maintaining an internal dialectic

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478064 time=1604244481 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478063 time=1604244159 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478060 time=1604244012 user_id=11800]


What other topic is there to bother with in your case? You wrote without irony that all you need is confirmation bias, and also that you need to be tested. So there's no point wsating effort on your philosophical works, you have zero talent, you contradict yourself without any trap needing to be placed.
[/quote]

That's neither what i said nor meant.
[/quote]
This is what you said
[quote=Advocate post_id=478041 time=1604239504 user_id=15238]
That means at least someone (including myself, as it happens) must only accept confirmation bias rather than refutation in at least some field of inquiry.
[/quote]

[quote=Advocate post_id=478049 time=1604240315 user_id=15238]
the Truth wishes to be tested, not accepted blindly.
[/quote]
If it's not what you meant, then be more careful.
[/quote]

If only true facts agree with you because you are actually right, the only choice besides confirmation bias is to become more wrong. That may be a viable option for someone like you but for a Disciple of Truth, as i happen to be, that is not an acceptable option. That does not in any sense absolve one of being able to demonstrate why they're right. Being right isn't meaningful unless you can show why.

Surely you understand that at some level of expertise in a subject it is impossible to find someone capable of proving you wrong, even if you are. Why do you believe that level is so high that it's impossible to reach peak philosophy? The whole trick is to simplify things until they can be understood and managed.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's neither what i said nor meant.

This is what you said

That means at least someone (including myself, as it happens) must only accept confirmation bias rather than refutation in at least some field of inquiry.

the Truth wishes to be tested, not accepted blindly.

If it's not what you meant, then be more careful.

If only true facts agree with you because you are actually right, the only choice besides confirmation bias is to become more wrong. That may be a viable option for someone like you but for a Disciple of Truth, as i happen to be, that is not an acceptable option. That does not in any sense absolve one of being able to demonstrate why they're right. Being right isn't meaningful unless you can show why.

Surely you understand that at some level of expertise in a subject it is impossible to find someone capable of proving you wrong, even if you are. Why do you believe that level is so high that it's impossible to reach peak philosophy? The whole trick is to simplify things until they can be understood and managed.

Delusions of grandeur, and ludicrous affectations such as "Disciple of Truth" do0n't help you out at all here.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478076 time=1604250882 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478073 time=1604249790 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478064 time=1604244481 user_id=11800]

This is what you said



If it's not what you meant, then be more careful.
[/quote]

If only true facts agree with you because you are actually right, the only choice besides confirmation bias is to become more wrong. That may be a viable option for someone like you but for a Disciple of Truth, as i happen to be, that is not an acceptable option. That does not in any sense absolve one of being able to demonstrate why they're right. Being right isn't meaningful unless you can show why.

Surely you understand that at some level of expertise in a subject it is impossible to find someone capable of proving you wrong, even if you are. Why do you believe that level is so high that it's impossible to reach peak philosophy? The whole trick is to simplify things until they can be understood and managed.
[/quote]
Delusions of grandeur, and ludicrous affectations such as "Disciple of Truth" do0n't help you out at all here.
[/quote]

Yup. Definitely a bot.

[FlashDangerpants]

If only true facts agree with you because you are actually right, the only choice besides confirmation bias is to become more wrong. That may be a viable option for someone like you but for a Disciple of Truth, as i happen to be, that is not an acceptable option. That does not in any sense absolve one of being able to demonstrate why they're right. Being right isn't meaningful unless you can show why.

Surely you understand that at some level of expertise in a subject it is impossible to find someone capable of proving you wrong, even if you are. Why do you believe that level is so high that it's impossible to reach peak philosophy? The whole trick is to simplify things until they can be understood and managed.

Delusions of grandeur, and ludicrous affectations such as "Disciple of Truth" do0n't help you out at all here.

Yup. Definitely a bot.

Well let us not forget that you have form for ridiculous self-aggrandizement, this one was my favourite...

my OPs Are deconstructed, and put back together with the glue of logical necessity.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478086 time=1604253078 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478078 time=1604252092 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478076 time=1604250882 user_id=11800]

Delusions of grandeur, and ludicrous affectations such as "Disciple of Truth" do0n't help you out at all here.
[/quote]

Yup. Definitely a bot.
[/quote]
Well let us not forget that you have form for ridiculous self-aggrandizement, this one was my favourite...

[quote=Advocate post_id=469288 time=1599240155 user_id=15238]
my OPs Are deconstructed, and put back together with the glue of logical necessity.
[/quote]
[/quote]

The invitation to discuss content is a limited time offer, you know.

[FlashDangerpants]

The invitation to discuss content is a limited time offer, you know.

It's been adequately covered already. Your content is a mix of utter banalities and edgy stupidities all concocted by a fairly pedestrian intellect whatever IQ you are probably about to boast of notwithstanding. The only thing that is noteworthy is your massive confidence that such trivial output is of gigantic importance. I see lots and lots of your posts, but very few have any interesting properties of their own, your madness is your only real bit.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478124 time=1604262461 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478088 time=1604253699 user_id=15238]
The invitation to discuss content is a limited time offer, you know.
[/quote]
It's been adequately covered already. Your content is a mix of utter banalities and edgy stupidities all concocted by a fairly pedestrian intellect whatever IQ you are probably about to boast of notwithstanding. The only thing that is noteworthy is your massive confidence that such trivial output is of gigantic importance. I see lots and lots of your posts, but very few have any interesting properties of their own, your madness is your only real bit.
[/quote]

That only means that if you ever do recognize Truth you'll become my strongest supporter. In the meantime, you have my sympathy.

[FlashDangerpants]

That only means that if you ever do recognize Truth you'll become my strongest supporter. In the meantime, you have my sympathy.

When you attempted actual problems you tried to derive ought from is by way of an uncertain conditional (see the "glue of logical necessity" thing above), and then you tried to fix the no true Scotsman thing by determining that there is indeed such a thing as a true Scotsman, somehow failing even at this pathetic task.

We don't need to worry about you ever having fans, or being adept at philosophy. We should stick to worrying about your mental state, which is unhealthy.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478189 time=1604309571 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478137 time=1604275524 user_id=15238]
That only means that if you ever do recognize Truth you'll become my strongest supporter. In the meantime, you have my sympathy.
[/quote]
When you attempted actual problems you tried to derive ought from is by way of an uncertain conditional (see the "glue of logical necessity" thing above), and then you tried to fix the no true Scotsman thing by determining that there is indeed such a thing as a true Scotsman, somehow failing even at this pathetic task.

We don't need to worry about you ever having fans, or being adept at philosophy. We should stick to worrying about your mental state, which is unhealthy.
[/quote]

First, shut the fuck up about me, you don't know me.
Second, you've entirely, and apparently intentionally, misread everything you've disagreed with.
Third, you're entirely off topic.

It's hard to say which is the worst sin.

At this point it occurs to me that you've said exactly nothing about the original post and i'm going to ask to have you removed from this forum.

[FlashDangerpants]

That only means that if you ever do recognize Truth you'll become my strongest supporter. In the meantime, you have my sympathy.

When you attempted actual problems you tried to derive ought from is by way of an uncertain conditional (see the "glue of logical necessity" thing above), and then you tried to fix the no true Scotsman thing by determining that there is indeed such a thing as a true Scotsman, somehow failing even at this pathetic task.

We don't need to worry about you ever having fans, or being adept at philosophy. We should stick to worrying about your mental state, which is unhealthy.

First, shut the fuck up about me, you don't know me.
Second, you've entirely, and apparently intentionally, misread everything you've disagreed with.
Third, you're entirely off topic.

It's hard to say which is the worst sin.

At this point it occurs to me that you've said exactly nothing about the original post and i'm going to ask to have you removed from this forum.

I only need to observe one obvious fact about you, nothing else about you interests me in any way.

I haven't misread shit. I accurately summarised the problem with your derivative and worthless is-ought solution, and your Scotsman thing is also as I described, both in the fallacious reasoning which led you to attack the wrong question, and the shitness with which you carried out that mistaken task. Understanding any of that is demonstrably beyond your talent, which is really why I don't bother much with your content.

I am not off topic. You asked how we recognize and prevent logical fallacies and unwarranted belief in ourselves, no? You need to start with an understanding that nobody in the universe is actually as capable as you are claiming to be.

I'm sure other pissants have demanded I be excluded from this forum, and I'm sure others will follow in your footsteps. Whatever, I am not about to become the enabler for your grand delusions, they are harmful to you, and you would do better to go and get help irl than to just find some place to indulge your fantasies of genius while everyone just politely ignores how mad you are.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478253 time=1604339234 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478218 time=1604325884 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478189 time=1604309571 user_id=11800]

When you attempted actual problems you tried to derive ought from is by way of an uncertain conditional (see the "glue of logical necessity" thing above), and then you tried to fix the no true Scotsman thing by determining that there is indeed such a thing as a true Scotsman, somehow failing even at this pathetic task.

We don't need to worry about you ever having fans, or being adept at philosophy. We should stick to worrying about your mental state, which is unhealthy.
[/quote]

First, shut the fuck up about me, you don't know me.
Second, you've entirely, and apparently intentionally, misread everything you've disagreed with.
Third, you're entirely off topic.

It's hard to say which is the worst sin.

At this point it occurs to me that you've said exactly nothing about the original post and i'm going to ask to have you removed from this forum.
[/quote]
I only need to observe one obvious fact about you, nothing else about you interests me in any way.

I haven't misread shit. I accurately summarised the problem with your derivative and worthless is-ought solution, and your Scotsman thing is also as I described, both in the fallacious reasoning which led you to attack the wrong question, and the shitness with which you carried out that mistaken task. Understanding any of that is demonstrably beyond your talent, which is really why I don't bother much with your content.

I am not off topic. You asked how we recognize and prevent logical fallacies and unwarranted belief in ourselves, no? You need to start with an understanding that nobody in the universe is actually as capable as you are claiming to be.

I'm sure other pissants have demanded I be excluded from this forum, and I'm sure others will follow in your footsteps. Whatever, I am not about to become the enabler for your grand delusions, they are harmful to you, and you would do better to go and get help irl than to just find some place to indulge your fantasies of genius while everyone just politely ignores how mad you are.
[/quote]

This isn't just why philosophy goes nowhere, it's why humanity goes nowhere.

[FlashDangerpants]

This isn't just why philosophy goes nowhere, it's why humanity goes nowhere.

Well something's going nowhere. When you say I don't know you, I knew enough to be able to predict that you couldn't maintain that little show of humility in the OP and would be back to boasting that you are the greatest philosopher there has ever been fairly quickly.