Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Seth]

That would be highly unlikely. He's possibly an engineer of sorts. He understands very little about science.

Well, you think he understands very little about science, but since you understand nothing about science you're hardly one to talk nor are you an authority on what other people understand or do not understand.

Big difference.

[pErvinalia]

I was educated as a scientist and worked as a scientist for a long time. Unlike you who thinks science is a Marxist conspiracy theory...

[Seth]

Rat Skep suffers from people thinking they can have a rational conversation with other people who they don't have the slightest thing in common. Sometimes basic values are so different that such conversation is impossible, rationalia doesn't have that issue as we know full well we are just shouting at each for our own entertainment

No, RatSkep suffers from people thinking that they CANNOT have a rational conversation with other people who they don't have the slightest thing in common.
To an intelligent, rational person basic values are irrelevant as intelligent, rational people know that basic values can vary and they are able to disconnect their emotional side from their rational side for the purposes of discussion and debate without difficulty.

As Aristotle once said, "The mark of an intelligent mind is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it."

RatSkep suffers from a bunch of ideologically and mentally ossified pseudo-intellectuals who clearly and utterly fail Aristotle's test.

How can you debate with someone what is a better pet a cat or dog if one party thinks dogs don't exist

Well, it's not all that difficult really for a person of wit and intelligence to educate whilst debating with know-nothing morons. I do it all the time. It mainly depends on who exactly you're trying to educate and who exactly you're using as an example of why education is a good thing because your example clearly hasn't had any.

How can you debate with someone about whether god created the world in 6 billion years or 6 years if you think god doesnt exist (or time for that matter)

I would answer that for you but it would take six billion years for you to understand, so I'll let you continue in ignorance.

How can you debate with someone about whether a law interferes with someone inalienable rights if you don't think rights exist

You start by debating the concept of rights, or had that simple prelude to a more complete discussion escaped your towering intellect?

In the end politics isn't about minor disagreements on minor details its about something that is so basic to what a person is, and if different there is simply nothing in common, you might as well be having a debate with your cat about your favourite cat

Only an ideologically and mentally ossified pseudo-intellectual would ask a question like that.

[pErvinalia]

You been on the eggnog, Seth?

[Seth]

I was educated as a scientist and worked as a scientist for a long time. Unlike you who thinks science is a Marxist conspiracy theory...

And I should believe you because?

I judge you by your works, and your works don't reflect scientific training or intellectual rigor. Now perhaps you are merely a persona being presented by someone who is a scientist, which I can fully understand and accept, but the evidence isn't in the record that your persona has any scientific, much less philosophical education because whenever you're intellectually or philosophically challenged you respond with juvenile and frankly red-necked personal insults rather than any sort of dialog that indicates you have any advanced education at all.

So if you're really a scientist, then start acting like one and start debating like you have more than half a brain...please.

[Seth]

You been on the eggnog, Seth?

No, I passed on the "Moonshine Eggnog" someone brought to dinner because I had to drive 60 miles to get home. I was told however that it was...consciousness altering.

[pErvinalia]

I was educated as a scientist and worked as a scientist for a long time. Unlike you who thinks science is a Marxist conspiracy theory...

And I should believe you because?

I judge you by your works, and your works don't reflect scientific training or intellectual rigor. Now perhaps you are merely a persona being presented by someone who is a scientist, which I can fully understand and accept, but the evidence isn't in the record that your persona has any scientific, much less philosophical education because whenever you're intellectually or philosophically challenged you respond with juvenile and frankly red-necked personal insults rather than any sort of dialog that indicates you have any advanced education at all.

So if you're really a scientist, then start acting like one and start debating like you have more than half a brain...please.

There's no point with you, Seth. As has been pointed out by others you've been rehashing the exact same shit for a decade+, and have had your "arguments" shredded by probably more than a hundred rationalist over the years. You are incapable of learning new facts, and don't understand the basics of logic and logical fallacies. When we point out your logic errors you employ the red herring or moving goalposts fallacies. It's pointless trying to debate you in anything. Anyone who thinks GWB and the IMF (and most of the rest of the world) are Marxists, clearly is a few sandwiches short of a lunch pack.

[Seth]

I was educated as a scientist and worked as a scientist for a long time. Unlike you who thinks science is a Marxist conspiracy theory...

And I should believe you because?

I judge you by your works, and your works don't reflect scientific training or intellectual rigor. Now perhaps you are merely a persona being presented by someone who is a scientist, which I can fully understand and accept, but the evidence isn't in the record that your persona has any scientific, much less philosophical education because whenever you're intellectually or philosophically challenged you respond with juvenile and frankly red-necked personal insults rather than any sort of dialog that indicates you have any advanced education at all.

So if you're really a scientist, then start acting like one and start debating like you have more than half a brain...please.

There's no point with you, Seth.

Translation: "I'm lying so instead of backing up my claim I'm going to insult you some more."

As has been pointed out by others you've been rehashing the exact same shit for a decade+,

Translation: "I haven't come up with an original thought in a decade+ so I'll attack Seth instead because I'm simply incapable of forming a rational argument."

and have had your "arguments" shredded by probably more than a hundred rationalist over the years.

Translation: "I've tried and tried to rebut your excellent arguments and have been utterly unable to do so, so I'm going to engage in my usual practice of personal insults in hopes of sounding cool...even though I know I'm not and that I'm your intellectual inferior in every way."

You are incapable of learning new facts,

Translation: "You won't accept as gospel the crap that I spew when I do occasionally form a thought and so I'm going to insult you some more."

and don't understand the basics of logic and logical fallacies.

Translation: "I don't know what the fuck "logic" is or what a "fallacy" is even though you've posted the definitions dozens of times so I'm going to claim you don't understand when in fact it's me that doesn't have a fucking clue."

When we point out your logic errors you employ the red herring or moving goalposts fallacies.

Translation: "I've got a ferret in my pocket and he's gnawing on my ball sack right now, thus the "we" comment, so I'm going to type some irrelevant and insulting bullshit because I can't think of anything else right now."

It's pointless trying to debate you in anything.

Translation: "I know I'm a dunce and a mental midget who couldn't debate his way out of a wet tissue, so it's pointless for me to even try, so I'll just insult you instead."

Anyone who thinks GWB and the IMF (and most of the rest of the world) are Marxists, clearly is a few sandwiches short of a lunch pack.

Translation: "I have someone insulting my Marxist religious believes almost as much as jihadis hate having Allah and Mohammed insulted, but I haven't go the balls to go blow them up with a suicide vest because that ferret in my pocket has eaten them, so I'm going to post insults and horseshit claims instead."

Merry Christmas rEv!

[pErvinalia]

[Seth]

Too much turkey and eggnog? Have a good sleep, you need it.

[Strontium Dog]

SD got caught out big time about his signature, which Surr quoted as: "NEVER WRONG" When Surr mentioned that, SD replied "I will never believe that freedom is ever wrong. I won't apologise for that." then added "What on earth did you, or anyone else, think that "never wrong" referred to if not my belief in liberty?!" Then Scott1328 exposed those replies as big, fat lies by quoting another one of SD's posts, which bears repeating here: "And I thought PZ Myers couldn't sink any lower. Guess I was wrong. Thanks a lot PZ, I'm going to have to change my fucking signature now!". Thank you Scott. Is anybody surprised that SD has not commented on the matter of his signature since?

I haven't commented because I've been away. I know most of us are atheists, but you've surely noticed it's Christmas.

The PZ Myers comment is a joke. I wish I could say it was the first time a joke of mine has been twisted to misrepresent me - hell, I wish I could say it was the tenth time.

[Strontium Dog]

I do not though think an apology is necessary for SD was being deliberately provocative

I appreciate there's a lot of revisionism in order to justify a pre-determined stance, but I certainly was not being provocative. Stop telling me I was being provocative when I know for a fact I wasn't.

[Strontium Dog]

SD's posting style is too often abrasive and his views reprehensible, but I definitely prefer him as a forum member to someone who libels another with utmost courtesy and under the cover of expressing politically acceptable views.

Um cheers I guess?

Abrasive I can live with - I tend to speak as I'm spoken to, so it's hard for me to make nice with people who are horrible to me - but I sure would love to know which of my opinions are reprehensible.

[pErvinalia]

The thing is, though, that I basically believe Surr has got it right (not from that quote alone, but from knowing SDs history). I totally could believe that SD holds those views.

Well, he was asked to provide evidence justifying his accustations. This is what he came up with, and he turns out to be spectacularly wrong.

SD got caught out big time about his signature, which Surr quoted as: "NEVER WRONG" When Surr mentioned that, SD replied "I will never believe that freedom is ever wrong. I won't apologise for that." then added "What on earth did you, or anyone else, think that "never wrong" referred to if not my belief in liberty?!" Then Scott1328 exposed those replies as big, fat lies by quoting another one of SD's posts, which bears repeating here: "And I thought PZ Myers couldn't sink any lower. Guess I was wrong. Thanks a lot PZ, I'm going to have to change my fucking signature now!". Thank you Scott. Is anybody surprised that SD has not commented on the matter of his signature since?

You keep handwaving in the same manner as Surr. Vague comments like "Surr got it right" and "from knowing SDs history", nothing more from either of you. I won't bother asking you to substantiate your trolling and racism accusations because I already know your reply.

Well it bears repeating: There is context you are totally unaware of. If you can't deal with that, take a fucking pill.


ETA: Scott's example is just one of the very many bits of context which makes up SDs history. Basically lying with absolute ease.

[pErvinalia]

Well clearly Hack was, Brian Peacock, Hermit and JimC. Over there, beatsong, chairman Bill, mazille, fallible, stijn. And me, of course. (there are others, of course, I'm not going to provide a long list).

Christ birds of a feather and all that. Hack is just as much of a creationist when his sacred cow is attacked as you are along with Brian and Hermit (people who agree with you are intelligent lol, how narcissistic is that.) JimC I will give you as I think our differences are mainly over tacit support, chairman Bill, seriously as he is a pinko retard. fallible is just a bit dim I guess and has reading comprehensive fails all the time but she does try god bless. Beatsong is OK and I don't know the other fuckers.

Is this the post of a "retard" or a "drunk"?