questions for graduates

[_George]

there is no debate, you are clearly not as intelligent as you think you are

oh yeah and you saying it makes it so when you clearly cant answer any of my points

 

[marty21]

well yeah but someone mentioned something about testing arguments and i thaught that some of you might be able to help me do that by debating them with me. clearly i was mistaken.

it's the way you debate, you need to learn HOW to debate, then you'll get a response

 

[_George]

it's the way you debate, you need to learn HOW to debate, then you'll get a response

im irritated that degrees have been devalued to the point of being so easy that simpletons like this can get them

 

[marty21]

im irritated that degrees have been devalued to the point of being so easy that simpletons like this can get them

good point, I got my degree in 1988

 

[_George]

good point, I got my degree in 1988

what in?

 

[marty21]

what in?

philosophy

 

[paulhackett]

philosophy

genius

 

[_George]

philosophy

then dont tell me rubbish like ''you dont know how to debate'' and debate either point with me

wouldent that be more interesting than some pointless flame war?

 

[marty21]

then dont tell me rubbish like ''you dont know how to debate'' and debate either point with me

wouldent that be more interesting than some pointless flame war?

no, a pointless flame war is way more interesting than debating some obscure theory

 

[Maurice Picarda]

genius

Only a bachelors degree though, I expect. George would destroy him at masters level.

 

[5t3IIa]

Oh Georgie you are a funny little thing

 

[marty21]

Only a bachelors degree though, I expect. George would destroy him at masters level.

true, George rules at philosophizing

 

[_George]

i cant. your reasoning is as sound as it appears to you. im not sure why you think my mind would be able to see flaws in it where yours cant

 

[marty21]

oh george, you are learning the internetz, making up quotes, good work!

 

[ViolentPanda]

because thats what it does. its a little bit like saying ''i think theres a coin balanced on a needle in a strong wind on the other side of that wall'' and some person saying ''you cant know that because you cant see through the wall'' whereas my argument is more like saying ''but a coin cant balance on a needle in a strong wind, look it just falls over''

So because you subjectively "know" something, this makes that something objective?
Oh my.

the fact that regigion spreads like a virus of the mind kinda does tho

Religion is nothing like a virus. A virus is indiscriminate in who it affects.

so you dont think that religous commandments, afterlifes with conditions and so on were thaught up as a way of controlling peoples behavour?

Of course they are.
You, however, haven't been saying that they're a method, you've been saying that they're the method.

it uses fear of dying as a way of doing that i think

Fear of oblivion, actually.

 

[ViolentPanda]

maybe if i sent this thread off to a uni theyd let me do a masters right away?

I think that, unfortunately for you, the qualification for a master's degree is universally a decent bachelor's degree with honours nowadays.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i see. but i just won the dabate on here...

Your belief that you have won "the debate on here" isn't necessarily contiguous with reality.

...and can win debates with my college tutors and whole class at the same time.

So you say.
It's not, however, something you've actually demonstrated here, yet.

...ill give you that some of you have superior knowlege, violent pander i would imagine has a good deal more knowlege of judaism than i do but in this instance it would appear that superior reasoning beats superior knowlege.

Please show me where you've displayed this "superior reasoning". perhaps I blinked and missed it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

"Violent Pander" was quite funny. I thaught. Put me in mind of a knuckledustered pimp.

It would have been funny if it hadn't been done before.

 

[ViolentPanda]

well then, debate my ideas and show me that im not as clever as i think rather than just saying it and expecting that to mean anything to me

If you want people to debate your ideas, first you need to properly quantify them, so that once the debate starts you're not constantly saying "well actually I meant..." whenever someone picks a hole in your hypothesis.
And please don't think I'm oppressing you by requesting detail. If you ever publish, you'll be required to set out your hypotheses extremely clearly, in what will feel like mind-numbingly minute detail, because if you don't (and even if you do, sometimes! ) your ideas and your method will be dissected and found wanting.