IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New That's why I told you to read the OTHER thread.
And how are these different? When I say "Truth" how is that different from what you mean when you say Reality"?
Remember the part where I said that >YOU< were busiy filtering out the stuff you didn't want to think about because it would alter your opinion? Well, that's contained in the other thread that you didn't want to read. In a nutshell, "The Truth" is what is possessed by a certain political viewpoint and other viewpoints do not have "The Truth". Think "religion" if that will help you.

As for the "factual error", I'm not seeing any difference between those statements.

No. I was very careful to say that there MAY BE things which CAN NOT be perceived. And that THESE things aren't worth discussing.
Let's break that down a bit, shall we?

No. I was very careful to say that there MAY BE things which CAN NOT be perceived.
As in my example of xrays being perceived 200 years ago. Yes, I can agree with that. But I'd also put a caveat in that "CAN NOT be perceived" could just mean "CAN NOT CURRENTLY be perceived". Like I said, xrays, 200 years ago. We've advanced and now we can see the effects of things we did not know existed before.

And that THESE things aren't worth discussing.
So, "aren't worth discussing" means something different to you than the discussion of those things being worthless. I don't see the distinction.

Unless your point is whether or not we will ever be able to perceive things we cannot perceive?

New Your 'caveat' is exactly the opposite of what I said
Yes, I can agree with that. But I'd also put a caveat in that "CAN NOT be perceived" could just mean "CAN NOT CURRENTLY be perceived".
Since I was specifically drawing a distinction between "can not" and "can not currently" you have just reworded my argument from "If x then y" into "If not x then y."

Since you apparently intend to argue against your own made-up versions of what I said instead of what I actually said, I guess I don't need to be here for the rest of the discussion.
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
New Awwww, did I hurt your feelings?
Since you apparently intend to argue against your own made-up versions of what I said instead of what I actually said, I guess I don't need to be here for the rest of the discussion.
Hmmmm, seeing as how I clearly spelled out my objection to your statement, and you pointed out that it "reversed" your statement (that's an interesting use of the word "reverse") you're going to run away and claim it's all my fault?

Hmmmm, that doesn't make much sense to me. Why run away when we've just located a point of contention? Wouldn't further discussion of said point be required?

Or is it that you've FINALLY realized how wrong you are and you're running away to avoid having to admit it?

Since I was specifically drawing a distinction between "can not" and "can not currently" you have just reworded my argument from "If x then y" into "If not x then y."
No, you did NOT specifically draw such a distinction. You have not yet differentiated between what we cannot YET perceive and what we will NEVER perceive.

To prove this, I'll quote you back in your face:
No. I was very careful to say that there MAY BE things which CAN NOT be perceived. And that THESE things aren't worth discussing.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=30149|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=30149]

No distinction there.

But feel free to provide one now. Tell me, what the difference is, in context with your previous posts, of things we cannot currently perceive and things we cannot perceive?

Or you can run and appear to be a sniveling, lieing coward.
New Interesting development
That you can rail against some for maturity level and then post idiotic shit like this...the equlvalent of a schoolyard dare...

"I know I'm right and your wrong" he says..."and since you don't want to discuss it anymore you must be chicken"

Damn, you sound all growed up.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Hey, I'm not the one who's hiding.
That you can rail against some for maturity level and then post idiotic shit like this...the equlvalent of a schoolyard dare...
Oh, I forgot. You can't think in anything but binary terms.

It's called "mockery".

You were immature because you thought that FUD and allegations were a sound basis for a political viewpoint.

Drew is hiding because he's found out that his position doesn't hold water and isn't mature enough to admit it. So he throws out some idiotic claim about how I've "reversed" his position to "justify" his hiding.

So I'm mocking Drew and pointing out what he's doing.

I know this annoys you but I don't have to accept either of your (Drew and you) childish behaviour. So I treat you like the children you are behaving as.

Don't believe me? I didn't think you would. But if you will (I know you won't) read my post which preceeded Drew's declaration that he wasn't going to discuss this anymore, you'll find a complete absence of immature language. I posted a breakdown of Drew's post and illustrated the differences between my starting position and his in clear language (the caveat).

Then Drew decides that he can't handle the discussion any more and runs and hides.

Toooo bad, soooooo sad. Just like you are, Bill.

And no. I'm not going to let this go like an adult. I'm going to treat you as the immature, ignorant children you are behaving as.
New Er.
Grow up.

Stop telling people they're sad, or blinkered, or stupid, just because they don't see the world the same way as you.

I'm tired of reading threads full of your not-funny, not-clever, not-really-very-good-at-all insults.

You know what the most annoying thing is? You actually make some interesting, valid points.

Only they get buried under you going "me so clever! you so stoopid!".

Yeah, and Marlowe? All this shit applies to you too.

Stop being assholes, both of yers.

Or I'll come over there and wield the LART, +5 to undweeb.


Peter
Shill For Hire
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
New Not going to happen.
Sorry, Peter. I don't start that way with people. But I don't see any reason to waste good manners on louts.

And I will freely admit to an active dislike for intolerant religious extremists and bigots.
New Ah... so... other people's behavior...
... excuses your own?

Stop being an ass. This applies to all of you.

I'm sick of reading the infantile bullshit. I wouldn't know if ANY of you had decent points, because I don't read this crap anymore.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New No need for an excuse.
Ah... so... other people's behavior... ... excuses your own?
Nope. But then, I'm not looking to excuse my behaviour.

I know what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. I'm not asking for anyone to excuse my behavoiur or accept it or anything else.

Like I said, I am not about to waste good manners on louts.

If someone is acting like an idiot, I do not see any reason to pussyfoot around that fact.

New In that case...
*plonk*
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New Whaaaaaaaaaaaa
This was a demonstration of an "opinion" and not a fact. Truthfully. "Infantile crap"...

Not only did he demonstrate how annoying insult posts can be by DOING IT HIMSELF, he also demonstrated the dichotomy and hypocrisy of his position by stating that "I don't read this crap anymore".

So, in the spirit of "if a person doesn't read this crap anymore (in the woods?)" post about how he read this crap, did it happen or not?

:-)

:-)
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer

"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."

P. Townshend

"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
New Never said it was anything other than opinion.
You're quite free, as is Brandioch, to post your opinions/content in any fashion you please.

I'm also free to point out what I think is "infantile crap". For me, "infantile crap" includes things like titling a post "[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=30003|Awwww, is the poor baby going to cry?]" (as an example). I'm sick of seeing it, and I said as much. Feel free to tell me that it isn't "infantile crap", but don't expect me to agree.

As far as reading the crap, no, I don't any more. I read Peter's post, because his name isn't in my personal killfile and he usually has something good to say. In this case, I'd read enough crap previously to still want to comment on it. I also read Brandioch's reply to my post, because I generally do that if someone posts a reply to me. Not any more in Brandioch's case, but that is neither here nor there.

Capice?
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New Unfair!
They are engaged in a juvenile philosophical discussion on the nature of Truth. And you dare confuse things by introducing Opinion into the mix?

Ah well. Fairness is the first complaint of incompetence. :-)

Cheers,
Ben

PS How can I set up a personal killfile on this site?
New Re: Unfair!

PS How can I set up a personal killfile on this site?

I'm seriously considering spending the time to build one.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New Please?
If you do, and if you and your family ever come to NYC, you and your son get a choice of a real Pyramid, a t-rex, or a medieval castle. (The first and third are filled with art. The second isn't, but includes such things as a full-sized model of a blue whale.)

Cheers,
Ben
     If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? - (Brandioch) - (54)
         Fine, I'll fillet the red herring - (drewk) - (1)
             Ummmm, I said there wasn't one. Or did you miss that? - (Brandioch)
         Oh, the truth about people? - (boxley) - (38)
             Exactly. - (Brandioch) - (34)
                 Oh, I see the problem - (drewk) - (33)
                     You're actually getting closer (how long has it taken?) - (Brandioch) - (25)
                         Try to keep it separate - (drewk) - (24)
                             Drew, you are an idiot. - (Brandioch) - (23)
                                 Is it the truth that Drew is an idiot? - (marlowe) - (22)
                                     I believe I have already explained that. - (Brandioch) - (21)
                                         Filters are changeable - (boxley)
                                         Okay, so there's no "Truth" but there is "Reality" - (drewk) - (16)
                                             Those 'things' (!) which "cannot be perceived" - - (Ashton)
                                             That's why I told you to read the OTHER thread. - (Brandioch) - (14)
                                                 Your 'caveat' is exactly the opposite of what I said - (drewk) - (13)
                                                     Awwww, did I hurt your feelings? - (Brandioch) - (12)
                                                         Interesting development - (bepatient) - (11)
                                                             Hey, I'm not the one who's hiding. - (Brandioch) - (10)
                                                                 Er. - (pwhysall) - (9)
                                                                     Not going to happen. - (Brandioch) - (8)
                                                                         Ah... so... other people's behavior... - (admin) - (7)
                                                                             No need for an excuse. - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                                                                 In that case... - (admin)
                                                                             Whaaaaaaaaaaaa - (screamer) - (4)
                                                                                 Never said it was anything other than opinion. - (admin) - (3)
                                                                                     Unfair! - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                                                                         Re: Unfair! - (admin) - (1)
                                                                                             Please? - (ben_tilly)
                                         Your filters are not the universe's fault. - (marlowe) - (2)
                                             Your filters can't be removed. Only modified. Slightly. - (Another Scott)
                                             Where did I lose you? - (Brandioch)
                     If an egg falls on a chicken, which came first? - (screamer) - (6)
                         I though I was pretty clear on that one - (drewk) - (5)
                             Okay... Just making sure... - (screamer) - (4)
                                 OT - Sixteen inches? - (drewk) - (3)
                                     It was extremely hard... - (screamer) - (2)
                                         That's the great thing about Seattle. - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                             seattle where even the toe jams are green :) -NT - (boxley)
             Ah. What the heck do you know about people? - (screamer) - (2)
                 Of course they are easy to train - (boxley) - (1)
                     Oh, the old "free will" argument... - (screamer)
         Re: If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? - (JayMehaffey) - (10)
             Ahhhh, that's the crux of the issue. - (Brandioch) - (9)
                 I don't think so - (JayMehaffey) - (8)
                     Which is an application of my position. - (Brandioch)
                     And I've been getting even crazier than that... - (screamer) - (6)
                         Just a small difference, I think - (drewk) - (1)
                             No difference. At least not in my book. - (screamer)
                         Minor correction. - (Brandioch) - (1)
                             And now that that is done..... - (Brandioch)
                         Quite close enough - (Ashton)
                         More arguments over definitions - (JayMehaffey)
         If a man speaks in the forest - (Silverlock) - (1)
             ..then he's prolly just tellin war stories - (Ashton)

OK, my response to that is pending a Google search.
211 ms