Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 2:59 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 11:00 am
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 1:43 am
My position stands. Neither you or anyone has refuted any portion of it with anything other than logical fallacies and "Nuh-uh."
First, your OP is a very incomplete argument. It is primarily a batch of assertions. Then, any number of people have pointed out that you don't even meet your own idiosyncratic criteria for ownership. Your being the best philosopher has not been remotely demonstrated and the majority of your philosophizings is starting thread with pithy OPs that are assertions. That is, opinions. You expect people to refute what you haven't justified. Though they often do spent the time to do this, anyway. You're contradictions around ownership have been pointed out. You own thing/people that others own.
You seem to think that the best philosopher is someone, you, who hasn't convinced anyone of anything, who confuses assertions with arguments, who draws conclusions on very limited information - I mean, if you could be the best philosopher in the world and no one knows about your or respects your conclusions, then there could be any number of people like you who you haven't heard of - who is one of the many declaring victory and greatness types.
If you have to keep telling people you are the best, you aren't,
As i just pointed out, you've refuted nothing in my argument. a all my contentions remain True, deal with it.
A batch of assettions which cross-support one another is a complete argument and no argument need be exhaustive to be good. STFU with that apparent but not actual disagreement. Other than "No you're not!", which is an emotional, not a rational point, you've said nothing of consequence.
BUT 'you' have NOT so-called 'cross supported' ANY 'thing' here, soundly AND validly.
However, in that head there 'you' have CROSS SUPPORTED ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing', SOUND, VALIDLY, and IRREFUTABLY, right?
Also, let us NOT FORGET that for absolutely ANY 'thing' to be ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE, then that 'thing' HAS TO BE ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE TO ABSOLUTELY EVERY one, and NOT just 'one' ALONE.
'you' are AWARE, right, "advocate" that just about EVERY 'thing' 'you' SAY and CLAIM here, if NOT EVERY 'thing', IS IRREFUTABLE, but 'you', however, are UNABLE TO SEE and RECOGNIZE 'this Fact' BECAUSE of 'your' OWN BELIEFS, which absolutely NO one here AGREES WITH NOR ACCEPTS.
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 2:59 pm
A bunch of people have utterly ignored the distinction of kinds of ownership i clearly draw.
There is NO NEED TO, and this is just BECAUSE there is NO KIND OF valid AND sound 'ownership', which could be APPLIED to the Universe, Itself, from the perspective of ANY one 'human being'. AND, being the so-called "best philosopher", or not, would NOT have a single, solitary bearing ON 'this'.
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 2:59 pm
Not one has addressed it ingenuously, not one, not you, not now, not here.
BECAUSE SOME CLAIMS are NOT even WORTHY OF being ADDRESSED.
AND, KNOWING, FOR SURE, that a 'self-proclaimed' "best philosopher" would NOT even ACCEPT ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' AGAINST 'it', MEANS that there would be NO USE IN ADDRESSING 'it' ANYWAY, 'ingenuously' or not.
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 2:59 pm
Actual ownership and legal ownership may be shared just like legitimate ownership, so you've said exactly nothing with "you own things/people that others own.". You don't understand the point your trying to review, which proves (proof = an evidentiary basis that sufficiently addresses all meaningful objections) you're not attempting to.
ABSOLUTELY ANY CLAIM by ANY 'human being' that ANY one solitary 'human being' who is ONLY 'around' for a relatively NOTHING 'period of time' could OWN some 'thing' like the Universe is just ABSURDITY TO THE EXTREME.
AND, IGNORING 'these types of CLAIMS' is what ALL would be BEST OFF DOING.
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 2:59 pm
I've said what i believe the best philosopher is in exquisite detail and it's not any of what you just said i said.
ALL of what 'you' SAID 'you' BELIEVE the so-called "best philosopher" IS in, ACTUAL, 'detail' is just 'you'.
JUST IMAGINING that there even COULD BE a so-called "best philosopher" is INSANITY, AGAIN, IN THE EXTREME. And, for 'one' to IMAGINE that 'it' IS 'them', just REINFORCES the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS EXTREME INSANITY here.
But, OBVIOUSLY, 'you' could NOT SEE the INSANITY here, right?
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 2:59 pm
You're not being rational or fair, so you may safely be disregarded, like most people here.
HOWEVER, WHEN "others" SAY, ' 'you', "advocate", are NOT being rational, so 'you' may safely be disregarded ', then WHY is 'this' NOT ACCEPTABLE TO 'you, BUT WHEN 'you' SAY, 'the same' TO "others", then 'that' SHOULD BE ACCEPTED?
Like MOST here ACCEPT, what 'you', "advocate", SAY in 'your' opening post here 'you' are CERTAINLY NOT being 'rational'.
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 2:59 pm
Being accepted or successful are unrelated to being good, for a person or a philosophy.
If 'you' SAY SO.