Search found 516 matches

by Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:39 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives
Replies: 108
Views: 1913

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Nick_A. His incentives are extremely subtle, and without at least a solid grasp of secular progressivism, most of his remarks will go over a typical reader's head. Is this a joke? I just like to test how old the people on this forum are. Usu...
by Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:36 am
Forum: Philosophy of Religion
Topic: All ontological arguments are wrong
Replies: 23
Views: 520

Re: All ontological arguments are wrong

All ontological arguments are wrong since we cannot be sure of existence of any being at all. The only certainty that we have is that experience exists. With that line of thinking, all arguments are wrong, period. Nah. Just underdetermined. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermi...
by Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:30 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives
Replies: 108
Views: 1913

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

Do you mean as high as yours? Yes. There’s also Nick’s teleological outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from youtube conservative commentary, for instance. His fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly apprec...
by Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:46 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives
Replies: 108
Views: 1913

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Nick_A. His incentives are extremely subtle, and without at least a solid grasp of secular progressivism, most of his remarks will go over a typical reader's head.
by Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:20 am
Forum: The Lounge
Topic: Happy New Year
Replies: 26
Views: 813

Re: Happy New Year

I've seen it spelled both ways. I guess it's like slang for "new year's day", but meh... same difference :)

I hope you had a good one vege. Ha, for once, we're actually talking about a holiday not exclusive to the US.
by Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Wed Jan 03, 2018 5:36 am
Forum: The Lounge
Topic: Happy New Year
Replies: 26
Views: 813

Re: Happy New Year

Happy new years! I've devised a little strategy for making the most of my new year resolutions. Generally, people are lucky if they manage to do even 2 of the things they say they're going to, so Instead of just giving myself a couple resolutions with very straight forward things to do, I've given m...
by Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:08 am
Forum: Philosophy of Religion
Topic: All ontological arguments are wrong
Replies: 23
Views: 520

Re: All ontological arguments are wrong

bahman wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:52 am
All ontological arguments are wrong since we cannot be sure of existence of any being at all. The only certainty that we have is that experience exists.
With that line of thinking, all arguments are wrong, period.
by Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:05 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives
Replies: 108
Views: 1913

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

...This thread doesn't seem to exist for any reason other than to start up another very generalized debate about PC culture, with a side of trying to trigger atheists. As if there weren't enough threads like that?

Whatever. I think the scapegoats are whatever their peers tell them is the scapegoat.
by Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:20 am
Forum: The Lounge
Topic: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums
Replies: 354
Views: 6465

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:49 am
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:41 am
*Rimshot* thank you thank you I'll be here all week, but unfortunately that joke was a little too risque for philosophy now
Who is Rimshot?
It's the sound of a comedy drum fill. Apparently the higher ups at philosophy now don't want us mentioning dicks. It's a bad word.
by Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:08 am
Forum: The Lounge
Topic: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums
Replies: 354
Views: 6465

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

TIME magazine made this the year of the victim who speaks up against their abuser. You need to apologize. So, when are you going to apologize to VG for calling her a "sallow hideous wench, cum chugging nasty bitch. You ugly monstrous idiot. You moronic ass. You precambrian sloth, you vile larcenous...
by Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:41 am
Forum: The Lounge
Topic: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums
Replies: 354
Views: 6465

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

*Rimshot* thank you thank you I'll be here all week, but unfortunately that joke was a little too risque for philosophy now That is no longer possible because sixty nine posts of Seleucus have now been deleted including the ones which you refer to Seleucus you are now the second member here to have ...
by Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:30 am
Forum: Philosophy of Religion
Topic: The Kalam cosmological argument - any objections ?
Replies: 40
Views: 980

Re: The Kalam cosmological argument - any objections ?

I wasn't the one who said Kraus was stupid. Well, I told you where you can find some examples of his argument being misunderstood - in fact, you're one of the people in this thread who have done it - so I think it goes to show a lot of what I mean. As far as explaining what his argument actually is ...
by Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:18 am
Forum: Philosophy of Religion
Topic: The Kalam cosmological argument - any objections ?
Replies: 40
Views: 980

Re: The Kalam cosmological argument - any objections ?

Not sure what you mean by 'reprehends'. I think he's just really good at tearing apart someone's objection. It sort goes back to what I was saying, people often do just misunderstand his points. If you want some good examples for that, you don't need to look any further than within this thread. On ...
by Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:15 am
Forum: Philosophy of Religion
Topic: The Kalam cosmological argument - any objections ?
Replies: 40
Views: 980

Re: The Kalam cosmological argument - any objections ?

What rubbish. It's only his claim that it's the only possible conclusion. Well he uses deductive reasoning to show why it is. If you're trying to say that there could always be another conclusion to an argument, I think we'd need to go on a case-by-case basis. Right. So Lawrence Krauss and Richard ...
by Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:55 am
Forum: Philosophy of Religion
Topic: The Kalam cosmological argument - any objections ?
Replies: 40
Views: 980

Re: The Kalam cosmological argument - any objections ?

Well, if I can paraphrase WC (Ha! Maybe there is a god.), his argument is that: Everything that has a beginning, has a cause. The universe had a beginning. Therefore, the universe has a cause. If something like the above is how you understand WC's take on the cosmological argument, it falls at the ...