Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do you know what determinism is Hex?

Yes? ..that's why I say it's outdated and useless?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You counter argument is ridiculous. The things you list are not related to determinism.

As usual you don't even know what you are talking about.

See this is your pitiful argument, then you contradict youself.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:What do you not understand by the phrase "2500 years of Philosophy"?

You are truly not very bright.

HexHammer wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do you know what determinism is Hex?

Yes? ..that's why I say it's outdated and useless?

Would you please take the time to briefly explain it to me, in your words of course. Thank you!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Would you please take the time to briefly explain it to me, in your words of course. Thank you!

Already given the explenation 2 times now, no point in giving it the 3rd.

HexHammer wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Would you please take the time to briefly explain it to me, in your words of course. Thank you!

Already given the explenation 2 times now, no point in giving it the 3rd.

Could you point me in the general direction, i.e., thread, page, date and time? For old times sake?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Could you point me in the general direction, i.e., thread, page, date and time? For old times sake?

Nope.

HexHammer wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Could you point me in the general direction, i.e., thread, page, date and time? For old times sake?

Nope.

And so I would imagine that this is your primary ploy, no?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Could you point me in the general direction, i.e., thread, page, date and time? For old times sake?

Nope.

And so I would imagine that this is your primary ploy, no?

Dude, I've known you for some years now, each time I have a conversation with you, it's a huge waste of time, because you lack the ability to comprehend very very simple matters, therefore everything is futile and I won't help you in any way.

Hex. You've stated a view that any discussion of the nature of determinism is a waste of breath. Surely such a view is more than just a little bit controversial and thus you should stand willing to defend it. The very least that one could expect is that you be required to explain what you understand by the word. What do you reckon determinism actually IS?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Could you point me in the general direction, i.e., thread, page, date and time? For old times sake?

HexHammer wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Nope.

And so I would imagine that this is your primary ploy, no?

Dude, I've known you for some years now, each time I have a conversation with you, it's a huge waste of time, because you lack the ability to comprehend very very simple matters, therefore everything is futile and I won't help you in any way.

So that's what you truly believe? And to think that I have actually come to your rescue many times due to your language issues. I guess that's gratitude for you.

Nothing personal Hex, but there has never been anything that you have uttered, that has gone over my head. As a matter of fact, you 'seem' to be one of the more ill equipped here at effectually arguing any point whatsoever. Yet I still give you the benefit of doubt, because everyone deserves to be included.

Do you believe in cause and effect, hex?

Obvious Leo wrote:Hex. You've stated a view that any discussion of the nature of determinism is a waste of breath. Surely such a view is more than just a little bit controversial and thus you should stand willing to defend it. The very least that one could expect is that you be required to explain what you understand by the word. What do you reckon determinism actually IS?

You are not very bright, you demand completely irrelevant argumens. I've already stated sufficient arguments.

..but you are a cozy chatter, you only "understands" longwinded talk ative epilogues to convince you.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do you believe in cause and effect, hex?

Ofc I do, we don't fly space ships faster than light, because of limited human mental aptitude, if we were all geniouses, we would.

..cause and effect.

HexHammer wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do you believe in cause and effect, hex?

Ofc I do, we don't fly space ships faster than light, because of limited human mental aptitude, if we were all geniouses, we would.

..cause and effect.

Then you believe in determinism, as they are one in the same thing.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Then you believe in determinism, as they are one in the same thing.

Precisely. All determinism means is that effects are preceeded by causes in an orderly and generative fashion, a useful notion which explains why our world is comprehensible. It's such an inoffensive proposition that I've been trying to get Hex to explain why he's got his balls in such a knot about it. So far he's declined to account for his disgust at the idea.

HexHammer wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Hex. You've stated a view that any discussion of the nature of determinism is a waste of breath. Surely such a view is more than just a little bit controversial and thus you should stand willing to defend it. The very least that one could expect is that you be required to explain what you understand by the word. What do you reckon determinism actually IS?

You are not very bright, you demand completely irrelevant argumens. I've already stated sufficient arguments.

..but you are a cozy chatter, you only "understands" longwinded talk ative epilogues to convince you.

Apparently determinism is wrong because both me and Obvious Leo are "not very bright".

Wow a powerful and impressive argument.