On Apr 9, 5:18 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:
> On 4/9/12 11:29 AM, Boikat wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 1:20 pm, Syamsu<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> You fucking nerd asshole want to feed on facts, but this thread is
> >> about validating subjective opinion. If you support Ockham, you go on
> >> over to the free will wiki and press the "undo" button.
> > How do you "validate a subjective opinion"?
> You call people who disagree with you "fucking assholes" and threaten to
> kill them. I'm sure Ockham must have explained that somewhere.
That would make an Art Appreciation class interesting:
"The Mona Lisa, one of the most beautiful portraits ever painted..."
"Lying fucking asshole! She has no eyebrows! I should kill you!"
On Apr 10, 12:18 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:
> On 4/9/12 11:29 AM, Boikat wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 1:20 pm, Syamsu<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> You fucking nerd asshole want to feed on facts, but this thread is
> >> about validating subjective opinion. If you support Ockham, you go on
> >> over to the free will wiki and press the "undo" button.
> > How do you "validate a subjective opinion"?
> You call people who disagree with you "fucking assholes" and threaten to
> kill them. I'm sure Ockham must have explained that somewhere.
That's right Mark, the next thing for you in your life is death. After
your lying about the holocaust, and now lying about the way the agency
in a choice is addressed, your soul is empty, in my opinion, and you
just go through the motions until death. Mark as the owner of his
choices also no longer exists. As Ockham said, establishing the
existence of the owner of the decisions is a matter of subjective
opinion, and the choice turns out empty.
> On Apr 10, 12:18 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:
> > On 4/9/12 11:29 AM, Boikat wrote:
> > > On Apr 9, 1:20 pm, Syamsu<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > >> You fucking nerd asshole want to feed on facts, but this thread is
> > >> about validating subjective opinion. If you support Ockham, you go on
> > >> over to the free will wiki and press the "undo" button.
> > > How do you "validate a subjective opinion"?
> > You call people who disagree with you "fucking assholes" and threaten to
> > kill them. I'm sure Ockham must have explained that somewhere.
> That's right Mark, the next thing for you in your life is death. After
> your lying about the holocaust, and now lying about the way the agency
> in a choice is addressed, your soul is empty, in my opinion, and you
> just go through the motions until death. Mark as the owner of his
> choices also no longer exists. As Ockham said, establishing the
> existence of the owner of the decisions is a matter of subjective
> opinion, and the choice turns out empty.
You should probably take another self-imposed "time out" since you're
starting to display psychotic behaviour patterns again.
> uh fuck you asshole nerd liars. I get attention all the time because I
> approach people in a properly subjective way as the owner of their
> choices. Most of you are fucking nerd atheist liars in the atheist
> damned nation of the USA. Most of the people in the USA hate you
> atheist shitbags for what you have done to the country.
Tyramisu:
What "book" did you mean?
Instead of flailing about in the dark trying to insult me, why not
just tell me the source of your claim?
> On Apr 10, 12:18 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:
> > On 4/9/12 11:29 AM, Boikat wrote:
> > > On Apr 9, 1:20 pm, Syamsu<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > >> You fucking nerd asshole want to feed on facts, but this thread is
> > >> about validating subjective opinion. If you support Ockham, you go on
> > >> over to the free will wiki and press the "undo" button.
> > > How do you "validate a subjective opinion"?
> > You call people who disagree with you "fucking assholes" and threaten to
> > kill them. I'm sure Ockham must have explained that somewhere.
> That's right Mark, the next thing for you in your life is death. After
> your lying about the holocaust, and now lying about the way the agency
> in a choice is addressed, your soul is empty, in my opinion, and you
> just go through the motions until death. Mark as the owner of his
> choices also no longer exists. As Ockham said, establishing the
> existence of the owner of the decisions is a matter of subjective
> opinion, and the choice turns out empty.
Tyramisu:
Where did Ockham say that?
And, to what book do you refer in your other claim, the one I have
been patiently asking about?
> > > > >> >> >> > > On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 06:11:50 -0700, Syamsu wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > > > It only takes a click to undo the vandalism of Darwinist
> > > > >> >> >> > > > true believers.
> > > > >> >> >> > > You're asking us for a favor and begin by calling us "fucking
> > > > >> >> >> > > assholes"?
> > > > >> >> >> > > I think you've demonstrated (over and over and over and over
> > > > >> >> >> > > again) that it takes quite a bit more than a "click" to undo
> > > > >> >> >> > > a wikipedia edit. It also takes more than pages of text
> > > > >> >> >> > > repeating the same bad argument and it takes more than
> > > > >> >> >> > > "trying" to build consensus.
> > > > >> >> >> > > But you haven't --- and aren't able --- to learn this. If
> > > > >> >> >> > > you weren't banned you still be over there doing the same
> > > > >> >> >> > > unthinking, ineffective edits. Why? Because you don't have
> > > > >> >> >> > > free will, of course.
> > > > >> >> >> > > If you *did* have free will, you could stop and consider
> > > > >> >> >> > > another course of action. You could ask for advice,
> > > > >> >> >> > > determine where there was agreement, do additional research,
> > > > >> >> >> > > and most of all hold off on making further edits until at
> > > > >> >> >> > > least a few people agreed with you.
> > > > >> >> >> > > It's not that you're choosing to avoid all of that. You
> > > > >> >> >> > > *can't*
> > > > >> >> >> > > choose,
> > > > >> >> >> > > even when you see how ineffective your actions are.
> > > > >> >> >> > > That's not a philosophical problem. That's a (treatable!)
> > > > >> >> >> > > medical problem.
> > > > >> >> >> > I told you, go fuck yourself liar
> > > > >> >> >> and he is using his free will and disobeys your order!
> > > > >> >> >> How...shocking,
> > > > >> >> > Garamond knows he's fucking guilty, because the facts are obvious,
> > > > >> >> > and the honor of Ockham is at stake. It must mean Garamond is
> > > > >> >> > against freedom, what a fucking asshole, he should never be
> > > > >> >> > trusted.
> > > > >> >> On the contrary, I'm happy for you to babble here at t.o. and I
> > > > >> >> would oppose anyone who would try to curtail your freedom to do so.
> > > > >> >> You, on the other hand, want to curtail my ability to make edits at
> > > > >> >> wikipedia. You specifically requested that I be banned, remember?
> > > > >> >> But I don't think you have any great interest in the freedom of
> > > > >> >> anyone else. What you'd really prefer is the freedom to tyrannize
> > > > >> >> with impunity. Most competent people grow out of this phase.
> > > > >> > I don't want to see you posting liar.
> > > > >> You have the freedom to walk away, right?
> > > > >> And I have the freedom to keep posting.
> > > > >> Lovely thing, freedom....
> > > > > You're never going to convince me that you are not a liar,
> > > > Lucky for me that's not part of my year-end review.
> > > > > and the other
> > > > > evolutionists don't give a shit that you lied about Ockham.
> > > > Well, see, that's the funny thing. I've actually read Ockham, and his
> > > > ideas on free will *are* tied up with his ideas on the soul. And it
> > > > might just be that you'd find those ideas amenable to your position.
> > > > But since you don't know how to go about making a solid, persuasive
> > > > argument, you're stuck with repeating the same quote over and over
> > > > again. That's a bad argument (to the extent it can be called an argument
> > > > at all) and until you're willing to drop it you're not going to be
> > > > effective in persuading people that you're correct.
> > > > At this point I'd usually bring up a citation or two (_The Cambridge
> > > > Companion to Ockham_, perhaps) but reading Ockham isn't going to fix what
> > > > ails you.
> > > > > So fuck off
> > > > > with your ridiculous self-justification that Ockham said "something".
> > > > Ockham did indeed say something. You just haven't found what he said
> > > > about free will.
> > > You are behaving like a liar by seeking justification in Ockham's
> > > writings. A liar cannot see truth, you must express remorse for your
> > > lying, and right the wrong you did.
> > Eh? If a liar "can't see truth" then how does he or she know that he or she is lying? Get your epistemology right.
> Liars don't know, they only know the hatred of lying, and then they
> know nothing. Garamond Lethe as being the owner of his choices, in the
> way Ockham referred to it as a matter of faith and revelation, does
> not exist anymore. He says the question whether or not he exist as
> being such is false, that it is only a matter of objective fact that
> he exists, and not faith and revelation. And I acknowledge the
> validity of faith, and choose that he does not exist, and believe it
> with the strong faith that comes with being a muslim.
That is the point. If they don't "know", then how can they distinguish truth from falsity, and if they can't distinguish, then how can they choose to deliberately lie? Your argument doesn't make sense.
Of course, they could toss a coin, I suppose. But that would be "objective".
> >> I do feel sorry for Nando, despite him being so unpleasant sometimes.
> >> He must be a very lonely person.
> > uh fuck you asshole nerd liars. I get attention all the time because I
> > approach people in a properly subjective way as the owner of their
> > choices. Most of you are fucking nerd atheist liars in the atheist
> > damned nation of the USA. Most of the people in the USA hate you atheist
> > shitbags for what you have done to the country.
> > > >> You fucking nerd asshole want to feed on facts, but this thread is
> > > >> about validating subjective opinion. If you support Ockham, you go on
> > > >> over to the free will wiki and press the "undo" button.
> > > > How do you "validate a subjective opinion"?
> > > You call people who disagree with you "fucking assholes" and threaten to
> > > kill them. I'm sure Ockham must have explained that somewhere.
> > That's right Mark, the next thing for you in your life is death. After
> > your lying about the holocaust, and now lying about the way the agency
> > in a choice is addressed, your soul is empty, in my opinion, and you
> > just go through the motions until death. Mark as the owner of his
> > choices also no longer exists. As Ockham said, establishing the
> > existence of the owner of the decisions is a matter of subjective
> > opinion, and the choice turns out empty.
> Tyramisu:
> Where did Ockham say that?
> And, to what book do you refer in your other claim, the one I have
> been patiently asking about?
You have been fucking nerd idiot changing my name in your first post.
You are a fucking nerd asshole who doesn't know how to deal with
subjective opinions.
> You have been fucking nerd idiot changing my name in your first post.
> You are a fucking nerd asshole who doesn't know how to deal with
> subjective opinions.
Tyramisu:
You are free to voice any subjective opinion you need to foster the
tatters of your self-image.
Your subjective opinion is, however, just that: yours, and subjective,
As such, it does not bear any relationship to truth, or reality,
outside of the vagaries of chance.
You have behaved as a small, spoiled, child, bravely presuming upon
the anonymity of the internet to spew vituperation (and, Ooo! Using
such grown-up language!) hoping to obscure the point that you say
things that are not true, that can be demonstrated to be not true,
while calling others "liars".
You have told multiple lies about me, through ignorance.
You have told multiple lies about history and reality. I choose not to
speculate about why you have done so.
I have asked you for two things:
1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
I am interested in your demonstration that you are not simply a
careless, inventive liar.
On 10 apr, 13:35, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You have been fucking nerd idiot changing my name in your first post.
> > You are a fucking nerd asshole who doesn't know how to deal with
> > subjective opinions.
> Tyramisu:
> You are free to voice any subjective opinion you need to foster the
> tatters of your self-image.
> Your subjective opinion is, however, just that: yours, and subjective,
> As such, it does not bear any relationship to truth, or reality,
> outside of the vagaries of chance.
It applies to you as the owner of your choices. You as the owner of
your choices are a fucking asshole nerd.
> You have behaved as a small, spoiled, child, bravely presuming upon
> the anonymity of the internet to spew vituperation (and, Ooo! Using
> such grown-up language!) hoping to obscure the point that you say
> things that are not true, that can be demonstrated to be not true,
> while calling others "liars".
You fucking nerd shitbag.
> You have told multiple lies about me, through ignorance.
Your decision not to chang the free will wiki, together with your
smarmy nerdness to ask for evidence in a thread about subjective
opinion, fully validates the opinion, that you are a fucking nerd
asshole.
> You have told multiple lies about history and reality. I choose not to
> speculate about why you have done so.
You are a liar yourself obvious, I have not told any lies.
> I have asked you for two things:
> 1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
> 2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
> the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
Go fuck yourself nerd.
> I am interested in your demonstration that you are not simply a
> careless, inventive liar.
I am interested in cussing out a fucking nerd liar.
> > > You have been fucking nerd idiot changing my name in your first post.
> > > You are a fucking nerd asshole who doesn't know how to deal with
> > > subjective opinions.
> > Tyramisu:
> > You are free to voice any subjective opinion you need to foster the
> > tatters of your self-image.
> > Your subjective opinion is, however, just that: yours, and subjective,
> > As such, it does not bear any relationship to truth, or reality,
> > outside of the vagaries of chance.
> It applies to you as the owner of your choices. You as the owner of
> your choices are a fucking asshole nerd.
What does this sentence mean? More to the point, what do you think it
means?
> > You have behaved as a small, spoiled, child, bravely presuming upon
> > the anonymity of the internet to spew vituperation (and, Ooo! Using
> > such grown-up language!) hoping to obscure the point that you say
> > things that are not true, that can be demonstrated to be not true,
> > while calling others "liars".
> You fucking nerd shitbag.
Ooo! Such plangent discourse!
> > You have told multiple lies about me, through ignorance.
> Your decision not to chang the free will wiki, together with your
> smarmy nerdness to ask for evidence in a thread about subjective
> opinion, fully validates the opinion, that you are a fucking nerd
> asshole.
Wait--you mean there isn't a book? Ockham did not say what you said
he said? The cake is a lie?
> > You have told multiple lies about history and reality. I choose not to
> > speculate about why you have done so.
> You are a liar yourself obvious, I have not told any lies.
-What "book"?
-Where did Okham say, ."..establishing the
existence of the owner of the decisions is a matter of subjective
opinion"?
-Your take on the reasons you got suspended.
-And, parenthetically, every single thing you have said about me
(other than the fact that I refer to by an alteration of your name).
You could start showing me that you are not a liar by addressing these
issues.
> > I have asked you for two things:
> > 1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
> > 2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
> > the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
> Go fuck yourself nerd.
Ooo! Such bravery! Such intellectual rigor! Such studliness!
> > I am interested in your demonstration that you are not simply a
> > careless, inventive liar.
> I am interested in cussing out a fucking nerd liar.
That's sweet, and it explains the amount of time you must spend
yowling at reflective surfaces...and, co-incidentally, defines the
upper limits of your intellectual ability.
It would probably be more effective if you had any idea what any of
the words you use mean.
Once again:
1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
On 10 apr, 14:38, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tyramisu: In extremis, you become tedious.
> > It applies to you as the owner of your choices. You as the owner of
> > your choices are a fucking asshole nerd.
> What does this sentence mean? More to the point, what do you think it
> means?
As I said, the fucking asshole nerd doesn't understand subjective
opinion.
>>>> You are one of those smarmy assholes from school and university who
>>>> insists on evidence for arriving at a conclusion, and does not support
>>>> subjective opinion. You fucking nerd asshole.
>>> That's priceless.
>> I suppose we are privileged to get a glimpse of an insight in Nando's
>> history there.
>> We can imagine what his fellow students may have thought of him.
>> I do feel sorry for Nando, despite him being so unpleasant sometimes. He
>> must be a very lonely person.
> uh fuck you asshole nerd liars. I get attention all the time because I
> approach people in a properly subjective way as the owner of their
> choices. Most of you are fucking nerd atheist liars in the atheist
> damned nation of the USA.
Here is is asserted that the USA is an atheist nation. Could that mean a negligible number of people in the USA are believers?
> Most of the people in the USA hate you
> atheist shitbags for what you have done to the country.
Yet here it is asserted that most people in an atheist nation hate atheists. Could that mean atheists hate themselves?
On Apr 10, 6:54 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 10 apr, 14:38, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Tyramisu: In extremis, you become tedious.
> > > It applies to you as the owner of your choices. You as the owner of
> > > your choices are a fucking asshole nerd.
> > What does this sentence mean? More to the point, what do you think it
> > means?
> As I said, the fucking asshole nerd doesn't understand subjective
> opinion.
So, what you mean is, "In my opinion, this person is a 'fucking
asshole nerd', and because it is my opinion, it needs no
correspondence to reality at any point"?
If that were true, why is it a problem that your chosen form of self-
expression, reminiscent of caged adolescent simians, has been removed
form the Free Will wiki? Isn't that just a "subjective opinion", too?
For that matter, how can you use the word "lie" when your opinions
share no orthographic map with demonstrable reality? If everything is
subjective, how can anything be a lie?
You have still failed to answer any actual questions.
You have still failed to demonstrate where I have told a lie.
I reiterate:
1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
> On Apr 10, 6:54 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 10 apr, 14:38, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Tyramisu: In extremis, you become tedious.
> > > > It applies to you as the owner of your choices. You as the owner of
> > > > your choices are a fucking asshole nerd.
> > > What does this sentence mean? More to the point, what do you think it
> > > means?
> > As I said, the fucking asshole nerd doesn't understand subjective
> > opinion.
> So, what you mean is, "In my opinion, this person is a 'fucking
> asshole nerd', and because it is my opinion, it needs no
> correspondence to reality at any point"?
> If that were true, why is it a problem that your chosen form of self-
> expression, reminiscent of caged adolescent simians, has been removed
> form the Free Will wiki? Isn't that just a "subjective opinion", too?
> For that matter, how can you use the word "lie" when your opinions
> share no orthographic map with demonstrable reality? If everything is
> subjective, how can anything be a lie?
> You have still failed to answer any actual questions.
> You have still failed to demonstrate where I have told a lie.
> I reiterate:
> 1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
> 2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
> the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
Oh horrible nerdspeak. I am sure that many a person you have met,
would also like to express the opinion about you , that you as the
owner of your choices are a fucking nerd asshole.
> > > > Tyramisu: In extremis, you become tedious.
> > > > > It applies to you as the owner of your choices. You as the owner of
> > > > > your choices are a fucking asshole nerd.
> > > > What does this sentence mean? More to the point, what do you think it
> > > > means?
> > > As I said, the fucking asshole nerd doesn't understand subjective
> > > opinion.
> > So, what you mean is, "In my opinion, this person is a 'fucking
> > asshole nerd', and because it is my opinion, it needs no
> > correspondence to reality at any point"?
> > If that were true, why is it a problem that your chosen form of self-
> > expression, reminiscent of caged adolescent simians, has been removed
> > form the Free Will wiki? Isn't that just a "subjective opinion", too?
> > For that matter, how can you use the word "lie" when your opinions
> > share no orthographic map with demonstrable reality? If everything is
> > subjective, how can anything be a lie?
> > You have still failed to answer any actual questions.
> > You have still failed to demonstrate where I have told a lie.
> > I reiterate:
> > 1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
> > 2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
> > the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
> Oh horrible nerdspeak. I am sure that many a person you have met,
> would also like to express the opinion about you , that you as the
> owner of your choices are a fucking nerd asshole.
Tyramisu:
It is (a little bit) interesting that you claim to know what others
think, when everything is subjective...
It is (a little bit less) interesting that you seem to believe that
personal invective can somehow replace, or stand in for, discourse.
How can you use the word "lie" when your opinions
share no orthographic map with demonstrable reality? If everything
is
subjective, how can anything be a lie?
You have still failed to answer any actual questions.
You have still failed to demonstrate where I have told a lie.
I reiterate:
1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
Could it be that your vituperation, your sophomoric insults, are
supposed to distract from the fact that there is no "book" that makes
the claim you forward?
That Ockham did not, in fact, make the assertion you forward?
> > > > > Tyramisu: In extremis, you become tedious.
> > > > > > It applies to you as the owner of your choices. You as the owner of
> > > > > > your choices are a fucking asshole nerd.
> > > > > What does this sentence mean? More to the point, what do you think it
> > > > > means?
> > > > As I said, the fucking asshole nerd doesn't understand subjective
> > > > opinion.
> > > So, what you mean is, "In my opinion, this person is a 'fucking
> > > asshole nerd', and because it is my opinion, it needs no
> > > correspondence to reality at any point"?
> > > If that were true, why is it a problem that your chosen form of self-
> > > expression, reminiscent of caged adolescent simians, has been removed
> > > form the Free Will wiki? Isn't that just a "subjective opinion", too?
> > > For that matter, how can you use the word "lie" when your opinions
> > > share no orthographic map with demonstrable reality? If everything is
> > > subjective, how can anything be a lie?
> > > You have still failed to answer any actual questions.
> > > You have still failed to demonstrate where I have told a lie.
> > > I reiterate:
> > > 1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
> > > 2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
> > > the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
> > Oh horrible nerdspeak. I am sure that many a person you have met,
> > would also like to express the opinion about you , that you as the
> > owner of your choices are a fucking nerd asshole.
> Tyramisu:
> It is (a little bit) interesting that you claim to know what others
> think, when everything is subjective...
> It is (a little bit less) interesting that you seem to believe that
> personal invective can somehow replace, or stand in for, discourse.
> How can you use the word "lie" when your opinions
> share no orthographic map with demonstrable reality? If everything
> is
> subjective, how can anything be a lie?
> You have still failed to answer any actual questions.
> You have still failed to demonstrate where I have told a lie.
> I reiterate:
> 1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
> 2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
> the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
> Could it be that your vituperation, your sophomoric insults, are
> supposed to distract from the fact that there is no "book" that makes
> the claim you forward?
> That Ockham did not, in fact, make the assertion you forward?
You are a fucking nerd requesting objective facts in a thread about
subjective opinion. What you get is subjective opinon, you fucking
retard nerd.
> > > > > > Tyramisu: In extremis, you become tedious.
> > > > > > > It applies to you as the owner of your choices. You as the owner of
> > > > > > > your choices are a fucking asshole nerd.
> > > > > > What does this sentence mean? More to the point, what do you think it
> > > > > > means?
> > > > > As I said, the fucking asshole nerd doesn't understand subjective
> > > > > opinion.
> > > > So, what you mean is, "In my opinion, this person is a 'fucking
> > > > asshole nerd', and because it is my opinion, it needs no
> > > > correspondence to reality at any point"?
> > > > If that were true, why is it a problem that your chosen form of self-
> > > > expression, reminiscent of caged adolescent simians, has been removed
> > > > form the Free Will wiki? Isn't that just a "subjective opinion", too?
> > > > For that matter, how can you use the word "lie" when your opinions
> > > > share no orthographic map with demonstrable reality? If everything is
> > > > subjective, how can anything be a lie?
> > > > You have still failed to answer any actual questions.
> > > > You have still failed to demonstrate where I have told a lie.
> > > > I reiterate:
> > > > 1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
> > > > 2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
> > > > the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
> > > Oh horrible nerdspeak. I am sure that many a person you have met,
> > > would also like to express the opinion about you , that you as the
> > > owner of your choices are a fucking nerd asshole.
> > Tyramisu:
> > It is (a little bit) interesting that you claim to know what others
> > think, when everything is subjective...
> > It is (a little bit less) interesting that you seem to believe that
> > personal invective can somehow replace, or stand in for, discourse.
> > How can you use the word "lie" when your opinions
> > share no orthographic map with demonstrable reality? If everything
> > is
> > subjective, how can anything be a lie?
> > You have still failed to answer any actual questions.
> > You have still failed to demonstrate where I have told a lie.
> > I reiterate:
> > 1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
> > 2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
> > the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
> > Could it be that your vituperation, your sophomoric insults, are
> > supposed to distract from the fact that there is no "book" that makes
> > the claim you forward?
> > That Ockham did not, in fact, make the assertion you forward?
> You are a fucking nerd requesting objective facts in a thread about
> subjective opinion. What you get is subjective opinon, you fucking
> retard nerd.
You made a substantive claim. I asked you to verify said claim. You
retreated to personal attack, demonstrating that your substantive
claim is not, shall we say, in accordance with any truth outside your
head. The fact that you have been unable to substantiate even one
concrete claim casts everything you have said into doubt. If you
can't even answer a question about your own sources, or about your own
claims, why is your subjective take on history, meaning, truth,
beauty, or the pursuit of mooseberry bushes (for that matter your
subjective idea of what the thread is "about") be taken to have any
kind of validity outside your onanistic mewling?
If everything is subjective, and nothing is to be held to a standard
of demonstrable reality, then you truly have no place to complain--in
that context, the concept of "lie" has no meaning. The content of a
wiki has no meaning.
So, I ask again, purely for my own edification:
1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
> On Apr 9, 11:50 pm, nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:
> > Garamond Lethe wrote:
> > > Syamsu wrote:
> > [..]
> > >> You are one of those smarmy assholes from school and university who
> > >> insists on evidence for arriving at a conclusion, and does not support
> > >> subjective opinion. You fucking nerd asshole.
> > > That's priceless.
> > I suppose we are privileged to get a glimpse of an insight in Nando's
> > history there.
> > We can imagine what his fellow students may have thought of him.
> > I do feel sorry for Nando, despite him being so unpleasant sometimes. He
> > must be a very lonely person.
> uh fuck you asshole nerd liars. I get attention all the time because I
> approach people in a properly subjective way as the owner of their
> choices.
No, you get peoples attention in the same way as someone who is
wearing a pair of cardboard antlers on his head, and nothing else,
while running down a busy street in traffic and yelling, "Look at me!
I'm a gazelle!" gets attention.
> Most of you are fucking nerd atheist liars in the atheist
> damned nation of the USA. Most of the people in the USA hate you
> atheist shitbags for what you have done to the country
You just want to destroy our knowlege of freedom from religious
extremists.
>> You fucking nerd asshole want to feed on facts, but this thread is
>> about validating subjective opinion. If you support Ockham, you go on
>> over to the free will wiki and press the "undo" button.
>How do you "validate a subjective opinion"?
As far as I can tell:
"Hey, did I really think that?"
<ponder, ponder>
"Yep, I sure did."
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
>You made a substantive claim. I asked you to verify said claim. You
> retreated to personal attack, demonstrating that your substantive
> claim is not, shall we say, in accordance with any truth outside your
> head. The fact that you have been unable to substantiate even one
> concrete claim casts everything you have said into doubt. If you
> can't even answer a question about your own sources, or about your own
> claims, why is your subjective take on history, meaning, truth,
> beauty, or the pursuit of mooseberry bushes (for that matter your
> subjective idea of what the thread is "about") be taken to have any
> kind of validity outside your onanistic mewling?
> If everything is subjective, and nothing is to be held to a standard
> of demonstrable reality, then you truly have no place to complain--in
> that context, the concept of "lie" has no meaning. The content of a
> wiki has no meaning.
> So, I ask again, purely for my own edification:
> 1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
> 2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
> the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
Indeed, I will never answer your nerd question, you fucking asshole.
How do you go from Ockham "distinghuished subjective and objective" to
"everything is subjective"? Obviously you are a fucking nerd asshole
who makes everything into a matter objective fact, and then you
project on me that I make everything subjective.
You are the one who keeps saying that this thread is about subjective
opinion, meaning (at least in your-what passes for a-mind) that
objective facts have no place. So that's where I'm getting it. If
objective reality, has no place in this discussion, then everything
(here) is purely subjective. Your rules.
If so, what distinguishes your constructed-from-whole-cloth cardboard
version of "Darwinism", that not even Darwin would recognize, fro a
lie? It certainly isn't rooted in, or based in any way upon, any
substantive reality...
1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
3. Where does Darwin say what you say he said?
> You are the one who keeps saying that this thread is about subjective
> opinion, meaning (at least in your-what passes for a-mind) that
> objective facts have no place. So that's where I'm getting it. If
> objective reality, has no place in this discussion, then everything
> (here) is purely subjective. Your rules.
> If so, what distinguishes your constructed-from-whole-cloth cardboard
> version of "Darwinism", that not even Darwin would recognize, fro a
> lie? It certainly isn't rooted in, or based in any way upon, any
> substantive reality...
> 1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
> 2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
> the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
> 3. Where does Darwin say what you say he said?
the free will wiki still needs changing. I will answer your questions
after you have changed it.
> On Apr 11, 2:30 am, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey, Tyramisu:
> > You are the one who keeps saying that this thread is about subjective
> > opinion, meaning (at least in your-what passes for a-mind) that
> > objective facts have no place. So that's where I'm getting it. If
> > objective reality, has no place in this discussion, then everything
> > (here) is purely subjective. Your rules.
> > If so, what distinguishes your constructed-from-whole-cloth cardboard
> > version of "Darwinism", that not even Darwin would recognize, fro a
> > lie? It certainly isn't rooted in, or based in any way upon, any
> > substantive reality...
> > 1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
> > 2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
> > the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
> > 3. Where does Darwin say what you say he said?
> the free will wiki still needs changing. I will answer your questions
> after you have changed it.
> On Apr 11, 2:30 am, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey, Tyramisu:
> > You are the one who keeps saying that this thread is about subjective
> > opinion, meaning (at least in your-what passes for a-mind) that
> > objective facts have no place. So that's where I'm getting it. If
> > objective reality, has no place in this discussion, then everything
> > (here) is purely subjective. Your rules.
> > If so, what distinguishes your constructed-from-whole-cloth cardboard
> > version of "Darwinism", that not even Darwin would recognize, fro a
> > lie? It certainly isn't rooted in, or based in any way upon, any
> > substantive reality...
> > 1. What book makes the claims you say "the book" makes?
> > 2. Where does Ockham say, "establishing the existence of the owner of
> > the decisions is a matter of subjective opinion"?
> > 3. Where does Darwin say what you say he said?
> the free will wiki still needs changing. I will answer your questions
> after you have changed it.
Tell you what: answer my questions, convince me that the wiki needs
changing, admit to the reasons you can't make the changes you want
yourself, and apologize for being such an abusive, annoying bundle of
misinformation and baseless assertions...and if you are successful,
then I will edit the wiki. TANSTAAFL.
