Promethean is a Commie

[Wizard22]

How can a conclusion follow from premises if the premises are not, and can never be, real?

[FlashDangerpants]

How can a conclusion follow from premises if the premises are not, and can never be, real?

Is that a hypothetical question?

[Wizard22]

Is that a hypothetical question?

Is that a twice-defrondled hibbleham?

[FlashDangerpants]

You are just confirming how accurate my predictive powers were when I wrote "his vanity tells him he can totally bullshit his way out of any tricky position, the need for which comes from the excess of pride that won't allow him to use the word oops in situations where it is obviously the right choice for the sane."

Just accept you made a small mistake about some terminology some weeks ago. You don't need to double-down like a psycho.

[Wizard22]

You are just confirming how accurate my predictive powers were when I wrote "his vanity tells him he can totally bullshit his way out of any tricky position, the need for which comes from the excess of pride that won't allow him to use the word oops in situations where it is obviously the right choice for the sane."

Just accept you made a small mistake about some terminology some weeks ago. You don't need to double-down like a psycho.

Incorrect.

If premises are not real, and are "purely hypothetical and deductive", then the conclusion cannot follow in reality.

Therefore it is invalid, like much of your "logic".

[Iwannaplato]

You are just confirming how accurate my predictive powers were when I wrote "his vanity tells him he can totally bullshit his way out of any tricky position, the need for which comes from the excess of pride that won't allow him to use the word oops in situations where it is obviously the right choice for the sane."

Just accept you made a small mistake about some terminology some weeks ago. You don't need to double-down like a psycho.

I think we have to look at his communication as a slightly different form of English. I posted something extremely similar to him, then went back to pointing out his error. Finally I just posted with sarcasm, how impossible it was for him to have made the error. And he enjoyed joining in my 'shock' that anyone could think he made an error. It was slightly charming, yet part of the utter inability to admit even tiny non-essential errors.

IOW he could admit the mistake, without suddenly having to admit his political or philosophical positions are or might be wrong. But he was treating such an admission as a giving up a core value or understanding or sense of himself. (I'm sure this is all pretty obvious to you).

So, I chose to treat some of his evasion as an admission, perhaps especially the partly charming part.

We're not going to get the admission. The fragility is way too problematic for him.

So, I suggest you simply decode the mental gymnastics as an admission on his part. Much as one might interpret a Japanese businessman changing the subject as him saying 'No, not interested.' The Japanese business man is perhaps saving face for you: the motives are different. But what does not seem like a clear No is to any other Japanese businessman and utterly clear, perhaps even crass NO. You missed the earlier even more subtle request to never bring this topic up again.

In Wizardese, that language, he's admitted his error.

Time to move on.

(I know 'charming' may seem like a stretch)

[promethean75]

I have an idea. We can represent the hibbleham syllogism with notation and then see if it makes any more sense to The Wiz.

Let 'hibblehams' be X
Let 'twice defrondled' be Y
Let 'this' be Z

All hibblemans are twice defrondled. This is a hibbleham, therefore it is twice defrondled.

1) All Xs are Y
2) Z is an X
3) Therefore Z is Y

Okay look at the notational argument, Wiz. Forget about the one above it for a sec. See how it logically follows that if 1 and 2 are true, 3 must also be true?

That's what is meant by logically 'valid'. The form of the argument is correct; it's a logically valid argument.

BUT, that doesn't make it a 'sound' argument. That's another matter that has nothing to do with whether or not the argument is valid.

A sound argument must be valid, but a valid argument doesn't have to be sound.

You got it now? If so, u fuckin rock, dude!

[FlashDangerpants]

You are just confirming how accurate my predictive powers were when I wrote "his vanity tells him he can totally bullshit his way out of any tricky position, the need for which comes from the excess of pride that won't allow him to use the word oops in situations where it is obviously the right choice for the sane."

Just accept you made a small mistake about some terminology some weeks ago. You don't need to double-down like a psycho.

Incorrect.

If premises are not real, and are "purely hypothetical and deductive", then the conclusion cannot follow in reality.

Therefore it is invalid, like much of your "logic".

You can't win here, what validity and soundness mean is well established. So why are you unable to recognise an error?

[FlashDangerpants]

I have an idea. We can represent the hibbleham syllogism with notation and then see if it makes any more sense to The Wiz.

I think that's the wrong end of the problem, he's up to speed on that stuff now but it threatens him. He's riding a train of perfect victory in his own head, being wrong and getting disrespected as imperfect is what turns that into a scary rollercoaster.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are just confirming how accurate my predictive powers were when I wrote "his vanity tells him he can totally bullshit his way out of any tricky position, the need for which comes from the excess of pride that won't allow him to use the word oops in situations where it is obviously the right choice for the sane."

Just accept you made a small mistake about some terminology some weeks ago. You don't need to double-down like a psycho.

I think we have to look at his communication as a slightly different form of English. I posted something extremely similar to him, then went back to pointing out his error. Finally I just posted with sarcasm, how impossible it was for him to have made the error. And he enjoyed joining in my 'shock' that anyone could think he made an error. It was slightly charming, yet part of the utter inability to admit even tiny non-essential errors.

I saw that and I really couldn't tell whether he picked up on the sarcasm or not. Perhaps he was half-joking again.

IOW he could admit the mistake, without suddenly having to admit his political or philosophical positions are or might be wrong. But he was treating such an admission as a giving up a core value or understanding or sense of himself. (I'm sure this is all pretty obvious to you).

That's fun, but it's an elaborate masquerade where you can fool yourself that you have gotten through to the nutter and that he's learned his error, while he can take away whatever prideful fantasy he chooses to construct. For somebody who under it all is nice like Age, I can do those things very occasionally. But Whizzy is a nazi under it all, so fuck Whizzy.

So, I chose to treat some of his evasion as an admission, perhaps especially the partly charming part.

We're not going to get the admission. The fragility is way too problematic for him.

So, I suggest you simply decode the mental gymnastics as an admission on his part. Much as one might interpret a Japanese businessman changing the subject as him saying 'No, not interested.' The Japanese business man is perhaps saving face for you: the motives are different. But what does not seem like a clear No is to any other Japanese businessman and utterly clear, perhaps even crass NO. You missed the earlier even more subtle request to never bring this topic up again.

In Wizardese, that language, he's admitted his error.

Time to move on.

(I know 'charming' may seem like a stretch)

Or .... and hear me out here. This is by no means Gandalf's first stupid pile of such bullshit, but it is extremely simple and a nice clear way to establish his behavioral patterns. But he's done it before and will do it all over again.

For instance, I asked him who his favourite philosopher was once, he said George Berkeley, I asked him why, he described Locke's theory of perception because he can't tell the one philosopher from the other. His philosophical education appears to be one of those histories of Western philosophy, half read, probably 20 years ago. But he went to town with the same double-down as here, claiming to be the only person in the world who understands Berkely and coincidentally that Berkely was actuall arguing that Locke was RIGHT about everything, and also that berkely wasn't an idealist. It was very much like when VA tries to be the only person who's ever read Kant, and a similarly idiotic boast.

So this is now GrandWizzard's No True Scotsman thread. Foir years, whenever I feel like giving Advocate a beatdown, the shorthand way to do it is to remind him of his NTS thread. If I ever feel like beating up on JohnDoe7, I have his Pyramids thread where he claimed to measure electrical signals using dowsing rods and then declared witchcraft and science to be the same thing. Gandalf the KKK has this thread where he stupidly upgraded a trivial error into a full on Waterloo.

[Iwannaplato]

That's fun, but it's an elaborate masquerade where you can fool yourself that you have gotten through to the nutter and that he's learned his error, while he can take away whatever prideful fantasy he chooses to construct. For somebody who under it all is nice like Age, I can do those things very occasionally. But Whizzy is a nazi under it all, so fuck Whizzy.

Well, I was being a bit facetious also, gossiping in front of him. I haven't followed your latest interaction with him, but in mine, I think he knows, but couldn't admit it. I might be wrong, but then, it doesn't matter much.

Or .... and hear me out here. This is by no means Gandalf's first stupid pile of such bullshit, but it is extremely simple and a nice clear way to establish his behavioral patterns. But he's done it before and will do it all over again.

For instance, I asked him who his favourite philosopher was once, he said George Berkeley, I asked him why, he described Locke's theory of perception because he can't tell the one philosopher from the other. His philosophical education appears to be one of those histories of Western philosophy, half read, probably 20 years ago. But he went to town with the same double-down as here, claiming to be the only person in the world who understands Berkely and coincidentally that Berkely was actuall arguing that Locke was RIGHT about everything, and also that berkely wasn't an idealist. It was very much like when VA tries to be the only person who's ever read Kant, and a similarly idiotic boast.

It's funny. It takes cleverness and energy to not admit things. He might even learn something about how to not admit things. Might help him with the police or in court some day. But what a relief to find that admitted....OH, right, Locke not Berkley....doesn't end up with some life crushing defeat. How sad to never feel that relief.

So this is now GrandWizzard's No True Scotsman thread. Foir years, whenever I feel like giving Advocate a beatdown, the shorthand way to do it is to remind him of his NTS thread. If I ever feel like beating up on JohnDoe7, I have his Pyramids thread where he claimed to measure electrical signals using dowsing rods and then declared witchcraft and science to be the same thing. Gandalf the KKK has this thread where he stupidly upgraded a trivial error into a full on Waterloo.

It might be a good assignment for a philosopher professor. Demand his or her students go online, join a philosophy forum, choose a ridiculous position and defend the shit out of it like they are defending their lives (with reason, that is). Then print out the thread for in class group analysis.

But yet, denying errors, would not get a good grade on the assignment. At least not from me. I suppose if he explained how Berkley was essentially Locke. I mean justified it with reference to B's texts, that could rise to a decent exercise.

[Wizard22]

1. Purely logical and abstract deductions, based on hypotheticals only, is a different standard of measurement of rationality than applying that same 'logic' to reality. Prom introduced a good argument and point: twice defrondled hibblehams. You can say his statements are true (which constitutes a sound argument). You can say his argument is valid, based on logical deduction alone, insofar as twice defrondled hibblehams are real objects and terms relating to the real-world. However, if they do not refer to the real world, and are complete nonsense (as I presumed at the onset), then it is true that the conclusion cannot follow from the premises, because twice defrondled hibblehams are not real, and cannot ever be real. Therefore, I concluded, that his argument was invalid. However, I said it was a 'sound' argument based on the possibility that twice defrondled hibblehams may yet be real, if they can be argued further and defined, in which case the overall argument would hold, validly, truely, and soundly.

2. IIRC, my argument on behalf of Berkeley were his insights into Perception and Subjectivism. I can't remember all those arguments immediately, but FlashDpants regularly skips-over critical points, fails to read what I actually write, and routinely defaults to Ad Hom attacks, this thread included. If he were Literate, then he would know, that Berkeley is not "my favorite" philosopher, but definitely in the top 25 contention. I favor Platonism, Aristotle, Kant, Realists, and Existentialists. Locke is neither here-nor-there.

3. Nazi means National-Socialist Germanic Racialism. I am none of those things, well only 49% "Germanic" I suppose... I do not care one way or the other for the state of Yisrael. I do not care if Jews stay alive for 1000 years, or are viciously expelled and genocided. I do not have FlashDpant's emotional attachment to the subject, hence he is projecting his own fear on the matter. My focus is on Philosophy. I can criticize "God's So-called Self-appointed Chosen Ones" if I want to. Nobody is immune from criticism in philosophy, least of all the Jewish race and religion. FlashDpants falsely identifies and construes this fact as "Hate" and "Anti-semitism". Wrong, I can identify a biological parasite, a Wasp laying eggs inside of a caterpillar...that doesn't mean I "Hate" the Wasp or sympathize with the caterpillar. It means that I suppress my antipathy and sympathy, something which Dpants is unable to do, hence why he is so emotionally-clouded.

4. Can I admit to mistakes? Privately, maybe. Publicly, no. That's not how debate and argumentation work. And if I'm wrong, then it should be easy to prove and quote. So have at it.

[Harbal]

Berkeley is not "my favorite" philosopher, but definitely in the top 25 contention. I favor Platonism, Aristotle, Kant, Realists, and Existentialists. Locke is neither here-nor-there.

The thought of someone having a favourite philosopher almost makes me laugh, but the thought of their having a top 25 almost makes me unable to stop. I know that sort of thing can't be unusual among the members of a philosophy forum, and it probably wouldn't seem quite so funny if it weren't you.

[FlashDangerpants]

4. Can I admit to mistakes? Privately, maybe. Publicly, no. That's not how debate and argumentation work. And if I'm wrong, then it should be easy to prove and quote. So have at it.

Well that's QED for what we've been saying really. You've been trying to bullshit your way out of a trivial mistake when a sane person would have just said "oops". You are a dribbling loon. There is nobody dumb enough to buy your nonsense.


And for the avoidance of doubt, would you please be so kind as to tell us which parts of this nazi rant are "half-joking"?

I do not care if Jews stay alive for 1000 years, or are viciously expelled and genocided. I do not have FlashDpant's emotional attachment to the subject, hence he is projecting his own fear on the matter. My focus is on Philosophy. I can criticize "God's So-called Self-appointed Chosen Ones" if I want to. Nobody is immune from criticism in philosophy, least of all the Jewish race and religion. FlashDpants falsely identifies and construes this fact as "Hate" and "Anti-semitism". Wrong, I can identify a biological parasite, a Wasp laying eggs inside of a caterpillar...that doesn't mean I "Hate" the Wasp or sympathize with the caterpillar. It means that I suppress my antipathy and sympathy, something which Dpants is unable to do, hence why he is so emotionally-clouded.

[Wizard22]

Considering how poorly you argue, and how emotional you are, it's easy to see how you don't know when conclusions can follow from premises, especially when it comes to twice defrondled hibblehams. The fact that you constantly dodge, what should be easy questions, demonstrates that you cannot win "easy" arguments, even when handed to you.