New and old ideas

Yeah, I sometimes worry that I can be a boring debater in certain questions, for many stop answering my posts before I manage to conclude my arguments. I like to get a full idea of an opponent's argument, pick out the part I disagree the most with and then argue from that, but I rarely even manage to get a proper understanding of the opposing arguments. You should have seen my 60 page debate with Bishadi. After a while, it turned out that he didn't read the quote history, so if I for instance answered "No" on some question, he wouldn't look up what I had answered no to and just answer as if I had answered no to something else. Very frustrating.

I do enjoy the few debates that are long like this, though.

 

but he doesn't demonstrate his 'bulldog faith' so much as his childlike one-upmanship. his faith (such as it is ... I and I suspect it's nowhere near bulldog) barely seems to rate in his responses.

I would suggest that Swensson wins by intelligent, cogent, and sound argument.

 

'Most' of US get into a position of 'running out of an argument' but still feel obligated to respond....sometimes sarcastically, other times out of frustration, especially if double or triple teamed!. But I'm sure that doesnt apply to YOU.....

 

are you comparing me, or anyone else on the planet for that matter, with Incspot?

wow

 

YOUR words....

MY words....

<Ah Ah Hem......>

 

You can suggest whatever you desire, however your suggestion nor the results of some poll do not make the matter 'true', therefore those things do not serve as a 'proof'.

 

Debate? I have not seen you presenting anything worthy of more than 5 minutes consideration before it is concluded that you have not presented anything that compels my mind to accept what you have stated as 'true'.

- - - Updated - - -

You may very well be doing your best, but your best is not even close to convincing nor so compelling that I should accept what you say as 'true'.

 

Let me cut you short right here. In the OP the reason for the thread is stated in the last line:

"At any rate, I found the article interesting reading and thought it would be worth discussing."

That is all the reason I need to start a thread that otherwise meets the criteria for starting a thread.

Now start over and try again.

 

Well, we haven't resolved where our difference of opinion lies (unless you actually do think you can determine the number of beers in the fridge with dice). I've been trying to probe exactly where our opinions differ, but you've skipped that before, and now you're "cutting me short" again.

Why should I let you cut me short? For the first time, I managed to pin down a fundamental disagreement of ours, and you casually cut right before it?

I was afraid that one could criticise me for picking on parts of the OP that were not meant to be up for discussion, which is why my first comment in this thread was asking what the main point of the thread was. I believe you first said that I shouldn't worry about it, but that has since been edited away. Either way, your comments then didn't lead me to believe that I was off topic when I explicitly asked for it.

Anyway, I don't find the article that interesting, and I don't think I have anything interesting to add on it, so if you're constraining the thread to ignore your claims of conclusive evidence for your conclusions, I have no comments or objections, and hence, I will not answer.

 

Addition:

I was saying I was doing my best to have patience.

 

And I will continue cutting you short for the following reason: What is the topic of this thread? Is the topic of this thread about me or you or even resolving the differences of opinion between you and me? What relevance do those issues you mentioned above have to do with the topic of this thread?

Read the first paragraph I printed above.

In the paragraph immediately you openly show that you are acting on emotions. That is not even close to being "logical". Remember YOUR rules of logic.

Are you now suggesting that this section of the thread is not off topic? What relevance does your push to understand my thinking have to do with the topic of this thread? What relevance does your belief ("I believe") have to do with this thread?

So, if you don't find the article interesting and you don't have anything interesting to add on it, then why are you participating in the thread with your constant opening and reopening of off topic discussion? What is your real reason for being involved in this thread. Obfuscation? Derailment? Ridicule of the thread? Personal dislike toward the author of this thread? You mentioned once before your "fear" of an uncertain element that might be encountered. I would ask now, what is it about this thread that you fear with such intensity that causes you to keep up your attempts at off topic discussion?

 

It was you who claimed that my rejection of the idea presented in the OP was because of an unwarranted bias against occultism. The logical chain I invited you to double check argued for my unwillingness to, as a rule, take occult writings as correct. If the logical chain can be showed to be sound, then your criticism of my criticism is shown to be unwarranted and my original criticism stands unchallenged. You have rejected a part of the logical chain, and in the last post you ignored, I presented the consequences of rejecting that part. You see, I'm not convinced that you actually do think you can rely on unreliable methodology, which would mean my chain of logic is sound, which would mean your criticism is unwarranted, which would mean my criticism is unchallenged, and *that* is why that question is important.

Not sure which paragraph you are referring to, but it would not surprise me if this complaint can be resolved using the same, non-emotional definition of "feel" as I gave earlier. We are both quite restrictive with our opinions and beliefs. I use the words "feel", "believe" and so on to mark statements whose basis the reader should be aware of. For instance, when I say "I feel you are sloppy with your phrasings", I acknowledge the possibility that your phrasings were correct and that I just read it with the wrong rhythm in my head. If that were the case, it would be incorrect to say that you were sloppy, but not incorrect to say that I felt (as in believe/think) you were. Either way, not important for the discussion.

This section is certainly off topic, and it has been so since you avoided my questions and comments. You have not resolved our differences of opinion on reliable methodology, and you have avoided my pleas for you to clarify how you came to your conclusion in the OP.

The reason for my being involved in this thread is related to the 94% of your OP that didn't depend on the article being interesting. The articles do not claim that the Many Worlds Quantum Interpretation depended on 19th century occultist, but you did. I found your claim interesting, but not the article.

I also see similarities to the claims you made here and some religious claims that I still struggle to see the merit of. I was hoping that a satisfactory answer to this thread could give me some insight to the religious claims as well.

I had a fear that I had misunderstood the claim in the OP. That has since been resolved. I hope that answers your question, can we go back to mine now?

 

Based again on your opening 3 or 4 sentences, I am again dissing your post because you are making a comparison of two systems of logic and attempting to say that one is better that the other. So, once again, your comments do not compel my mind to accept what you are saying as 'true'.

By the way, ;my claim at the end of the OP is that I think the article would make interesting discussion. Not that the disputes of logic systems would be interesting.

 

I would hesitate to use "better", but yes, one will give you false answers, the other does not. I don't see how that makes "dissing" my post a good course of action. Using the different systems of logic will resolve the first question in your OP differently.

The disputes of logical systems directly links to a question in the OP. Frankly, it could make some interesting comments on the article as well.

This is the third time you've avoided the line of argument that would resolve the issue. You always cut me off at exactly the same place, indicating to me that there is something there that you do not not wish me to know. Seeing how you repeatedly ignored questions in favour of informing me who used the words "devil spawn" first, picked on legitimate use of words and tried to change the subject despite the question discussed being in black and white right in the beginning of the OP, the claim of Off Topic seems like a desperate measure. Clearly, you are adamant in maintaining this veil of logic censorship and in restricting information about the soundness of your argument. Without such information, I don't see how this discussion, or how any discussion that ever was held, is now held or ever will be held could even approach accuracy in any aspect.

However, I will not press issues that you find uncomfortable (more than necessary to see if you ignored things by mistake), so see you in another thread.

Good luck getting people to discuss that article.

 

The bottom line of our discussion is summed up here: your arguments are not sufficient to compel my mind to accept what you say as true.
Have a nice day.

 

You have stated that no logical, rational argument will, so you saying that is somewhat irrelevant.

 

Where did "Incorporeal" say "no logical, rational argument, will compe him to accept what you say is true?

- - - Updated - - -

Where did "Incorporeal" say "no logical, rational argument, will compe him to accept what you say is true?

 

It was on another thread.
This is nothing he will shy away from. He is perfectly content to admit it. It is really the crux of his entire argument on the forums.
He has stated it in exactly the terms I have used.