Philosophy Now Forum

I keep telling you I have never made any semantic argument. You failure to see that is indicative of your failure to understand basic English.

I even went to the trouble of repeating myself twice. I can only conclude, by your persistent refusal to play ball, that you are doing this for attention.

i see that your "semantic argument"-talking was your last of many rhetorical moves to avoid answering my questions and to start talking about your own words and my english.

you should rest now if you are so tired. you did well. only twice less than i repeated mine and even your own words to you. you should have a medal. and playing lots of wrong balls are funny to watch but not to play. thank you anyway for you offerings. at least i have learned basic name-callings. thanks. most funniest part was when you criticized your own talking about false premises thinking. thanks.

Mad as a brush!

So Anders is in jail and no aetixintro. Who was batman?

(joking!!!!!!!)

I'll stand by those words and still call you mad as a brush.

One thing is for sure Aetixintro and Breivik have never been seen together in public!

care to share your reasons?

No.
Maybe you should ask another person to review our exchanges and let you know what s/he thinks?

Chaz I thought your tolerance admirable.

I've been playing verbal tennis with MQ since early August. I'm not sure if it is tolerance. But I am just fed up with making points, and him replying to other things, and when I deal with those he still refuses, or is unable to figure out what I am telling him. Either he is avoiding questions that challenge him; that he does not like; that he doe not understand; that he cannot answer; or whatever - I just don't care to go down the same road that I have with his doppleganger - Typist.
Life is too short.
If anyone else wants the argument with him then they are welcome; OR if he gets back to the point I'll answer him.

that sounds logical. i give you that. criticizing your self seems to be the pattern. mq with many faces like wootah, your self and a straw man? maybe its some kind of tolerance. if shooting own legs is some kind of tolerance too. One thing is for sure, the way Hitler and Breivik think fulfils their own person logic and is far from 'false' in any meaningful sense. is that sentence fulfilling your logic? and typist is also far from 'false' in any meaningful sense? should we send "far from 'false'"-funeral flower messages to norway?

I'm not criticising myself. I'm criticising you you fucking moron.

But at least, after 3 weeks you finally got back on thread.

You are a prime example of fulfilling your own logic; a twisted one.
Hitler believed that it was the destiny of the German people to rule Europe; that they were a superior race and that he was going to prove it. Had he succeeded we would be living in a very different world. A world in which those things were self evidently true. Every action he took was the outward working of that philosophy. Nothing he did flew against those assumptions. Only a moron would dismiss him as false or evil - no one consciously does wrong. Hitler was no exception to the Socratic paradox.
None of this means that you have to agree with Hitler, Typist or Breivik. But what you do get from this is how to understand their ideas. This is a much better way to prevent them from happening again, than your trivial understanding which characterises them as false.
I don't think even you wake up one morning and say to yourself; " I think I am going to think falsely today!"
You can send flowers if you like. After all its not his fault if he is thinking false thoughts.
For me I choose to understand what the real problem is with him, and lock him away because he is determined to think in that way. As a determinist I'm interested in punishing the person, not the deed or the thought that generated it.

talking about trivial. have you interpreted so that some one in this forum had been talking against your trivial thinking in this case? why? who? where?

are you saying that you will not send any more "far from 'false'"-messages to any body, with or without flowers?

sounds like you know who did him thinking far from 'false' thoughts?

is that a trivial thing to do? understand others by using personal thinking?

and how would one punish the deed or the thought, not the "not his fault"-person?

I might have more patience with you, if you learned to use a bit of grammar. But here, like on the other thread, you have descended into gibberish.
Life is too short to waste time with you in this badinage.
Oh dear, it must be a day for 'unsubscribe."