info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Putting UC and Nando together
60 views
Skip to first unread message
Attila
Jul 11, 2012, 5:57:12 AM7/11/12
to
Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of all
the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and, as I
have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain can be
shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu with
respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about the
holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
Now how do Nando and UC react wrt sentence 2. According to Nando sentence
2. must be a lie. Therefore according to Nando sentence 2' must be true.
2'. The majority of victims of the holocaust were apes.
Ok, we know that the majority of victims of the holocaust were humans; there
may have been the odd chimp, baboon or gorilla killed by the nazis but they
surely weren't the majority. Therefore we get the following result:
If sentence 2 is false thus if sentence 2' is true then UC is wrong and
Nando is correct, i.e. humans are apes and I have lied about the holocaust.
If sentence 2 is true and sentence 2' is false then UC is correct and Nando
is wrong, i.e. I have told the truth about the holocaust and humans are not
apes. I propose that they sort it out between themselves.
Of course both Nando and UC could both be wrong which would not cause any
problems for anyone except them and certainly make the world a happier
place. What is impossible is that they are both correct. Hmmm now wasn't it
Nando who likes to talk about this Franciscan dude who shaved a lot? I
wonder what Willie would suggest. Just askin' ;)
the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and, as I
have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain can be
shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu with
respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about the
holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
Now how do Nando and UC react wrt sentence 2. According to Nando sentence
2. must be a lie. Therefore according to Nando sentence 2' must be true.
2'. The majority of victims of the holocaust were apes.
Ok, we know that the majority of victims of the holocaust were humans; there
may have been the odd chimp, baboon or gorilla killed by the nazis but they
surely weren't the majority. Therefore we get the following result:
If sentence 2 is false thus if sentence 2' is true then UC is wrong and
Nando is correct, i.e. humans are apes and I have lied about the holocaust.
If sentence 2 is true and sentence 2' is false then UC is correct and Nando
is wrong, i.e. I have told the truth about the holocaust and humans are not
apes. I propose that they sort it out between themselves.
Of course both Nando and UC could both be wrong which would not cause any
problems for anyone except them and certainly make the world a happier
place. What is impossible is that they are both correct. Hmmm now wasn't it
Nando who likes to talk about this Franciscan dude who shaved a lot? I
wonder what Willie would suggest. Just askin' ;)
Syamsu
Jul 11, 2012, 6:41:22 AM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 11:57�am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course both Nando and UC could both be wrong which would not cause any
> problems for anyone except them and certainly make the world a happier
> place. What is impossible is that they are both correct. Hmmm now wasn't it
> Nando who likes to talk about �this Franciscan dude who shaved a lot? I
> wonder what Willie would suggest. Just askin' ;)
It's not a joke. The subjectivity only applies to what does the
> Of course both Nando and UC could both be wrong which would not cause any
> problems for anyone except them and certainly make the world a happier
> place. What is impossible is that they are both correct. Hmmm now wasn't it
> Nando who likes to talk about �this Franciscan dude who shaved a lot? I
> wonder what Willie would suggest. Just askin' ;)
deciding. You don't acknowledge the human spirit = people's emotions
in a subjective way. The human spirit / emotions decide people's
actions. So not allowing subjectivity means you don't allow expressing
of emotions or opinions in respect to the spirit / emotions of the
people in the past. That makes the history of the holocaust
meaningless, it is lying.
Attila
Jul 11, 2012, 7:36:54 AM7/11/12
to
distillation). As for emotions, I assume you include amusement among the
possible human emotions. But you begin this rediculous mockery of human
communication with the claim, "It's not a joke". So look to yourself and
know shame. You're very first act was to deny my emotion of amusement. Go
now and sin no more. Oh since you seem to be tying everything to the
holocaust how did all this get settled before the holoccaust or are you a
VYEC (very young earth creationist) claiming that the earth is less than one
hundred years old? Oh, and you neglected to explain your thoughts on my
sentences repeated for your convenience:
1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
So is sentence 2 true or false? Whoops time for me to take a couple of shots
2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
of the human spirit. :) :)
timoth...@gmail.com
Jul 11, 2012, 7:41:41 AM7/11/12
to
On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 8:41:22 PM UTC+10, Syamsu wrote:
> On Jul 11, 11:57�am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Of course both Nando and UC could both be wrong which would not cause any
> > problems for anyone except them and certainly make the world a happier
> > place. What is impossible is that they are both correct. Hmmm now wasn't it
> > Nando who likes to talk about �this Franciscan dude who shaved a lot? I
> > wonder what Willie would suggest. Just askin' ;)
>
> It's not a joke. The subjectivity only applies to what does the
> deciding. You don't acknowledge the human spirit = people's emotions
> in a subjective way. The human spirit / emotions decide people's
> actions. So not allowing subjectivity means you don't allow expressing
> On Jul 11, 11:57�am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Of course both Nando and UC could both be wrong which would not cause any
> > problems for anyone except them and certainly make the world a happier
> > place. What is impossible is that they are both correct. Hmmm now wasn't it
> > Nando who likes to talk about �this Franciscan dude who shaved a lot? I
> > wonder what Willie would suggest. Just askin' ;)
>
> It's not a joke. The subjectivity only applies to what does the
> deciding. You don't acknowledge the human spirit = people's emotions
> in a subjective way. The human spirit / emotions decide people's
> actions. So not allowing subjectivity means you don't allow expressing
> of emotions or opinions in respect to the spirit / emotions of the
> people in the past. That makes the history of the holocaust
> meaningless, it is lying.
Backing away slowly, hands in full sight . . .
> people in the past. That makes the history of the holocaust
> meaningless, it is lying.
Attila
Jul 11, 2012, 8:46:11 AM7/11/12
to
Syamsu
Jul 11, 2012, 9:22:37 AM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 1:36�pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
> 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
> So is sentence 2 true or false? Whoops time for me to take a couple of shots
> of the human spirit. :) :)
You are very seriously wrong, you are surpressing and destroying
> 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
> 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
> So is sentence 2 true or false? Whoops time for me to take a couple of shots
> of the human spirit. :) :)
people's emotions. One cannot acknowledge emotions to exist on an
objective basis, measure emotions.
There is no 1 right answer about what the emotional state of somebody
is or was, one can only relate to the emotional state of that somebody
with one's own emotions to form a subjective opinion. And since
emotions work by free will, you always have alternative results
available in the moment in forming an opinion, and there can never be
any 1 right answer to the exclusion of all alternative answers.
Why do you think you are smarter than religious people in dealing with
emotions? It does not work any other way then to subjectively
establish a spiritual domain, which function of it is to decide.
Talking about emotions does not work by treating every issue as an
issue of fact, as something that can be measured. You must acknowledge
a domain to which opinion applies exclusively, not facts, to validate
the expression of emotion. It is very clear you throw your emotions
out the window by refusing to accept a spiritual domain on a
subjective basis.
Attila
Jul 11, 2012, 11:24:47 AM7/11/12
to
Syamsu wrote:
> On Jul 11, 1:36 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
>> 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
>> So is sentence 2 true or false? Whoops time for me to take a couple of
>> shots of the human spirit. :) :)
>
> You are very seriously wrong,
Saying something and proving something are two very different kettles of
> On Jul 11, 1:36 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
>> 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
>> So is sentence 2 true or false? Whoops time for me to take a couple of
>> shots of the human spirit. :) :)
>
> You are very seriously wrong,
fish.
> you are surpressing and destroying
> people's emotions.
Supressing[sic] and destroying? Moi? Get real, lil' Tex. I'm posting on a
> people's emotions.
bleeding newsgroup.
> One cannot acknowledge emotions to exist on an
> objective basis, measure emotions.
I wasn't aware that I nor anyone else was doing this. From a normal person I
> objective basis, measure emotions.
would ask for examples but I do learn from experience and this would be a
waste of time and bandwidth.
>
> There is no 1 right answer about what the emotional state of somebody
> is or was, one can only relate to the emotional state of that somebody
> with one's own emotions to form a subjective opinion. And since
> emotions work by free will, you always have alternative results
> available in the moment in forming an opinion, and there can never be
> any 1 right answer to the exclusion of all alternative answers.
With very close friends and family I don't have a problem concerning their
emotional states. "Emotions work by free will"???? From a normal person I
would ask for evidence but I do learn from experience and this would be a
waste of time and bandwidth.
>
> Why do you think you are smarter than religious people in dealing with
> emotions?
If they all share your opinions and express themselves similarly to you then
> Why do you think you are smarter than religious people in dealing with
> emotions?
because you make claims with no evidence for the ones that make any sense
and the vast majority of your statements make no sense at all. That's why.
> It does not work any other way then to subjectively
> establish a spiritual domain, which function of it is to decide.
> Talking about emotions does not work by treating every issue as an
> issue of fact, as something that can be measured. You must acknowledge
> a domain to which opinion applies exclusively, not facts, to validate
> the expression of emotion. It is very clear you throw your emotions
> out the window by refusing to accept a spiritual domain on a
> subjective basis.
Emotions, spirtual domain, etc. are completely meaningless concepts in your
> establish a spiritual domain, which function of it is to decide.
> Talking about emotions does not work by treating every issue as an
> issue of fact, as something that can be measured. You must acknowledge
> a domain to which opinion applies exclusively, not facts, to validate
> the expression of emotion. It is very clear you throw your emotions
> out the window by refusing to accept a spiritual domain on a
> subjective basis.
statements. Why on earth would I accept a spiritual domain on any basis at
all. It has no meaning for me. If you have a problem with that I would
suggest psychiatric counselling Repeating the same meaningless tripe over
and over and over again does not add to the clarity nor to the credibility
of what you say.
Slow Vehicle
Jul 11, 2012, 1:50:58 PM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 7:22�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 1:36�pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
> > 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
> > So is sentence 2 true or false? Whoops time for me to take a couple of shots
> > of the human spirit. :) :)
>
> You are very seriously wrong, you are surpressing and destroying
> people's emotions.
Lat's see: self check--do I still have emotions? Yep.
> On Jul 11, 1:36�pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
> > 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
> > So is sentence 2 true or false? Whoops time for me to take a couple of shots
> > of the human spirit. :) :)
>
> You are very seriously wrong, you are surpressing and destroying
> people's emotions.
Has Nando's continued prattling numbed me to the actual tragedy of the
real Holocaust; do I fail to be amused at his "rocks (but not
thermostats) have free will" silliness?
Nope.
Has UC's bumbling ineptitude and impotent fury stopped moving me to
pity?
Nope.
Do I still find the "pun" posts, and (for intance) Atilla's cleverness
and satire, uplifting?
Yep.
Turns out, no one with any shred of center, any vestige of self-image,
any stone at all, can have their emotions destroyed (or even
threatened) by someone else's silly ideas about the all-soul, or
universal free agency...or anything similar.
So, wrong again.
One cannot acknowledge emotions to exist on an
> objective basis, measure emotions.
>
> There is no 1 right answer about what the emotional state of somebody
> is or was, one can only relate to the emotional state of that somebody
> with one's own emotions to form a subjective opinion. And since
> emotions work by free will, you always have alternative results
> available in the moment in forming an opinion, and there can never be
> any 1 right answer to the exclusion of all alternative answers.
_isn't_ what "free will" means.
And you know it.
>
> Why do you think you are smarter than religious people in dealing with
> emotions?
can't know his subjective state! You can't measure how smart you
think he thinks he is, compared to how smart you think religious
people think they are...
It does not work any other way then to subjectively
> establish a spiritual domain,
...so only the religious have "emotions"? Seems like a fairly
objective statement about a subjective state...
>which function of it is to decide.
> Talking about emotions does not work by treating every issue as an
> a domain to which opinion applies exclusively, not facts, to validate
> the expression of emotion. It is very clear you throw your emotions
> out the window by refusing to accept a spiritual domain on a
> subjective basis.
You must stop trying to tell people what they "must" do...
> the expression of emotion. It is very clear you throw your emotions
> out the window by refusing to accept a spiritual domain on a
> subjective basis.
And you ought to stop making external, objective decisions about
someone else's ability to have "emotions" unless they drink your Flav-
or-aid.
Mitchell Coffey
Jul 11, 2012, 2:13:06 PM7/11/12
to
On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:57:12 AM UTC-4, Attila wrote:
> Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of all
>
> 2'. The majority of victims of the holocaust were apes.
> If sentence 2 is false thus if sentence 2' is true then UC is wrong and
Invidious comparison between UC and Nando is seriously unfair to the former. UC is a bit of a crank; Nando is evil.
Mitchell Coffey
> Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of all
> the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and, as I
> have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain can be
> shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu with
> respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about the
> holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
> 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
> 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
>
> Now how do Nando and UC react wrt sentence 2. According to Nando sentence
> 2. must be a lie. Therefore according to Nando sentence 2' must be true.
> have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain can be
> shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu with
> respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about the
> holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
> 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
> 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
>
> Now how do Nando and UC react wrt sentence 2. According to Nando sentence
>
> 2'. The majority of victims of the holocaust were apes.
>
> Ok, we know that the majority of victims of the holocaust were humans; there
> may have been the odd chimp, baboon or gorilla killed by the nazis but they
> surely weren't the majority. Therefore we get the following result:
> Ok, we know that the majority of victims of the holocaust were humans; there
> may have been the odd chimp, baboon or gorilla killed by the nazis but they
> If sentence 2 is false thus if sentence 2' is true then UC is wrong and
> Nando is correct, i.e. humans are apes and I have lied about the holocaust.
> If sentence 2 is true and sentence 2' is false then UC is correct and Nando
> is wrong, i.e. I have told the truth about the holocaust and humans are not
> apes. I propose that they sort it out between themselves.
>
> Of course both Nando and UC could both be wrong which would not cause any
> problems for anyone except them and certainly make the world a happier
> place. What is impossible is that they are both correct. Hmmm now wasn't it
> apes. I propose that they sort it out between themselves.
>
> Of course both Nando and UC could both be wrong which would not cause any
> problems for anyone except them and certainly make the world a happier
> Nando who likes to talk about this Franciscan dude who shaved a lot? I
> wonder what Willie would suggest. Just askin' ;)
Invidious comparison between UC and Nando is seriously unfair to the former. UC is a bit of a crank; Nando is evil.
Mitchell Coffey
Boikat
Jul 11, 2012, 4:42:53 PM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 8:22�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 1:36�pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
> > 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
> > So is sentence 2 true or false? Whoops time for me to take a couple of shots
> > of the human spirit. :) :)
>
> You are very seriously wrong, you are surpressing and destroying
> people's emotions.
No, he isn't and didn't. Where do you coume up with this crap, anyway?
> On Jul 11, 1:36�pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
> > 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
> > So is sentence 2 true or false? Whoops time for me to take a couple of shots
> > of the human spirit. :) :)
>
> You are very seriously wrong, you are surpressing and destroying
> people's emotions.
> One cannot acknowledge emotions to exist on an
> objective basis,
> measure emotions.
In a relative way, you most certainly can. If you tell a a perosn a
joke, and get a giggle, the joke was "amusing". If you tell another
joke, and the same person laughs so hard they gasp for breath, have
tears in their eyes, and and plead with you to stop, it's a good guess
(yes, guess) that they found the last joke to be more funny than the
first joke. However, you could tell the same two jokes to another
person, and the opposite may happen. Humor is subjective, but there
are "levels" (mor of a continium) between mildly amusing and
hilarious. If you cannot accept that, then you need to stip whinging
about subjectivity.
>
> There is no 1 right answer about what the emotional state of somebody
> is or was,
it is.
> one can only relate to the emotional state of that somebody
> with one's own emotions to form a subjective opinion. And since
> emotions work by free will, you always have alternative results
> available in the moment in forming an opinion, and there can never be
> any 1 right answer to the exclusion of all alternative answers.
>
> Why do you think you are smarter than religious people in dealing with
> emotions?
with emotions?
> It does not work any other way then to subjectively
> establish a spiritual domain,
What "spiritual domain"?
> It does not work any other way then to subjectively
> establish a spiritual domain,
> which function of it is to decide.
> Talking about emotions does not work by treating every issue as an
> issue of fact, as something that can be measured. You must acknowledge
> a domain to which opinion applies exclusively, not facts, to validate
> the expression of emotion. It is very clear you throw your emotions
> out the window by refusing to accept a spiritual domain on a
> subjective basis.
choice? Who are you to tell him, or anyone, what they have to
"accept" when making a choice? While you're at it, how does a rock
"accept" the "spiritual domain" in order to "make a decision to turn
out one way or another, from moment to moment", and how does it
realize that decision?
Boikat
Kermit
Jul 11, 2012, 4:59:50 PM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 11:13�ｿｽam, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
wrote:
any problems with mainstream evolutionary biology.
Kermit
wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:57:12 AM UTC-4, Attila wrote:
> > Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of all
> > the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and, as I
> > have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain can be
> > shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu with
> > respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about the
> > holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
> > 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
> > 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
>
> > Now how do Nando and UC react wrt sentence �ｿｽ2. According to Nando sentence
> > Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of all
> > the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and, as I
> > have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain can be
> > shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu with
> > respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about the
> > holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
> > 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
> > 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
>
> > 2. must be a lie. Therefore according to Nando sentence 2' must be true.
>
> > 2'. �ｿｽThe majority of victims of the holocaust were apes.
>
>
> > Ok, we know that the majority of victims of the holocaust were humans; there
> > may have been the odd chimp, baboon or gorilla killed by the nazis but they
> > surely weren't the majority. �ｿｽTherefore we get the following result:
> > Ok, we know that the majority of victims of the holocaust were humans; there
> > may have been the odd chimp, baboon or gorilla killed by the nazis but they
> > If sentence 2 is false thus if sentence 2' is true then UC is wrong and
> > Nando is correct, i.e. humans are apes and I have lied about the holocaust.
> > If sentence 2 is true and sentence 2' is false then UC is correct and Nando
> > is wrong, i.e. I have told the truth about the holocaust and humans are not
> > apes. I propose that they sort it out between themselves.
>
> > Of course both Nando and UC could both be wrong which would not cause any
> > problems for anyone except them and certainly make the world a happier
> > place. What is impossible is that they are both correct. Hmmm now wasn't it
> > Nando who likes to talk about �ｿｽthis Franciscan dude who shaved a lot? I
> > Nando is correct, i.e. humans are apes and I have lied about the holocaust.
> > If sentence 2 is true and sentence 2' is false then UC is correct and Nando
> > is wrong, i.e. I have told the truth about the holocaust and humans are not
> > apes. I propose that they sort it out between themselves.
>
> > Of course both Nando and UC could both be wrong which would not cause any
> > problems for anyone except them and certainly make the world a happier
> > place. What is impossible is that they are both correct. Hmmm now wasn't it
> > wonder what Willie would suggest. Just askin' ;)
>
> Invidious comparison between UC and Nando is seriously unfair to the former. UC is a bit of a crank; Nando is evil.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
Agreed. UC has some crank ideas about language, but he does not have
>
> Invidious comparison between UC and Nando is seriously unfair to the former. UC is a bit of a crank; Nando is evil.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
any problems with mainstream evolutionary biology.
Kermit
Boikat
Jul 11, 2012, 4:24:02 PM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 5:41�am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 11:57�am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course both Nando and UC could both be wrong which would not cause any
> > problems for anyone except them and certainly make the world a happier
> > place. What is impossible is that they are both correct. Hmmm now wasn't it
> > Nando who likes to talk about �this Franciscan dude who shaved a lot? I
> > wonder what Willie would suggest. Just askin' ;)
>
> It's not a joke. The subjectivity only applies to what does the
> deciding. You don't acknowledge the human spirit = people's emotions
> in a subjective way.
Okay, so "human spirit" is defined as "a persons emotions".
> On Jul 11, 11:57�am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course both Nando and UC could both be wrong which would not cause any
> > problems for anyone except them and certainly make the world a happier
> > place. What is impossible is that they are both correct. Hmmm now wasn't it
> > Nando who likes to talk about �this Franciscan dude who shaved a lot? I
> > wonder what Willie would suggest. Just askin' ;)
>
> It's not a joke. The subjectivity only applies to what does the
> deciding. You don't acknowledge the human spirit = people's emotions
> in a subjective way.
> The human spirit / emotions decide people's
> actions.
them. That could lead to serious mistakes.
> So not allowing subjectivity means you don't allow expressing
> of emotions or opinions in respect to the spirit / emotions of the
> people in the past.
> That makes the history of the holocaust
> meaningless, it is lying.
Boikat
Attila
Jul 12, 2012, 1:00:47 AM7/12/12
to
wal.. NO! check that. It's like talking to a badly written AI program. It's
repertoire of responses is rather limited as you noticed and noted. As for
jokes, did you hear this one? A creationist and an ape go into a bar. The
barman turns to the ape and says "what'll it be, man?" Creationists won't
find that funny which kinda proves your point.
Attila
Jul 12, 2012, 1:08:49 AM7/12/12
to
Kermit wrote:
> On Jul 11, 11:13 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
1. You both may well be right and I am wrong.
2. Accepting the ToE is not guanteed to keep you from being evil. Consider
Loki from the avengers. He clearly accepts the ToE but is very evil indeed
and carried a nasty looking weapon.
3. You both have to admit that I do accept UC's humanity (or better
"apeiness") whereas I consigned Nando to an poorly written AI program. So,
please, don't be too harsh with me.
> On Jul 11, 11:13 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:57:12 AM UTC-4, Attila wrote:
>> > Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite
>> > of all the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense
>> > and, as I have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great
>> > Britain can be shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando
>> > aka Syamsu with respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with
>> > lying about the holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
>> > 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
>> > 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
>>
>> > Now how do Nando and UC react wrt sentence 2. According to Nando
>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:57:12 AM UTC-4, Attila wrote:
>> > Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite
>> > of all the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense
>> > and, as I have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great
>> > Britain can be shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando
>> > aka Syamsu with respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with
>> > lying about the holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
>> > 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
>> > 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
>>
>> > sentence 2. must be a lie. Therefore according to Nando sentence 2'
>> > must be true.
>>
>> > 2'. The majority of victims of the holocaust were apes.
>> > must be true.
>>
>>
>> > Ok, we know that the majority of victims of the holocaust were humans;
>> > there may have been the odd chimp, baboon or gorilla killed by the
>> > nazis but they surely weren't the majority. Therefore we get the
>> > Ok, we know that the majority of victims of the holocaust were humans;
>> > there may have been the odd chimp, baboon or gorilla killed by the
>> > following result: If sentence 2 is false thus if sentence 2' is
>> > true then UC is wrong and Nando is correct, i.e. humans are apes and I
>> > have lied about the holocaust. If sentence 2 is true and sentence
>> > 2' is false then UC is correct and Nando is wrong, i.e. I have told
>> > the truth about the holocaust and humans are not apes. I propose that
>> > they sort it out between themselves.
>>
>> > Of course both Nando and UC could both be wrong which would not cause
>> > any problems for anyone except them and certainly make the world a
>> > happier place. What is impossible is that they are both correct. Hmmm
>> > now wasn't it Nando who likes to talk about this Franciscan dude
>> > true then UC is wrong and Nando is correct, i.e. humans are apes and I
>> > have lied about the holocaust. If sentence 2 is true and sentence
>> > 2' is false then UC is correct and Nando is wrong, i.e. I have told
>> > the truth about the holocaust and humans are not apes. I propose that
>> > they sort it out between themselves.
>>
>> > Of course both Nando and UC could both be wrong which would not cause
>> > any problems for anyone except them and certainly make the world a
>> > happier place. What is impossible is that they are both correct. Hmmm
>> > who shaved a lot? I wonder what Willie would suggest. Just askin'
>> > ;)
>>
>> Invidious comparison between UC and Nando is seriously unfair to the
>> former. UC is a bit of a crank; Nando is evil.
>>
>> Mitchell Coffey
>
> Agreed. UC has some crank ideas about language, but he does not have
> any problems with mainstream evolutionary biology.
>
> Kermit
Mitchell & Kermit,
>> > ;)
>>
>> Invidious comparison between UC and Nando is seriously unfair to the
>> former. UC is a bit of a crank; Nando is evil.
>>
>> Mitchell Coffey
>
> Agreed. UC has some crank ideas about language, but he does not have
> any problems with mainstream evolutionary biology.
>
> Kermit
1. You both may well be right and I am wrong.
2. Accepting the ToE is not guanteed to keep you from being evil. Consider
Loki from the avengers. He clearly accepts the ToE but is very evil indeed
and carried a nasty looking weapon.
3. You both have to admit that I do accept UC's humanity (or better
"apeiness") whereas I consigned Nando to an poorly written AI program. So,
please, don't be too harsh with me.
Syamsu
Jul 12, 2012, 4:56:05 AM7/12/12
to
On Jul 11, 5:24 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Syamsu wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 1:36 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
> >> 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
> >> So is sentence 2 true or false? Whoops time for me to take a couple of
> >> shots of the human spirit. :) :)
>
> > You are very seriously wrong,
>
> Saying something and proving something are two very different kettles of
> fish.
It has been proven that people disbelieving in free will also act less
> Syamsu wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 1:36 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
> >> 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
> >> So is sentence 2 true or false? Whoops time for me to take a couple of
> >> shots of the human spirit. :) :)
>
> > You are very seriously wrong,
>
> Saying something and proving something are two very different kettles of
> fish.
freely. There is a reference for it on the wiki on free will.
But you know this, you know the mad evil scientist stereotype, you
know exactly what I am talking about. What do you expect to happen
when you treat everything as a matter of fact, if not destroying
emotions of people?
If you make emotions into a matter of fact, then the identification of
emotions becomes automated. There are no alternative results with
facts, facts are just copies of information, it is a 1 to 1
relationship. That the moon is round for example; the information
travels from the moon, by medium of light through my eyes to my brain.
I have no say in the matter, there is nothing to decide about it, the
word round is automatically attributed to the picture received by a
learning done previously. And without freedom, without an alternative
result, there is no emotion.
And here on talk.origins all you evolutionist goons create an
environment where every issue is treated as an issue of fact. You all
fail to acknowledge that the issue of what decides is categorically a
subjective issue. You all fail to acknowledge a spiritual domain in a
properly subjective way. Objectivity is held to be valid, subjectivity
is held to be invalid, so the atmosphere created on this newsgroup is
recognizeably that of the mad evil scientist. And this is the
archetype identity people adopted in perpetrating the holocaust.
Systematically destroying their emotions by rationalizing everything.
Why even they felt they shouldn't do it, they deliberately disregarded
their emotions because they were emotions, and not rationality.
Syamsu
Jul 12, 2012, 6:15:25 AM7/12/12
to
On Jul 11, 8:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Invidious comparison between UC and Nando is seriously unfair to the former. UC is a bit of a crank; Nando is evil.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
You say you want freedom, yet you bully against people who reach a
> Invidious comparison between UC and Nando is seriously unfair to the former. UC is a bit of a crank; Nando is evil.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
conclusion about what is there by choosing. And in the limited way
that you allow people to choose, you have choosing defined as
calculating an optimum where there is no alternative result possible
except the optimum. That is just newspeak, in real effects you are
against freedom on an intellectual level. In effect you destroy belief
in God by systematically destroying any knowledge about decisions made
in the history of life. On talk.origins any theory which posits that
things could have turned out differently, that things are decided, is
bullied by evolutionist goons. In effect you destroy the subjective
belief in Mitchell Coffey, in Boikat, and the human spirit in general,
as the owner of their choices. You only allow objective facts in
respect to the question who people are as the owner of their choices.
You destroy emotions of people in a quite sophisticated and deliberate
way, together with a very large group of people, using a bizarre
version of the scientific method which competes against subjectivity
to destroy it, instead of just a method which distinghuishes
objectivity from subjectivity and have each their own domain.
J.J. O'Shea
Jul 12, 2012, 6:20:59 AM7/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:08:49 -0400, Attila wrote
(in article <jtlm52$b89$1...@dont-email.me>):
Nothing that runs on a Commodore 64 can be badly written, there's just not
enough space to spare, and Nando definitely runs on a C64. Badly written, no.
A plain bad idea, yes. Only a total sadist, probably a mathematician, almost
certainly one who specialises in point-set topology, could have come up with
something quite as sick as Nando. And only a _good_ mathematician and a
topologist in particular could have made the program fit on a C64. And he'd
have to use a C64 'cause point-set topology doesn't pay well enough for him
to buy anything else.
I wonder how long it will take before a certain person who's been Googling
everything I post and whose name I did not mention sees this... Poke, poke,
poke.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
(in article <jtlm52$b89$1...@dont-email.me>):
enough space to spare, and Nando definitely runs on a C64. Badly written, no.
A plain bad idea, yes. Only a total sadist, probably a mathematician, almost
certainly one who specialises in point-set topology, could have come up with
something quite as sick as Nando. And only a _good_ mathematician and a
topologist in particular could have made the program fit on a C64. And he'd
have to use a C64 'cause point-set topology doesn't pay well enough for him
to buy anything else.
I wonder how long it will take before a certain person who's been Googling
everything I post and whose name I did not mention sees this... Poke, poke,
poke.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Mitchell Coffey
Jul 12, 2012, 11:19:59 AM7/12/12
to
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 6:15:25 AM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:
> On Jul 11, 8:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Invidious comparison between UC and Nando is seriously unfair to the former. UC is a bit of a crank; Nando is evil.
> >
> > Mitchell Coffey
Speaking of bullying, by the way: you have called for the mass-murder of millions of people simply for disagreeing with you. That's rather worse than mere bullying (your term for openly disagreeing with your on a public forum), wouldn't you say?
> And in the limited way
> that you allow people to choose,
Lie 1.
>you have choosing defined as
> calculating an optimum where there is no alternative result possible
> except the optimum.
Lie 3.
> That is just newspeak, in real effects you are
> against freedom on an intellectual level.
Lie 4.
You consistently don't even attempt to quote posts were people write what you claim they believe. This means you are aware you are not telling the truth.
By the way, the guy who is against freedom on an intellectual level is the guy who advocates killing people just for disagreeing with him.
[snip. Lie 5, etc.]
Mitchell Coffey
> On Jul 11, 8:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Invidious comparison between UC and Nando is seriously unfair to the former. UC is a bit of a crank; Nando is evil.
> >
> > Mitchell Coffey
>
> You say you want freedom, yet you bully against people who reach a
> conclusion about what is there by choosing.
That is to say, I express my disagreement. That's what one is supposed to do in a democracy. Yet you think that disagreeing with you is immoral.
> You say you want freedom, yet you bully against people who reach a
> conclusion about what is there by choosing.
Speaking of bullying, by the way: you have called for the mass-murder of millions of people simply for disagreeing with you. That's rather worse than mere bullying (your term for openly disagreeing with your on a public forum), wouldn't you say?
> And in the limited way
> that you allow people to choose,
>you have choosing defined as
> calculating an optimum where there is no alternative result possible
> except the optimum.
> That is just newspeak, in real effects you are
> against freedom on an intellectual level.
You consistently don't even attempt to quote posts were people write what you claim they believe. This means you are aware you are not telling the truth.
By the way, the guy who is against freedom on an intellectual level is the guy who advocates killing people just for disagreeing with him.
[snip. Lie 5, etc.]
Mitchell Coffey
UC
Jul 12, 2012, 11:41:26 AM7/12/12
to
On Jul 11, 5:57 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of all
> the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and, as I
> have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain can be
> shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu with
> respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about the
> holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
No, I said that the terms 'ape' and 'human' are mutually exclusive.
> Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of all
> the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and, as I
> have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain can be
> shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu with
> respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about the
> holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
This means that you CANNOT assert that 'humans are apes' because it's
a logical contradiction, in exactly the same way that you cannot say
that 'my wife is a bachelor'. It is not a matter of 'evidence' but a
matter of semantics.
Attila
Jul 12, 2012, 1:11:05 PM7/12/12
to
Syamsu wrote:
> On Jul 11, 5:24 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Syamsu wrote:
>> > On Jul 11, 1:36 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
>> >> 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
>> >> So is sentence 2 true or false? Whoops time for me to take a couple of
>> >> shots of the human spirit. :) :)
>>
>> > You are very seriously wrong,
>>
>> Saying something and proving something are two very different kettles of
>> fish.
>
> It has been proven that people disbelieving in free will also act less
> freely. There is a reference for it on the wiki on free will.
Hmmm, interesting that you don't give the reference. The wiki page on free
> On Jul 11, 5:24 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Syamsu wrote:
>> > On Jul 11, 1:36 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> 1. I reject subjectivity in all forms of general human intercourse.
>> >> 2. The majority of victims of the holocaust were not apes.
>> >> So is sentence 2 true or false? Whoops time for me to take a couple of
>> >> shots of the human spirit. :) :)
>>
>> > You are very seriously wrong,
>>
>> Saying something and proving something are two very different kettles of
>> fish.
>
> It has been proven that people disbelieving in free will also act less
> freely. There is a reference for it on the wiki on free will.
will has 118 references. There are also 20-30 Further Reading items. Can you
point us to the article which "proves" what you claim above?
>
> But you know this, you know the mad evil scientist stereotype,
How do you "know" a stereotype. Do you mean in the biblical sense? Getting a
> But you know this, you know the mad evil scientist stereotype,
bit personal aren't we Nando?
> you
> know exactly what I am talking about. What do you expect to happen
> when you treat everything as a matter of fact, if not destroying
> emotions of people?
>
> If you make emotions into a matter of fact, then the identification of
> emotions becomes automated. There are no alternative results with
> facts, facts are just copies of information, it is a 1 to 1
> relationship. That the moon is round for example; the information
> travels from the moon, by medium of light through my eyes to my brain.
> I have no say in the matter, there is nothing to decide about it, the
> word round is automatically attributed to the picture received by a
> learning done previously. And without freedom, without an alternative
> result, there is no emotion.
>
> And here on talk.origins all you evolutionist goons create an
> environment where every issue is treated as an issue of fact.
Uh............... and this is a bad thing?
> know exactly what I am talking about. What do you expect to happen
> when you treat everything as a matter of fact, if not destroying
> emotions of people?
>
> If you make emotions into a matter of fact, then the identification of
> emotions becomes automated. There are no alternative results with
> facts, facts are just copies of information, it is a 1 to 1
> relationship. That the moon is round for example; the information
> travels from the moon, by medium of light through my eyes to my brain.
> I have no say in the matter, there is nothing to decide about it, the
> word round is automatically attributed to the picture received by a
> learning done previously. And without freedom, without an alternative
> result, there is no emotion.
>
> And here on talk.origins all you evolutionist goons create an
> environment where every issue is treated as an issue of fact.
> You all
> fail to acknowledge that the issue of what decides is categorically a
> subjective issue. You all fail to acknowledge a spiritual domain in a
> properly subjective way. Objectivity is held to be valid, subjectivity
> is held to be invalid, so the atmosphere created on this newsgroup is
> recognizeably that of the mad evil scientist. And this is the
> archetype identity people adopted in perpetrating the holocaust.
> Systematically destroying their emotions by rationalizing everything.
> Why even they felt they shouldn't do it, they deliberately disregarded
> their emotions because they were emotions, and not rationality.
Attila
Jul 12, 2012, 3:02:31 PM7/12/12
to
The latter phrase seems to be coomonly used no how much you fuss about it.
Second question: do you have a problem with the grouping of humans, chimps,
gorillas and orangutans into a family in the evolutionary biological sense?
Is it term "great ape" that causes you grief or is it the CONCEPT of humans,
chimps, gorillas and orangutans sharing a common ancestor?
Finally, your saying something doesn't make it so. The fact that YOU say
'ape' and 'human' are mutually exclusive is not probative in the least and
of no particular interest to anyone except perhaps your friends and family.
Boikat
Jul 12, 2012, 7:01:39 PM7/12/12
to
On Jul 12, 5:15 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 8:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Invidious comparison between UC and Nando is seriously unfair to the former. UC is a bit of a crank; Nando is evil.
>
> > Mitchell Coffey
>
> You say you want freedom, yet you bully against people who reach a
> conclusion about what is there by choosing.
Actually, you are really the one who is trying to bully people into
> On Jul 11, 8:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Invidious comparison between UC and Nando is seriously unfair to the former. UC is a bit of a crank; Nando is evil.
>
> > Mitchell Coffey
>
> You say you want freedom, yet you bully against people who reach a
> conclusion about what is there by choosing.
accepting your methode of "reaching a conclusion". You are the one
who is trying to destroy the freedom of others to choose the way they
make choices. You are a hypocrite, and you lie about the Holocaust.
> And in the limited way
> that you allow people to choose, you have choosing defined as
> calculating an optimum where there is no alternative result possible
> except the optimum.
> That is just newspeak, in real effects you are
> against freedom on an intellectual level.
> In effect you destroy belief
> in God by systematically destroying any knowledge about decisions made
> in the history of life.
> On talk.origins any theory which posits that
> things could have turned out differently, that things are decided, is
> bullied by evolutionist goons.
make decisions on turning out one way or the other, from moment to
moment", which still is nothing but mindless blather.
> In effect you destroy the subjective
> belief in Mitchell Coffey, in Boikat, and the human spirit in general,
> as the owner of their choices.
you insist I should "choose" based upon your warped "methods" of
"acknowledging" choices made by things that cannot make choices, like
rocks.
> You only allow objective facts in
> respect to the question who people are as the owner of their choices.
brought it up. The Toe doesn't involve choices as you use it, neither
does the Big Bang theory, which are the two main topics, along with
creationism's take on those matters. Even then, though *you* seem to
think your little obsession matters, it doesn't, since thing have
turned out the way the have, and "acknowledging they could have turned
out differently" is nothing but speculation, and in your case,
undefinable, to begin with, to anyone but yourself, since you are too
stupid to consistantly define your terms.
> You destroy emotions of people in a quite sophisticated and deliberate
> way,
> together with a very large group of people, using a bizarre
> version of the scientific method which competes against subjectivity
> to destroy it, instead of just a method which distinghuishes
> objectivity from subjectivity and have each their own domain.
exactly the purpose of the scientific method. If you disagree, please
show me the step in the scientific method where it says, "Enter your
subjective opinion here."?
Boikat
Boikat
Jul 12, 2012, 7:07:15 PM7/12/12
to
Boikat
UC
Jul 12, 2012, 10:49:26 PM7/12/12
to
Here but now they're gone
Seasons don't fear the reaper
Nor do the wind, the sun or the rain..we can be like they are
Come on baby...don't fear the reaper
Baby take my hand...don't fear the reaper
We'll be able to fly...don't fear the reaper
Baby I'm your man...
Valentine is done
Here but now they're gone
Romeo and Juliet
Are together in eternity...Romeo and Juliet
40,000 men and women everyday...Like Romeo and Juliet
40,000 men and women everyday...Redefine happiness
Another 40,000 coming everyday...We can be like they are
Come on baby...don't fear the reaper
Baby take my hand...don't fear the reaper
We'll be able to fly...don't fear the reaper
Baby I'm your man...
Love of two is one
Here but now they're gone
Came the last night of sadness
And it was clear she couldn't go on
Then the door was open and the wind appeared
The candles blew then disappeared
The curtains flew then he appeared...saying don't be afraid
Come on baby...and she had no fear
And she ran to him...then they started to fly
They looked backward and said goodby...she had become like they are
She had taken his hand...she had become like they are
Come on baby...don't fear the reaper
Anthony Puccetti
Jul 12, 2012, 11:52:59 PM7/12/12
to
On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:41:22 AM UTC-5, Syamsu wrote:
> On Jul 11, 11:57�am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Of course both Nando and UC could both be wrong which would not cause any
> > problems for anyone except them and certainly make the world a happier
> > place. What is impossible is that they are both correct. Hmmm now wasn't it
> > Nando who likes to talk about �this Franciscan dude who shaved a lot? I
> > wonder what Willie would suggest. Just askin' ;)
>
> It's not a joke. The subjectivity only applies to what does the
> deciding. You don't acknowledge the human spirit = people's emotions
> in a subjective way. The human spirit / emotions decide people's
> actions. So not allowing subjectivity means you don't allow expressing
has to do with reason. We react with horror and outrage to the Holocaust because it offends our God-given sense of justice.
> On Jul 11, 11:57�am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Of course both Nando and UC could both be wrong which would not cause any
> > problems for anyone except them and certainly make the world a happier
> > place. What is impossible is that they are both correct. Hmmm now wasn't it
> > Nando who likes to talk about �this Franciscan dude who shaved a lot? I
> > wonder what Willie would suggest. Just askin' ;)
>
> It's not a joke. The subjectivity only applies to what does the
> deciding. You don't acknowledge the human spirit = people's emotions
> in a subjective way. The human spirit / emotions decide people's
> actions. So not allowing subjectivity means you don't allow expressing
> of emotions or opinions in respect to the spirit / emotions of the
> people in the past. That makes the history of the holocaust
> meaningless, it is lying.
Human spirit should be understood primarily as the life or soul that God gives us,which makes us living beings. Emotions are something different,having to do with human will. You shouldn't base your opinions about human spirit or emotions or will upon mere feelings. These realities should be discerned by reason,and so should God. Whatever truth there is in human emotional reactions
> people in the past. That makes the history of the holocaust
> meaningless, it is lying.
has to do with reason. We react with horror and outrage to the Holocaust because it offends our God-given sense of justice.
Attila
Jul 13, 2012, 12:25:47 AM7/13/12
to
UC wrote:
> On Jul 12, 7:07 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 10:41 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 11, 5:57 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of
>> > > all the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense
>> > > and, as I have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great
>> > > Britain can be shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando
>> > > aka Syamsu with respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with
>> > > lying about the holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
>>
>> > No, I said that the terms 'ape' and 'human' are mutually exclusive.
>> > This means that you CANNOT assert that 'humans are apes' because it's
>> > a logical contradiction, in exactly the same way that you cannot say
>> > that 'my wife is a bachelor'. It is not a matter of 'evidence' but a
>> > matter of semantics.
>>
>> Have you ever heard of a Venn Diagram?
>>
>> Boikat
>
<snipped to avoid copyright infringement >
> On Jul 12, 7:07 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 10:41 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 11, 5:57 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of
>> > > all the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense
>> > > and, as I have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great
>> > > Britain can be shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando
>> > > aka Syamsu with respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with
>> > > lying about the holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
>>
>> > No, I said that the terms 'ape' and 'human' are mutually exclusive.
>> > This means that you CANNOT assert that 'humans are apes' because it's
>> > a logical contradiction, in exactly the same way that you cannot say
>> > that 'my wife is a bachelor'. It is not a matter of 'evidence' but a
>> > matter of semantics.
>>
>> Have you ever heard of a Venn Diagram?
>>
>> Boikat
>
Is that the only song you know?
Here, you can now double your repertoire.
God, sometimes you just don't come through
God, sometimes you just don't come through
Do you need a woman to look after you?
God, sometimes you just don't come through
You make pretty daisies, pretty daisies love
I gotta find find find what you're doing about things here?
A few witches burning gets a little toasty here
I gotta find find find find, why you always go when the wind blows?
God, sometimes you just don't come through
God, sometimes you just don't come through
Do you need a woman to look after you?
God, sometimes you just don't come through
Tell me you're crazy maybe then I'll understand
You got your 9 iron in the back seat, just in case
Heard you've gone south, well, baby, you love your new 4 wheel
I gotta find find find, why you always go when the wind blows?
Give not thy strenghth unto women
Nor thy ways to them which destroyeth kings
Will you even tell her
If you decide to make the sky fall?
Will you even tell her
If you decide to make the sky fall?
God, sometimes you just don't come through
God, sometimes you just don't come through
Do you need a woman to look after you?
God, sometimes you just don't come through
Do you need a woman to look after you?
God, sometimes you just don't come through
Boikat
Jul 13, 2012, 3:25:54 AM7/13/12
to
On Jul 12, 9:49 pm, UC <uraniumcommitteechair...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 7:07 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 10:41 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 11, 5:57 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of all
> > > > the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and, as I
> > > > have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain can be
> > > > shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu with
> > > > respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about the
> > > > holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
>
> > > No, I said that the terms 'ape' and 'human' are mutually exclusive.
> > > This means that you CANNOT assert that 'humans are apes' because it's
> > > a logical contradiction, in exactly the same way that you cannot say
> > > that 'my wife is a bachelor'. It is not a matter of 'evidence' but a
> > > matter of semantics.
>
> > Have you ever heard of a Venn Diagram?
>
> > Boikat
>
> All our times have come
> Here but now they're gone
<snip remaining..>
> On Jul 12, 7:07 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 10:41 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 11, 5:57 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of all
> > > > the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and, as I
> > > > have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain can be
> > > > shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu with
> > > > respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about the
> > > > holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
>
> > > No, I said that the terms 'ape' and 'human' are mutually exclusive.
> > > This means that you CANNOT assert that 'humans are apes' because it's
> > > a logical contradiction, in exactly the same way that you cannot say
> > > that 'my wife is a bachelor'. It is not a matter of 'evidence' but a
> > > matter of semantics.
>
> > Have you ever heard of a Venn Diagram?
>
> > Boikat
>
> All our times have come
> Here but now they're gone
That doesn't answer the question.
Boikat
Nick Keighley
Jul 13, 2012, 5:03:39 AM7/13/12
to
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 6:11:05 PM UTC+1, Attila wrote:
> Syamsu wrote:
> >> > On Jul 11, 1:36 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Syamsu wrote:
<snip>
> > It has been proven that people disbelieving in free will also act less
> > freely. There is a reference for it on the wiki on free will.
<snip>
> > But you know this, you know the mad evil scientist stereotype,
mean etc. Scientits aren't mad & evil.
<snip>
> > [...] That the moon is round for example;
doesn't this mean it has no Free Will?
> > the information
> > travels from the moon, by medium of light through my eyes to my brain.
> > I have no say in the matter,
> > there is nothing to decide about it, the
> > word round is automatically attributed to the picture received by a
> > learning done previously. And without freedom, without an alternative
> > result, there is no emotion.
objective fact taht the moon is "round". the moon's shape is unaffected
by your emotional state or your Free Will. Yes?
<snip>
Science is about objective facts. the moon is round, light travels at a
fixed speed, evolution happened. Science really has nothing to say about
those other subjects.
> > You all
> > fail to acknowledge that the issue of what decides is categorically a
> > subjective issue.
> > You all fail to acknowledge a spiritual domain in a
> > properly subjective way.
> > Objectivity is held to be valid, subjectivity
> > is held to be invalid, so the atmosphere created on this newsgroup is
> > recognizeably that of the mad evil scientist.
better now), a satanist ("anyone who doesn't worship Christ worships Satan")
and now a Mad Evil Scientist, MES for short.
> > And this is the
> > archetype identity people adopted in perpetrating the holocaust.
> > Systematically destroying their emotions by rationalizing everything.
> > Why even they felt they shouldn't do it, they deliberately disregarded
> > their emotions because they were emotions, and not rationality.
>
> Whatever, carry on without me. I'm getting bored.
Attila
Jul 13, 2012, 5:09:17 AM7/13/12
to
wind. Sorry, Boikat, sometimes I just can't help it. Sometimes I just can't
(there I go again).
Nick Keighley
Jul 13, 2012, 5:29:13 AM7/13/12
to
On Friday, July 13, 2012 4:52:59 AM UTC+1, Anthony Puccetti wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:41:22 AM UTC-5, Syamsu wrote:
<snip>
> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:41:22 AM UTC-5, Syamsu wrote:
> > It's not a joke. The subjectivity only applies to what does the
> > deciding. You don't acknowledge the human spirit = people's emotions
> > in a subjective way. The human spirit / emotions decide people's
> > actions. So not allowing subjectivity means you don't allow expressing
> > of emotions or opinions in respect to the spirit / emotions of the
> > people in the past. That makes the history of the holocaust
> > meaningless, it is lying.
>
> Human spirit should be understood primarily as the life or soul that God
> gives us,
I don't acknowledge the existence of god, soul or spirit. Which is at least
> > people in the past. That makes the history of the holocaust
> > meaningless, it is lying.
>
> Human spirit should be understood primarily as the life or soul that God
> gives us,
a consistent position! Life runs fine without god.
> which makes us living beings.
only things with human spirits are living? We are living being without any
need of the god hypothesis.
> Emotions are something different,having
> to do with human will.
myself happy, or sad?
> You shouldn't base your opinions about human spirit
> or emotions or will upon mere feelings.
> These realities should be discerned
> by reason,and so should God.
there is no evidence for god
=> god does not exist
> Whatever truth there is in human emotional reactions
> has to do with reason.
> We react with horror and outrage to the Holocaust
> because it offends our God-given sense of justice.
We react with horror and outrage to the Holocaust
why didn't your god prevent the holocaust?
He's either powerless, evil or non-existent.
jillery
Jul 13, 2012, 5:43:30 AM7/13/12
to
cells agree.
Attila
Jul 13, 2012, 8:18:41 AM7/13/12
to
backspace
Jul 13, 2012, 4:00:40 PM7/13/12
to
UC
Jul 13, 2012, 4:09:29 PM7/13/12
to
backspace
Jul 13, 2012, 4:13:32 PM7/13/12
to
1) When a baboon with floppy ears and a fruitcake look on his face
lies besides you in hospital, the doctor designates with the terms
''ape blood'' and ''human blood'' a concept that your life will depend
on.
2) Ape, monkey, simian, baboon can all be used interchangeably in the
*vernacular* sense. The alleged common ancestor between man and ape is
an exercise in semantic smoke and mirrors: it was a monkey or flea
scratching baboon or if it makes you feel more intellectually
sophisticated then you may call it a primate. As long as you
understand that this replaces one vernacular for another as John
Wilkins explained.
See http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Common_Ancestor and
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Bible_isn't_defined
J.J. O'Shea
Jul 13, 2012, 7:01:04 PM7/13/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:09:29 -0400, UC wrote
(in article
<uranium-4b0c7f91-1c4f-...@i11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jul 13, 4:00ï¿œpm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 4:41ï¿œpm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
happens when you hobnob with Peter N, other people think that you might share
some of his opinions.
(in article
<uranium-4b0c7f91-1c4f-...@i11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jul 13, 4:00ï¿œpm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 4:41ï¿œpm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 11, 5:57ï¿œam, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of all
>>>> the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and, as I
>>>> have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain can be
>>>> shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu with
>>>> respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about the
>>>> holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
>>
>>> No, I said that the terms 'ape' and 'human' are mutually exclusive.
>>> This means that you CANNOT assert that 'humans are apes' because it's
>>> a logical contradiction, in exactly the same way that you cannot say
>>> that 'my wife is a bachelor'. It is not a matter of 'evidence' but a
>>> matter of semantics.
>>
>> Are you a closet ID? You seem to more of the sane people around here.
>
> Closet what? what are you talking about?
>
He just asked you if you were an Intelligent Design creationist. This is what
>>> On Jul 11, 5:57ï¿œam, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of all
>>>> the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and, as I
>>>> have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain can be
>>>> shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu with
>>>> respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about the
>>>> holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
>>
>>> No, I said that the terms 'ape' and 'human' are mutually exclusive.
>>> This means that you CANNOT assert that 'humans are apes' because it's
>>> a logical contradiction, in exactly the same way that you cannot say
>>> that 'my wife is a bachelor'. It is not a matter of 'evidence' but a
>>> matter of semantics.
>>
>> Are you a closet ID? You seem to more of the sane people around here.
>
> Closet what? what are you talking about?
>
happens when you hobnob with Peter N, other people think that you might share
some of his opinions.
jillery
Jul 13, 2012, 10:21:44 PM7/13/12
to
where 'human' and 'ape' are semantically equivalent. The example you
give above is a good example, however unlikely, where the two terms
describe an arbitary but important distinction. An example where that
distinction clouds the issue is when someone asks, "if humans came
from apes, why are there still apes?"
UC
Jul 13, 2012, 10:47:58 PM7/13/12
to
Richard Clayton
Jul 13, 2012, 11:22:58 PM7/13/12
to
language. If you manage to make it stick, let me know how; I confess I
despise the use of "they" as a gender-neutral singular, and if I knew a
way to stuff THAT genie back in the bottle I would.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
UC
Jul 13, 2012, 11:33:59 PM7/13/12
to
On Jul 13, 11:22 pm, Richard Clayton <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com>
wrote:
My self-summary
Just became an official OH resident this month! I'm a lot of fun,
smart, outgoing and vibrant. I don't think there is any point in
living unless your are really LIVING! I don't accept any negativity,
and I surround myself with friends that pour lots of positive energy
into my life. I believe in trying everything once (and over again if
you like it!) I'm bisexual. I am attached. I am very focused on my
business. I take great pride in all that I do, and I admire others who
feel the same. I would love to form relationships with people that
propel us both forward... I am a fashion queen, book fiend, sarcasm
master and I know more than I should about Star Wars! :P If you want
to know anything else, just ask! I already have a great guy, so now
I'm looking for a great girl to add to it. I'm very open to the idea
of a triad...Not looking for a random hookup here...much more
interested in something that works for both of us long term..
wrote:
Just became an official OH resident this month! I'm a lot of fun,
smart, outgoing and vibrant. I don't think there is any point in
living unless your are really LIVING! I don't accept any negativity,
and I surround myself with friends that pour lots of positive energy
into my life. I believe in trying everything once (and over again if
you like it!) I'm bisexual. I am attached. I am very focused on my
business. I take great pride in all that I do, and I admire others who
feel the same. I would love to form relationships with people that
propel us both forward... I am a fashion queen, book fiend, sarcasm
master and I know more than I should about Star Wars! :P If you want
to know anything else, just ask! I already have a great guy, so now
I'm looking for a great girl to add to it. I'm very open to the idea
of a triad...Not looking for a random hookup here...much more
interested in something that works for both of us long term..
jillery
Jul 14, 2012, 12:45:10 AM7/14/12
to
Attila
Jul 14, 2012, 3:43:05 AM7/14/12
to
'apes' are semantically equivalent? Doesn't ape refer to the conjunction of
two families: Hylobatidae and Hominidae and not to any specific species? Is
a trangle the semantic equivalent of a plane geometric figure? I'm guessing
we have different interpretations of the words "semantically equivalent".
What's going on?
<snip>
I agree
backspace
Jul 14, 2012, 3:45:30 AM7/14/12
to
a human and simian?
Attila
Jul 14, 2012, 3:50:20 AM7/14/12
to
Richard Clayton wrote:
> On 12-Jul-12 11:41, UC wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 5:57 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of
>>> all the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and,
>>> as I have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain
>>> can be shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu
>>> with respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about
>>> the holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
>>
>> No, I said that the terms 'ape' and 'human' are mutually exclusive.
>> This means that you CANNOT assert that 'humans are apes' because it's
>> a logical contradiction, in exactly the same way that you cannot say
>> that 'my wife is a bachelor'. It is not a matter of 'evidence' but a
>> matter of semantics.
>
> Have fun trying to turn back the clock on the evolution of the English
> language. If you manage to make it stick, let me know how; I confess I
> despise the use of "they" as a gender-neutral singular, and if I knew a
> way to stuff THAT genie back in the bottle I would.
>
Start using "she" as your gender-neutral singular pronoun. Or else start
> On 12-Jul-12 11:41, UC wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 5:57 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of
>>> all the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and,
>>> as I have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain
>>> can be shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu
>>> with respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about
>>> the holocaust. I will now make the following statements.
>>
>> No, I said that the terms 'ape' and 'human' are mutually exclusive.
>> This means that you CANNOT assert that 'humans are apes' because it's
>> a logical contradiction, in exactly the same way that you cannot say
>> that 'my wife is a bachelor'. It is not a matter of 'evidence' but a
>> matter of semantics.
>
> Have fun trying to turn back the clock on the evolution of the English
> language. If you manage to make it stick, let me know how; I confess I
> despise the use of "they" as a gender-neutral singular, and if I knew a
> way to stuff THAT genie back in the bottle I would.
>
using a language which only has gender neutral 3rd pers. sg. pronouns.
Ojbiwa is a good candidate if you live in North American. The strong form of
the 3rd pers. sg. pronoun is <wi:n> where <i:> is a vowel similar to the
English vowel in "tea" so you could get by using the English word "wean" as
a reasonable approximation. "Each student should bring wean textbook to
class". Doesn't that make you feel better? Glad to be of service. :)
jillery
Jul 14, 2012, 7:48:17 AM7/14/12
to
because I don't see much point to paraphrase. Perhaps an analogy
would help. IIUC UC is saying that squares should not be called
quadrilaterals, because 'square' semantically excludes
'quadrilateral'.
><snip>
>I agree
Good for you.
jillery
Jul 14, 2012, 8:01:31 AM7/14/12
to
Attila
Jul 14, 2012, 11:26:16 AM7/14/12
to
you what asked the question.
By "if both humans and apes came from a monkey" I assume you mean that both
a human (say, male) and an ape (let's say a chimp for concreteness) were
masturbating over a picture of a monkey (female spider monkey for
concreteness and they are indeed quite sexy) and you're asking if this
resulted in said female spider monkey getting pregnant and giving birth? I
think you need to go back to your mummy and ask her to explain again where
babies come from. When you get to junior school maybe they'll have a sex
education class but if it's a fundy school I kinda doubt it. It's a bit
naughty of you to be posting such sexually explicit stuff on a serious
scientific ng. Shame on you. tsk tsk tsk. Oh and didn't Leviticus have
something to say on the subject of humans fornicating with spider monkeys?
^H, I would say you are in really deeep shit.
0 new messages