Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 11:08 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:57 pm Here's Chapter 1, Ch 2 and Ch 3 of my magnum opus masterwork on the foundations of morality leading to the thrilling conclusion (somewhere around Ch 11) that promises for once and for all to settle matters between some form of moral quasi-realism, or perhaps hermeneutic moral fictionalism, or who knows, perhaps we will end up with some brand new theory?

Well then, I must ask for an accord.

I've read through your 1,2,3 and have some opinions that you may or may not accept as part of the ""great work" - whether you feel what I have to say is of worth is moot.

Point being, that I will attempt my best effort to address the discussion of your "magnum opus" although one feels there is a tongue in someone's cheek, nonetheless the topic is worthy of discussion and deep contemplation.

The accord I require agreement of, is that once I have materialised my argument for God's existence, that we are indeed within a pantheistic reality, evidence presented, that you also read it and address it without bias and provide your conclusion.

THUS -- do we have an accord?

We did. You didn't live up to your end. None of what you describe above bears any relation to the nonsense you ended up writing.

You let yourself down there.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 2:01 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 11:08 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:57 pm Here's Chapter 1, Ch 2 and Ch 3 of my magnum opus masterwork on the foundations of morality leading to the thrilling conclusion (somewhere around Ch 11) that promises for once and for all to settle matters between some form of moral quasi-realism, or perhaps hermeneutic moral fictionalism, or who knows, perhaps we will end up with some brand new theory?

Well then, I must ask for an accord.

I've read through your 1,2,3 and have some opinions that you may or may not accept as part of the ""great work" - whether you feel what I have to say is of worth is moot.

Point being, that I will attempt my best effort to address the discussion of your "magnum opus" although one feels there is a tongue in someone's cheek, nonetheless the topic is worthy of discussion and deep contemplation.

The accord I require agreement of, is that once I have materialised my argument for God's existence, that we are indeed within a pantheistic reality, evidence presented, that you also read it and address it without bias and provide your conclusion.

THUS -- do we have an accord?

We did. You didn't live up to your end. None of what you describe above bears any relation to the nonsense you ended up writing.

You let yourself down there.

It's apparent that if you don't agree with my statements within the discussion of your "magnus opus" that you think you have the right to write that I have been talking nonsense within it.

U R rendering yourself as extremely inept at a rational argument, may I suggest that you think deeper, longer, harder - whatever it takes to RATIONALLY counter my statements within your "magnus opus".

And I have no interest in that drunken ramble either

To the same degree I have no interest in dealing with inept reasoning, especially where excuses are made in lieu of any reasonable response.

as I told you before (see page 3), when you fail at that endeavour, and you failed very badly...

the best thing that is on offer is that just as soon as you abandon your silly race-baiting attempts to interfere in UK politics, I will go back to just having no interest in you at all.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 4:46 pm as I told you before (see page 3), when you fail at that endeavour, and you failed very badly...

the best thing that is on offer is that just as soon as you abandon your silly race-baiting attempts to interfere in UK politics, I will go back to just having no interest in you at all.

The very shallow thing that people of your intellectual ineptitude will always insist is attempting to reduce your own shallow arguments by way of mockery of your opponents by way of insisting "race" is the issue at play, rather than any infiltrating ideology - in the case I continually raise, that being the infiltration of Islamic ideology.

Regarding you returning to having no interest in me at all, well so be it. As far as I am concerned, all you have done is to prove that you are quite content upon your biases to the extent of labelling me (and the "likes" of me) in ways that you have absolutely no way of providing evidence to support your ill-conceived labels.

You are a bigot.

(it's not surprising you want nothing to do with me, most find my reasoning skills unparalleled - thus - I tend to fuck peoples preconceived ideas up)

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:09 pm (it's not surprising you want nothing to do with me, most find my reasoning skills unparalleled - thus - I tend to fuck peoples preconceived ideas up)

LOL... I am quoting this to make sure I have an easily searchable reference to it for later.
I guess at least you might be English enough to have one of those self-deprecating senses of humour after all.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:11 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:09 pm (it's not surprising you want nothing to do with me, most find my reasoning skills unparalleled - thus - I tend to fuck peoples preconceived ideas up)

LOL... I am quoting this to make sure I have an easily searchable reference to it for later.

..I'd recommend it, but I doubt when it always proves true you will reference it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:14 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:11 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:09 pm (it's not surprising you want nothing to do with me, most find my reasoning skills unparalleled - thus - I tend to fuck peoples preconceived ideas up)

LOL... I am quoting this to make sure I have an easily searchable reference to it for later.

..I'd recommend it, but I doubt when it always proves true you will reference it.

You did intend it as a funny joke at your own expense though. You would never actually make a claim so pompous as that, right?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:27 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:14 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:11 pm

LOL... I am quoting this to make sure I have an easily searchable reference to it for later.

..I'd recommend it, but I doubt when it always proves true you will reference it.

You did intend it as a funny joke at your own expense though. You would never actually make a claim so pompous as that, right?

Facts aren't always pompous...and no joke was intended.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:31 pm Facts aren't always pompous...and no joke was intended.

That's so very sad.

..but at least you have your reference.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 5:38 pm ..but at least you have your reference.

Yes. The next time I assemble the list of delusional loons who think they are the greatest, with Roydop and Age and Advocate, I won't leave you out, you will be mister "most find my reasoning skills unparalleled".