Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote: I'm sorry, I didn't realize .

Very close to the truth.

thedoc wrote:

bobevenson wrote: I'm sorry, I didn't realize .

Very close to the truth.

Let me introduce you to the word "facetious."

JSS wrote:Then back up to another related question.
For how long as the concept of a circle involved uniform radius (not the word or anyone's particular thoughts about it, but the concept itself)? Or when was the concept of a circle itself any different than it is today?

I'm unsure about mathematical objects. I guess that seeing rain-drops on standing water or sand or dirt, etc would precede the concept but stand to be corrected in this matter. Not sure if this answers your question as not quite sure what the question is?

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Far to much BS for me to try and correct! Either your comprehension is fading, your memory is fading, or you're lying outright. I have no way of knowing.

Whatever.

And that's one of your problems! Whatever indeed!

manden wrote:Bob , you are completely misleaded . The rest of the mankind , too !

The recognizable truth about our creator is very simple ( about 10 sentences ) , but this corrupt and ill mankind is till now NOT ABLE to grasp it !

Sorry maden, but anything that is only to be found in a man's head, cannot be 'proven' one way or the other! Bob relies on that, as does anyone that either claims there is or is not a god. Any time anyone claims anything that cannot be accompanied by 'physical' proof, it should register as suspect, as far as it's necessary truth factor goes.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

manden wrote:Bob, you are completely misleaded . The rest of the mankind, too!

Sorry maden, but anything that is only to be found in a man's head, cannot be 'proven' one way or the other! Bob relies on that, as does anyone that either claims there is or is not a god.

Quite true, which is why I furnish mystical credentials as spiritual certification.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:And that's one of your problems! Whatever indeed!

And yours appears to be that you can answer long posts when it suits you but not when it doesn't, so, whatever.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:And that's one of your problems! Whatever indeed!

And yours appears to be that you can answer long posts when it suits you but not when it doesn't, so, whatever.

Usually when a post doesn't suit me, it's because it's unusually inane.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:And that's one of your problems! Whatever indeed!

And yours appears to be that you can answer long posts when it suits you but not when it doesn't, so, whatever.

Kim, you have ALWAYS been trying, at least with respect to my patience. Come on, you know that! And I see that you use that to WIN! That's the problem with you, all you care about is winning; it surely seems! As you'll say ANYTHING, even lie, speculate, in order to do so. You twist and turn ones words to suit your goal, which is why your little, "ones meaning is the response they get" is such bullshit! In fact: your response is anything that you can manufacture, so as to cloud the waters of "effective" communication. And that's the truth of it, from my down to earth perspective!

Of course I'll still always thank you for engaging me when you have, I love a challenge. It's just that sometimes you take the BS way too far!

bobevenson wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

manden wrote:Bob, you are completely misleaded . The rest of the mankind, too!

Sorry maden, but anything that is only to be found in a man's head, cannot be 'proven' one way or the other! Bob relies on that, as does anyone that either claims there is or is not a god.

Quite true, which is why I furnish mystical credentials as spiritual certification.

Bob I love you, simply because you never quit. You are as defiant and persistent as anyone I've ever seen. So much so that I sometimes laugh my ass off, when I see you battling the barrage! You're fun to laugh at, and I never take you seriously. Probably because of your unyielding nature.

You absolutely have no credentials Bob. At least any that one should pay any credence.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:And that's one of your problems! Whatever indeed!

And yours appears to be that you can answer long posts when it suits you but not when it doesn't, so, whatever.

Kim, you have ALWAYS been trying, at least with respect to my patience. Come on, you know that! And I see that you use that to WIN! That's the problem with you, all you care about is winning; it surely seems! As you'll say ANYTHING, even lie, speculate, in order to do so. You twist and turn ones words to suit your goal, which is why your little, "ones meaning is the response they get" is such bullshit! In fact: your response is anything that you can manufacture, so as to cloud the waters of "effective" communication. And that's the truth of it, from my down to earth perspective!

Of course I'll still always thank you for engaging me when you have, I love a challenge. It's just that sometimes you take the BS way too far!

I think you're both similar in this regard. Both of you are willful, and want to win at any price, using any distraction or bullshit to redirect the argument. Hell, if I didn't see you two fighting it out here, I'd suspect you were the same person, along with Hobbes, who never argues with Arising. At least not that I've witnessed.

Anyhoo, just an observation.

bobevenson wrote:Usually when a post doesn't suit me, it's because it's unusually inane.

Was I talking to you fruitloop.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Kim, you have ALWAYS been trying, at least with respect to my patience. Come on, you know that! And I see that you use that to WIN! That's the problem with you, all you care about is winning; it surely seems! As you'll say ANYTHING, even lie, speculate, in order to do so. You twist and turn ones words to suit your goal, which is why your little, "ones meaning is the response they get" is such bullshit! In fact: your response is anything that you can manufacture, so as to cloud the waters of "effective" communication. And that's the truth of it, from my down to earth perspective!

Of course I'll still always thank you for engaging me when you have, I love a challenge. It's just that sometimes you take the BS way too far!

You talk bollocks and that's why you get the responses you do. The rest is just your nonsense as you have your pet theories all in place to explain every reply you get. All you'll see with me is questions about what I don't understand and bite if I get snotty responses. Take a good look, I'm about the only person here who says he is wrong when shown so. Take what you said in the previous post, I'm more than willing to look at this 'evidence' you have about my words and to see if what you say is true, so post them. That others view simple questions as such threats, and in your case as some kind of psychological drive, is to my mind due to them, and you, not having had a philosophical training and as such find questions about one's thoughts a threat to one's sense of self. Most appear to want agreement to their ideas and as such should be upon a forum other than one that proclaims itself about Philosophy now, as now-a-days it's about critique. Oh! And I like teasing the loons and trolls.

Dalek Prime wrote:I think you're both similar in this regard. Both of you are willful, and want to win at any price, using any distraction or bullshit to redirect the argument. ...

Bollocks. I don't care about 'winning', whatever the hell that can be in this format? I care about clarity of thought and words and as such ask questions where I don't understand and put my point where I think the critique is valid, otherwise I just state my opinion if I find interest in the topic.

Arising_uk wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:I think you're both similar in this regard. Both of you are willful, and want to win at any price, using any distraction or bullshit to redirect the argument. ...

Bollocks. I don't care about 'winning', whatever the hell that can be in this format? I care about clarity of thought and words and as such ask questions where I don't understand and put my point where I think the critique is valid, otherwise I just state my opinion if I find interest in the topic.

By winning, I refer to winning an argument by obfuscating what the other has said, purposely getting it wrong, and forcing a different conversation than what it was originally about.