DaveDodo007... I mean... Rationalskepticism,lol.

[LucidFlight]

Darn those socks

Back in the day, when I was a lad we had to.

True story and get off my lawn.

I didn't do them myself, but many's the time I'd watch mum darning dad's or my socks (quite often ones she'd knitted herself). She used a sort of wooden mushroom thing; it's probably got a special name, but darned if I can remember it...

Darning mushroom?

A darning mushroom is a mushroom-shaped tool usually made of wood. The sock is stretched over the curved top of the mushroom, and gathered tightly around the stalk to hold it in place for darning.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darning

[The_Metatron]

Do the two of you not realize how stupid you sound, talking about your sockpuppet prowess? If you aren't posting like the posting that landed you in trouble, why didn't you just do that before you bashed into the rules you find so hard to follow?

In English??

Here, let me help:

If you can refrain from posting like an asshole (as you would have to for a sock to survive), why not do so before getting banned for posting like an asshole?

[JimC]

Darn those socks

Back in the day, when I was a lad we had to.

True story and get off my lawn.

I didn't do them myself, but many's the time I'd watch mum darning dad's or my socks (quite often ones she'd knitted herself). She used a sort of wooden mushroom thing; it's probably got a special name, but darned if I can remember it...

Darning mushroom?

A darning mushroom is a mushroom-shaped tool usually made of wood. The sock is stretched over the curved top of the mushroom, and gathered tightly around the stalk to hold it in place for darning.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darning

That was indeed it!

I just wasn't sure whether it had some technical name, known only to the secret society of darners...

[Mr.Samsa]

Do the two of you not realize how stupid you sound, talking about your sockpuppet prowess?

Doesn't "prowess" suggest that I've made a sockpuppet before and am good at it? It's more sockpuppet knowledge, and since I know exactly what methods and tools you guys use to detect sockpuppets, it's not exactly rocket surgery to know how to get around them.

If you aren't posting like the posting that landed you in trouble, why didn't you just do that before you bashed into the rules you find so hard to follow?

Ah yes, being an "asshole" like getting warnings for telling people that they are engaging in "shitty" or "cowardly" behavior. If I was being an asshole then I'd have a big mental breakdown in a thread and demand that everyone "suck my cock", and then when people make fun of me for it I'd report them and get the mods to tell people that they're not allowed to reference that breakdown. Now that would be an asshole.

Given that my warnings aren't given for breaking actual (just the ones you guys make up), I don't think you have any grounds to accuse me of being an asshole. Also, I like how you avoiding answering how my last comments were deserving of an advisory. I mean, it's purely rhetorical because I know that you didn't answer it because you couldn't answer it, as I broke no rules.

Do you remember when Rev got a warning for pointing out that Cali isn't a scientist? That was fucking hilarious.

[pErvinalia]

Do the two of you not realize how stupid you sound, talking about your sockpuppet prowess? If you aren't posting like the posting that landed you in trouble, why didn't you just do that before you bashed into the rules you find so hard to follow?

In English??

Here, let me help:

If you can refrain from posting like an asshole (as you would have to for a sock to survive), why not do so before getting banned for posting like an asshole?

I didn't get banned for posting like an arsehole. I got banned for creating sock accounts. And in any case, my sock accounts are created to troll wankers like Cito and Weaver, so my raison d'etre is different between my original account and my socks.

[pErvinalia]

Do you remember when Rev got a warning for pointing out that Cali isn't a scientist? That was fucking hilarious.

Not Cali, Cito.

I saw in a recent thread over there that he is actually claiming that he is a scientist. What a sorry state science must be at his university or institute.

[Mr.Samsa]

Do you remember when Rev got a warning for pointing out that Cali isn't a scientist? That was fucking hilarious.

Not Cali, Cito.

I saw in a recent thread over there that he is actually claiming that he is a scientist. What a sorry state science must be at his university or institute.

Oh my bad. I think I got it confused with the warning I got for asking if Cali was actually a scientist.

[LucidFlight]

I didn't get banned for posting like an arsehole. I got banned for creating sock accounts. And in any case, my sock accounts are created to troll wankers like Cito and Weaver, so my raison d'etre is different between my original account and my socks.

Oh, so it was you who et all the raisins! Damn it, rEv! They're almost on the sixtieth page over there trying to work that one out.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, another comical thread at ratskep.

[pErvinalia]

Samsa vs Weaver over an inconsequential semantic point! Get the popcorn, it's a couple of pages already!

[Mr.Samsa]

Samsa vs Weaver over an inconsequential semantic point! Get the popcorn, it's a couple of pages already!

I've technically given up trying to explain it a couple of times now but then someone will quote him and see that he's saying that I'm basing my argument on X when I'm explicitly and clearly stating that I'm not basing it on X.

For anyone at all interested in the summary, it goes like this:

1) we're in a metaphysics thread

2) Theropod claims that we should reject anything based entirely on logical reasoning

3) Ughaibu asks where that leaves mathematics (given that it's based entirely on logical reasoning)

4) Weaver asks ughaibu how he can "have it both ways" because somebody had said that mathematical evidence can used to support metaphysical claims

5) practically everybody responds with a "What the fuck are you talking about?"

6) Weaver and others accuse people of misrepresentation for a while until he graciously accepts that he made a mistake, and explains that when he said "you" in reply to ughaibu he didn't mean to say that he himself had claimed mathematical evidence can be used to support metaphysical claims but rather someone on ughaibu's "side" had said that.

7) practically everybody responds with a "What the fuck are you talking about?"

8) Weaver argues that people are trying to find hidden messages in his posts rather than accept his own clarification, even though nobody (that I can see) is doubting or questioning the use of the word "you" and what he says it refers to. They aren't doubting or questioning it because it's irrelevant.

9) I explain multiple times that the problem is that ughaibu's claim about rejecting logical reasoning leading to a rejection of mathematics has absolutely nothing to do with metaphysics or anything that anyone has said in the thread. I explicitly state a few times that the ambiguity of the word "you" is irrelevant and has nothing to do with my argument.

10) I get accused of trying to find hidden messages in Weaver's post and basing my position on the idea that Weaver meant "you" to refer to ughaibu rather than a general "you".



It's so fucking mind numbingly moronic. It should have been a simple: "Oh, I see. Man I fucked up there". When he responded angrily and accused others of misrepresentation then the next best response would have been "Oh, I see, man I fucked up there AND I also owe you guys an apology for being an ass". Instead he's gone for the head in the sand approach where you apologise for an inconsequential 'error' that nobody cares about and then pretend that people only care about that 'error'.

[pErvinalia]

You're actually wrong (and Weaver did keep missing the specific point you were making; making it very amusing to watch you two talk past each other), and his latest post explains why (not that I needed to see his latest post to know that). What's funny about the whole thing is that you'll go to the nth degree of ridiculousness to try and win the point, and Weaver will eventually blow his top and start swearing and ranting. But unfortunately Weaver has someone managed to keep his shit together. VERY disappointing..

[Mr.Samsa]

You're actually wrong (and Weaver did keep missing the specific point you were making; making it very amusing to watch you two talk past each other), and his latest post explains why (not that I needed to see his latest post to know that). What's funny about the whole thing is that you'll go to the nth degree of ridiculousness to try and win the point, and Weaver will eventually blow his top and start swearing and ranting. But unfortunately Weaver has someone managed to keep his shit together. VERY disappointing..

His latest post is even more absurd! Apparently now the argument is that one can't reject the use of mathematics in metaphysics whilst arguing that both maths and metaphysics are based on logical reasoning.

And to be clear, I don't argue to "win points". I only argue when I think I'm right and my intended goal is to either convince the other person or to have them convince me.

[pErvinalia]

The argument goes as follows:

x Claims have been made that logical reasoning is an example of metaphysical evidence.

x Theropod says that we should reject anything that is based on logical reasoning alone - i.e. because it is metaphysical evidence (something which he doesn't believe has any value or is even valid)

x Ugaboo points out that that would include rejecting mathematics.

x Weaver points out that other proponents of metaphysics (most notably Jamest) have said that Mathematics isn't a metaphysical concept. Therefore, he made the point that some metaphysicians claim that maths is a metaphysical concept (Ugaboo did when he challenged what Theropod said), while others (jamest) claim that it isn't.

x The main problem with Weaver's statement was the confusion around the use of "you". That's what he was challenged about by most, and that's what he apologised for and clarified. You are the only one who is continuing the battle over what he said.

[Mr.Samsa]

The argument goes as follows:

x Claims have been made that logical reasoning is an example of metaphysical evidence.

x Theropod says that we should reject anything that is based on logical reasoning alone - i.e. because it is metaphysical evidence (something which he doesn't believe has any value or is even valid)

x Ugaboo points out that that would include rejecting mathematics.

x Weaver points out that other proponents of metaphysics (most notably Jamest) have said that Mathematics isn't a metaphysical concept. Therefore, he made the point that some metaphysicians claim that maths is a metaphysical concept (Ugaboo did when he challenged what Theropod said), while others (jamest) claim that it isn't.

x The main problem with Weaver's statement was the confusion around the use of "you". That's what he was challenged about by most, and that's what he apologised for and clarified. You are the only one who is continuing the battle over what he said.

The main problem still exists - that ughaibu pointing out the error in Theropod's position has nothing to do with metaphysics.

Why would rejecting mathematics as a metaphysical concept be at all relevant to the claim that logical reasoning is an example of metaphysical evidence? The only way that would make sense is if someone had said that ALL logical reasoning IS metaphysical evidence, but that's just fucking insane.

Both mathematics and metaphysics rely on logical reasoning but they don't need to overlap. Biology and physics both rely on empirical evidence but it's entirely possible to say that some or all biological evidence isn't relevant to physics without contradicting yourself when you say that a rejection of empirical evidence entails a rejection of physics.

The confusion over "you" was irrelevant. That's not what ughaibu himself was confused over (who surely is the most relevant person?).