... 0195171713

You waste your breath, Phil X doesn't wan't links to knowledge, he wants tiny bits served for attention sake, he doesn't give a shit about facts. He have had the same things told time and time again to him, and he will continue to ask the same questions over and over, he gets the same answers on various forums ..but he doesn't care, because he ONLY wants attention.

He displays some of the same signs as ppl who have suffered massive head trauma, and will acutely lose their short term memory, thus they lay there in a traffic accident and ask the same question over and over without remembering the answer.
Tho I don't believe he has lost his short term memory, but asks out of compulsion, it's OCD that drives him to these stupidities.

Correction, you're the one who seeks attention.

Since we're talking through the internet doesn't mean you know squat about me (nor anyone else). Why don't you go back to Broom Hilda and hurl free insults at anyone who comes your way? Or do you want to continue your cozy chat here.

So far you have not contributed anything philosophically over here.

PhilX

You're too lazy and stupid to look up things? Apparently.

Quoting Melchior:

"You're too lazy and stupid to look up things? Apparently."

And you're the one complaining that the subject is too complex.

PhilX