Re: where can we find such people

[Ned Latham]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. It is rejection of the god hypothesis. It's up to
> > > > those who put that hypothesis to show cause to accept it.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > You lurk in a physics NG and you need to ask that?
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
> > Okay then, slow boy, pay careful attention.
> >
> > Syllogism 1:
> > 1. If an alleged phenomenon doesn't exist, it can have no
> > physical effect on the universe.
> > 2. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> > C. Therefore it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of
> > an alleged phenomenon that doesn't exist.
> >
> > Syllogism 2:
> > 1. If an alleged phenomenon does exist, it can have some
> > physioal effect on the universe.
> > 2. Such an effect would be evidence of its presence.
> > C. Therefore it's possible to prove the existence of an
> > extant phenomenon.
> >
> > Syllogism 3:
> > 1. It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of an alleged
> > phenomenon that doesn't exist.
> > 2. It's possible to prove the existence of an extant phenomenon.
> > C. Therefore it's incumbent upon those who put an existence
> > hypothesis to show evidence in its favour; ie, show cause
> > to accept it.
> >
> > Quite simple, really.
>
> Too simple as, like your other arguments so far, it is flawed.

Wrong again. It's your reading and comprehension that are flawed.

> Here, it is *your* claim of *non-existence* that would need to
> be substantiated *by you*.

Wrong. Read the above again, this time with your eyes open and
your brain engaged.

----"superior beings" fallacy snipped----

> It is wrong of you to claim that all science is philosophy,

Nope.

> and that therefore they would be on-topic here:

I didn't make that claim.

> The natural sciences, like physics, separated themselves from
> mere philosophy more than three centuries ago,

I agree that "Philosophy" has drifted away from philosophy.

----snip----

> As for "begs the question" vs. "raises the question": I knew
< the "begging the question" fallacy already, but thanks for
> correcting my vocabulary

I shouldn't need to. How the fuck can we argue meaningfully and
coherently if random statements are flawed by incorrect usage?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Ned Latham wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> As for "begs the question" vs. "raises the question": I knew
>> the "begging the question" fallacy already, but thanks for
>> correcting my vocabulary
>
> I shouldn't need to. How the fuck can we argue meaningfully and
> coherently if random statements are flawed by incorrect usage?

You are such a crackpot, you cannot even take a “thank you” for what it is,
and reply with something along the lines ”you are welcome”.

But, JFTR, I have found out today that you are wrong about this as well.

While ”begging the question” is the name of a logical fallacy, it also is a
phrase that means to “raise a point that has not been dealt with”, which is
precisely how I used it. I have found that out while doing research on
Geoffrey Marcy:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/finder-of-new-worlds.html?_r=1>

Play the video on the top, and you will hear “begging the question” used in
the same way as I did.

This usage is confirmed by dictionaries:

<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/beg?q=begging+the+question#beg__15>

If there is any shred of decency left in you, your reply to this posting
will be along the lines of “Sorry, I stand corrected”.

F'up2 alt.sci.philosophy


PointedEars
--
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Ned Latham]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > >
> > > As for "begs the question" vs. "raises the question": I knew
> > > the "begging the question" fallacy already, but thanks for
> > > correcting my vocabulary
> >
> > I shouldn't need to. How the fuck can we argue meaningfully and
> > coherently if random statements are flawed by incorrect usage?
>
> You are such a crackpot,

Quit projecting, Pointy Head.

> you cannot even take a "thank you" for what it is,

You didn't write a "thankyou"; you wrote an excuse.

> and reply with something along the lines "you are welcome".

I do, when it's appropriate.

> But, JFTR, I have found out today that you are wrong about
> this as well.

You're wrong again, Pointy Head.

> While "begging the question" is the name of a logical fallacy,
> it also is a phrase that means to "raise a point that has not
> been dealt with", which is precisely how I used it.

I know all that, Pointy Head. The fact that semilterate retards
misuse a word or phrase does not require those of us who actually
understand the language to accept their misuses as legitimate.

The simple fact is, Pointy Head, we don't need to misuse the term
"begs the question" because we have the simple, straightforward
and crystal clear term "raises the question".

But then, there is that dreadful tendency among retards to show
off what they think is their erudition.

> I have found that out while doing research on Geoffrey Marcy:

You're wrong again, Pointy head. That statement should be in the
simple past tense, not the present perfect tense.

----snip----

> This usage is confirmed by dictionaries:
>
> <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/
> beg?q=begging+the+question#beg__15>

*sigh* Sad, isn't it? Ostensibly respectable publications pandering
to fads in gibberish.

> If there is any shred of decency left in you, your reply to this
> posting will be along the lines of "Sorry, I stand corrected".

That would be a lie. Unlike you, I don't do lies.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Ned Latham wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> I have found that out while doing research on Geoffrey Marcy:
>
> You're wrong again, Pointy head. That statement should be in the
> simple past tense, not the present perfect tense.

Wrong again. “The Present Perfect is […] also used when an activity
has an effect on the present moment.”

See <http://www.englishtenses.com/tenses/present_perfect> etc.

>> This usage is confirmed by dictionaries:
>>
>> <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/
>> beg?q=begging+the+question#beg__15>
>
> *sigh* Sad, isn't it? Ostensibly respectable publications pandering
> to fads in gibberish.

It is not a fad:

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=begs+the+question+why%2C+begs+the+question+how&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cbegs%20the%20question%20why%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cbegs%20the%20question%20how%3B%2Cc0>

See also: <http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290>

>> If there is any shred of decency left in you, your reply to this

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> posting will be along the lines of "Sorry, I stand corrected".
>
> That would be a lie. Unlike you, I don't do lies.

[Proper English would be “I do not lie” or “I don’t lie”. So much for your
understanding of the English language.]

You replied to my posting in
<news:slrnn1lttg.5...@woden.valhalla.oz>:

> > That begs the question
>
> *Raises* the question.
>
> Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion
> is assumed in the premise.

IOW, you denied that my use of the expression would be a correct one.
(That was a “false dilemma” fallacy of yours, denying the possibility that
there could be several interpretations.)

And then you replied to my posting in
<news:slrnn2ndt8.p...@woden.valhalla.oz>:

> > While "begging the question" is the name of a logical fallacy,
> > it also is a phrase that means to "raise a point that has not
> > been dealt with", which is precisely how I used it.
>

> I know all that, Pointy Head. […]

IOW, you *knew* that you were wrong at the time when you were claiming this.
Claiming something that one knows is wrong constitutes a lie.

You lied again when you said that you “don’t do lies” because in the very
same paragraph you effectively said that you knew you were wrong.

And you lied again when you said that I had lied. Because I could not have
lied about the same subject that you knew were wrong about while claiming I
was wrong.

So *evidentially*, you *do* lie. Again and again. It has been established
by now, at the latest, that you are a habitual liar.

Also, you continue to crosspost without Followup-To despite Followup-To
being set to the appropriate newsgroup, and you continue to throw insults.

By that we have established that there really is not a shred of decency left
in you, because decent people do not lie habitually, and they at least try
to observe technical and social standards, which includes that they do not
throw insults habitually.

So Q.E.D. And *PLONK* (F'up2 set appropriately, which I assume you will
ignore again).


PointedEars
--
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Ned Latham]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Your surreptitious snip of your inabiity to sustain your position
on "begging the question" is noted, Pointy Head.

> > > I have found that out while doing research on Geoffrey Marcy:
> >
> > You're wrong again, Pointy head. That statement should be in the
> > simple past tense, not the present perfect tense.
>
> Wrong again. The Present Perfect is also used when an activity
> has an effect on the present moment.

Get it into your pointy little head, Pointy Head: the fact that
semilterate retards misuse elements of a language does not require

those of us who actually understand the language to accept their
misuses as legitimate.

----snip----

> > > This usage is confirmed by dictionaries:
> > >
> > > <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/
> > > beg?q=begging+the+question#beg__15>
> >
> > *sigh* Sad, isn't it? Ostensibly respectable publications pandering
> > to fads in gibberish.
>
> It is not a fad:

----messy web reference snipped----

So "begs the question" has been arounnd for a while. BFD.
Doesn't change the fact that your misuse of it is faddish,
and confined to semiarticulate muttonheads who think that
pompous verbosity is impressive.

> > > If there is any shred of decency left in you, your reply to this

> > > posting will be along the lines of "Sorry, I stand corrected".
> >
> > That would be a lie. Unlike you, I don't do lies.
>
> [Proper English would be "I do not lie" or "I don't lie".

"Proper"? Don't be ridiculous. The statement can be made in perfectly
good English is many ways; one, for example is, "I don't tell lies".

You *do* recognise that as "proper" English, right?

Note the form, dipshit. You can replace "tell" with any other
suitable verb; "use", for example, or "rely on", or "accept" ...

Or "do".

> So much for your understanding of the English language.]

Much wider and deeper than yours, bozo.

> You replied to my posting in
> <news:slrnn1lttg.5...@woden.valhalla.oz>:
>
> > > That begs the question
> >
> > *Raises* the question.
> >
> > Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion
> > is assumed in the premise.
>
> IOW, you denied that my use of the expression would be a correct one.

Correct. It's a misuse. The fact that others have perpetrated the same
idiocy before you doesn't change that. Even the fact that it's become
so well known that people usually know what the utterer means by it
doesn't change that.

The fact is that "begs the question" and "raises the question" both
have clear, precise and distinct definitions. Using the former as a
synonym of the latter is a misuse.

> (That was a "false dilemma" fallacy of yours, denying the possibility
> that there could be several interpretations.)

Wrong again, Pointy Head. It was part of a criticism of your misuse
of the term.

(Your "interpretation" is not only about the misuse of the term, it
is about that deplorable tendency of the semiarticulate to show off,
as I said before, what they think is their erudition.)

> And then you replied to my posting in
> <news:slrnn2ndt8.p...@woden.valhalla.oz>:
>
> > > While "begging the question" is the name of a logical fallacy,
> > > it also is a phrase that means to "raise a point that has not
> > > been dealt with", which is precisely how I used it.
> >
> > I know all that, Pointy Head.
>
> IOW, you *knew* that you were wrong at the time when you were
> claiming this.

Wrong again, Pointy Head. I wasm't wrong.

> Claiming something that one knows is wrong constitutes a lie.

True. You should stop lying.

For example, you should not have concealed that what I wrote was

"I know all that, Pointy Head. The fact that semilterate retards
misuse a word or phrase does not require those of us who actually
understand the language to accept their misuses as legitimate."

(The reason for your surreptitious snip above is now clear.)

> You lied

That's a lie.

> again

And that's another lie.

> when you said that you "don't do lies" because
> in the very same paragraph you effectively said that you knew
> you were wrong.

And that's yet another lie. What I "effectively" said is that
I know about the misuses that you were trying to justify your
own misuse with.

----further denialist babble snipped----

> Also, you continue to crosspost without Followup-To despite
> Followup-To being set to the appropriate newsgroup,

The NGs that you spew your lies and idiocies into *are* the
appropriate ones for contesting them, you lying maggot. You
don't get to hide behind redirection.

> and you continue to throw insults.

You're a lying maggot, deserving of nothing but contempt.

----snip----