Philosophy undermines truth

[Age]

What are your thoughts on Carl Jung?

My thoughts are that synchronicity (which when viewed through the lens of computer science is just agreement at some point in time) is highly desirable. Without it the consensus theory of truth collapses and you get to eternally argue over words.

Too bad philosophers are such a disagreeable bunch.

SO, when 'you' are disagreeing "skepdick", then what does this make 'you', if not 'a philosopher'?

So we have no choice but to praise scientists as the bastion of consensus.

They aren't perfect, mind you - but they are a far lesser filth than philosophers.

And WHERE, EXACTLY, to 'you', do "policemen" SIT along the spectrum of FILTH, compared to the "other" two here?

[Age]

If you're looking for agreement, then philosophy might be the wrong arena for it.

I know

Which is why I am vehemently anti-philosophy. Disagreement is lame, formulaic and epistemically lazy.

Yet if one were to look back over this forum how much ACTUAL AGREEMENT from you would be SEEN?

Still. When in Rome...fuck the Romans.

[Skepdick]

If you're looking for agreement, then philosophy might be the wrong arena for it.

I know

Which is why I am vehemently anti-philosophy. Disagreement is lame, formulaic and epistemically lazy.

Yet if one were to look back over this forum how much ACTUAL AGREEMENT from you would be SEEN?

Still. When in Rome...fuck the Romans.

How exactly does one agree with people whose default psychological bias is to disagree?

The game is rigged. The only winning strategy is to not play (by their rules).

[Age]

I know

Which is why I am vehemently anti-philosophy. Disagreement is lame, formulaic and epistemically lazy.

Yet if one were to look back over this forum how much ACTUAL AGREEMENT from you would be SEEN?

Still. When in Rome...fuck the Romans.

How exactly does one agree with people whose default psychological bias is to disagree?

As I was saying,
if one were to look back over this forum how much ACTUAL AGREEMENT from you would be SEEN...

your WHOLE 'psychological bias' here is to DISAGREE correct "skepdick?
'

The game is rigged. The only winning strategy is to not play (by their rules).

And what are the supposed ' their rules' here EXACTLY?

[Skepdick]

Yet if one were to look back over this forum how much ACTUAL AGREEMENT from you would be SEEN?

How exactly does one agree with people whose default psychological bias is to disagree?

As I was saying,
if one were to look back over this forum how much ACTUAL AGREEMENT from you would be SEEN...

your WHOLE 'psychological bias' here is to DISAGREE correct "skepdick?

Which part of my question confused you? And if you aren't confused then why didn't you answer it?
'

[Iwannaplato]

un-undermined truth

[Age]

How exactly does one agree with people whose default psychological bias is to disagree?

As I was saying,
if one were to look back over this forum how much ACTUAL AGREEMENT from you would be SEEN...

your WHOLE 'psychological bias' here is to DISAGREE correct "skepdick?

Which part of my question confused you? And if you aren't confused then why didn't you answer it?
'

Well considering the ACTUAL Fact that it is 'you' "skepdick" who is the one whose default psychological bias is to disagree, as PROVED True ALREADY from this forum, then it would be best if 'you' informed 'us' how 'we' could agree with 'you'. And do NOT FORGET that some of what 'you' SAY and CLAIM IS Truly ABSURD and/or ILLOGICAL.

[Skepdick]

Well considering the ACTUAL Fact that it is 'you' "skepdick" who is the one whose default psychological bias is to disagree, as PROVED True ALREADY from this forum, then it would be best if 'you' informed 'us' how 'we' could agree with 'you'. And do NOT FORGET that some of what 'you' SAY and CLAIM IS Truly ABSURD and/or ILLOGICAL.

Q.E.D

You've mistaken the forum's bias for my own.

If you disagree with a true assertion on the grounds that it's absurd (but true) or illogical (but true), then you are a fucking idiot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

[Skepdick]

un-undermined truth

Yeah, them adjectives! How the fuck do they work?

A determined truth is just as true as an undetermined truth.

[Age]

Well considering the ACTUAL Fact that it is 'you' "skepdick" who is the one whose default psychological bias is to disagree, as PROVED True ALREADY from this forum, then it would be best if 'you' informed 'us' how 'we' could agree with 'you'. And do NOT FORGET that some of what 'you' SAY and CLAIM IS Truly ABSURD and/or ILLOGICAL.

Q.E.D

You've mistaken the forum's bias for my own.

Have I?

If yes, then WHEN and HOW, EXACTLY?

If you disagree with a true assertion on the grounds that it's absurd (but true) or illogical (but true), then you are a fucking idiot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

And if you disagree for the same reasons, then you are what you would call a 'fucking idiot', as well.

HOWEVER, absolutely NONE of 'this' has absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL to do with what I was ACTUALLY POINTING OUT and SHOWING previously.

[Skepdick]

Well considering the ACTUAL Fact that it is 'you' "skepdick" who is the one whose default psychological bias is to disagree, as PROVED True ALREADY from this forum, then it would be best if 'you' informed 'us' how 'we' could agree with 'you'. And do NOT FORGET that some of what 'you' SAY and CLAIM IS Truly ABSURD and/or ILLOGICAL.

Q.E.D

You've mistaken the forum's bias for my own.

Have I?

If yes, then WHEN and HOW, EXACTLY?

I don't understand why you are asking the question when the answer to it is quoted above.

When? On Friday, May 26, 2023 11:04:45 PM GMT (as per post ID 644323)
How? Only you know.

And if you disagree for the same reasons, then you are what you would call a 'fucking idiot', as well.

Yeah. If.

HOWEVER, absolutely NONE of 'this' has absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL to do with what I was ACTUALLY POINTING OUT and SHOWING previously.

So the fact that you were pointing wrong has nothing to do with you pointing?

[Age]

Q.E.D

You've mistaken the forum's bias for my own.

Have I?

If yes, then WHEN and HOW, EXACTLY?

I don't understand why you are asking the question when the answer to it is quoted above.

When? On Friday, May 26, 2023 11:04:45 PM GMT (as per post ID 644323)
How? Only you know.

BUT there is NOTHING 'mistaken' in that quote.

But, if you want to PERSIST and CLAIM that there IS, then it will have to be up to you to SHOW HOW, EXACTLY.

And if you disagree for the same reasons, then you are what you would call a 'fucking idiot', as well.

Yeah. If.

HOWEVER, absolutely NONE of 'this' has absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL to do with what I was ACTUALLY POINTING OUT and SHOWING previously.

So the fact that you were pointing wrong has nothing to do with you pointing?

LOL

Here we have YET ANOTHER example of this one who CONTINUALLY TWISTS and DISTORTS what the "other" SAID and MEANT, and then 'TRIES' 'its' hardest to TRICK and/or FOOL "others" INTO BELIEVING such 'things' were SAID and MEANT.

This kind of ATTEMPTING TO DETRACT was a VERY COMMON TRAIT with this one. As can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout its writings here

[Gary Childress]

But considering that I was NOT saying NOR meaning 'this' here, WHY 'you' are seemingly being 'driven crazy' now, must be for some OTHER reason.

Then What were/are you saying or meaning?

If it were NOT for adult human beings, then life would be much better for children, 'right now', when this is being written.

1. Is this what you were/are saying or meaning in your statements above?

2. And if so, how remarkably different is your clarification above from the way I interpreted your remark prior to this clarification?

3. Do you think the statement you made (bolded and enlarged above) is entirely 100% true? And if it is not 100% true, does that make you somehow remarkably better or more enlightened than the rest of us or behaving remarkably better or in a more enlightened way than the rest of us?

[Age]

Then What were/are you saying or meaning?

If it were NOT for adult human beings, then life would be much better for children, 'right now', when this is being written.

1. Is this what you were/are saying or meaning in your statements above?

Yes

2. And if so, how remarkably different is your clarification above from the way I interpreted your remark prior to this clarification?

VERY REMARKABLY DIFFERENT.

you wrote:
literally saying "if it weren't for you all, life would be wonderful for me right now".

1. 'me' is NOT 'children'.

2. 'wonderful' is NOT 'better', NOR 'much better'.

3. you even USED the 'literally' word here, which MAKES the ACTUAL DIFFERENCES above even MORE REMARKABLE.

3. Do you think the statement you made (bolded and enlarged above) is entirely 100% true?

YES.

And if it is not 100% true, does that make you somehow remarkably better or more enlightened than the rest of us or behaving remarkably better or in a more enlightened way than the rest of us?

Moot

[Gary Childress]

If it were NOT for adult human beings, then life would be much better for children, 'right now', when this is being written.

1. Is this what you were/are saying or meaning in your statements above?

Yes

2. And if so, how remarkably different is your clarification above from the way I interpreted your remark prior to this clarification?

VERY REMARKABLY DIFFERENT.

you wrote:
literally saying "if it weren't for you all, life would be wonderful for me right now".

1. 'me' is NOT 'children'.

2. 'wonderful' is NOT 'better', NOR 'much better'.

3. you even USED the 'literally' word here, which MAKES the ACTUAL DIFFERENCES above even MORE REMARKABLE.

3. Do you think the statement you made (bolded and enlarged above) is entirely 100% true?

YES.

And if it is not 100% true, does that make you somehow remarkably better or more enlightened than the rest of us or behaving remarkably better or in a more enlightened way than the rest of us?

Moot

Do "adult human beings" ever do anything to help children live better lives?