Right wingers less intelligent

[faux pas]

You've never read Descartes.

Are you trying to hypnotise me?

 

[Santino]

Are you trying to hypnotise me?

Which answer will make you go away?

 

[faux pas]

Perhaps faux pas is referring Stravinsky's "Jeu de cartes"?

No, I'm referring to Rene Decartes.

 

[butchersapron]

No, I'm referring to Rene Decartes.

Why did you spell her name wrong twice then?

 

[faux pas]

Which answer will make you go away?

Why, do you have your head trapped in a laptop or something?

 

[Santino]

Why, do you have your head trapped in a laptop or something?

Shitty attempts at humour won't save you. It's too late for that.

 

[faux pas]

Why did you spell her name wrong twice then?

'her name'

 

[krtek a houby]

 

[faux pas]

Shitty attempts at humour won't save you. It's too late for that.

Are you a professional dominatrix, by any chance?

 

[ViolentPanda]

No, I'm referring to Rene Decartes.

Who is actually known as Descartes, because that's his name, and therefore the one any references (besides your own, obviously) will be found under, should anyone go looking.

 

[Luther Blissett]

imagine sitting in a room with someone trying to convince you people with your "bloodline" were scum and responsible for all the worlds evils and you should open your mind and become free man. And that there was nothing wrong with this because we're all beings of eternal consciousness. And acting the cringing victim when they were called on it.

I've warned you not to sit next to that Gilad Atzmon chap at Jazz gigs, you know what he's like :rollseyes:

 

[faux pas]

That's not what you argued. You argued that you will not discount anything whatsoever because some other things sound unlikely yet are true. This logic cuts a gaping great hole in your argument as it suggests that we can know that some things are true (your example of the earth etc) and that we have developed methods to test them against evidence and so on to reach this conclusion. And when this tested method is used to investigate Icke's bollocks or the provenance of the Protocols of the elders of Zion it destroys them. In the same way that you just destroyed your own argument.

I argued that we can know some things are true? Really?

 

[butchersapron]

I argued that we can know some things are true? Really?

Yes, your whole confused inept example rested on the truth of us being

on a fucking rock flying through the universe

and our knowledge of this.

 

[faux pas]

Yes, your whole confused inept example rested on the truth of us being



and our knowledge of this.

'confused': Well, at least, in my haste, I only missed out the 's' in 'Descartes' rather than his whole cock and balls.

Let me simplify it for you then:
What is said to be true is mind-boggling.

 

[butchersapron]

Therefore we cannot say that Icke is wrong or the protocols are faked.

You doubt that we are:

on a fucking rock flying through the universe

?

You still don't get why your arguments rests on the truth of your example, an example which it turns out that you may now actually doubt. This is not Cartesian doubt, this is just loon stuff. Would you like then to take back your argument? Or would you prefer to continue to undermine it?

 

[faux pas]

Therefore we cannot say that Icke is wrong or the protocols are faked.

You doubt that we are:

?

You still don't get why your arguments rests on the truth of your example, an example which it turns out that you may now actually doubt. This is not Cartesian doubt, this is just loon stuff. Would you like then to take back your argument? Or would you prefer to continue to undermine it?

It doesn't rest on the truth of it, only that what we understand as true leaves life so mind-boggling that an inch of doubt is reasonable.

 

[butchersapron]

It doesn't rest on the truth of it, only that what we understand as true leaves life so mind-boggling that an inch of doubt is reasonable.

What we understand as true

Your argument is that something that sounds unlikely may not be dismissed as untrue because something else that may be false is believed to be true. Apart from being incoherent rubbish this rests on the implicit acceptance of there being truths - a position which you reject!

Lord above.

 

[Roadkill]

It doesn't rest on the truth of it, only that what we understand as true leaves life so mind-boggling that an inch of doubt is reasonable.

Doubt is virtually always reasonable; refusing to choose between probable truth and obvious falsehood is anything but.

 

[faux pas]

What we understand as true

Your argument is that something that sounds unlikely may not be dismissed as untrue because something else that may be false is believed to be true. Apart from being incoherent rubbish this rests on the implicit acceptance of there being truths - a position which you reject!

Lord above.

Where have I rejected the position of there being truths. You got all excited again, didn't you?

To rephrase what you wrote:

Something that sounds mind-boggling should not completely and utterly be dismissed as untrue, especially being the case that, what is generally accepted as true, is absolutely mind-boggling itself.

 

[faux pas]

Doubt is virtually always reasonable; refusing to choose between probable truth and obvious falsehood is anything but.

You can choose completely, but then you'd be falling into a similar trap that 'atheists' fall into.

 

[faux pas]

I'm not saying, btw, that because what is understood to be true is so mind-boggling that it makes something else mind boggling more likely - only that, in light of this, it's not unreasonable to have an inch of doubt.

 

[butchersapron]

Where have I rejected the position of there being truths. You got all excited again, didn't you?

To rephrase what you wrote:

Something that sounds mind-boggling should not completely and utterly be dismissed as untrue, especially being the case that, what is generally accepted as true, is absolutely mind-boggling itself.

Well you reject the possibility of truth in this very post and your preceding ones in this thread as you argue there are no grounds whatsoever on which truth can legitimately be established.

You seem to imagine that the implausibility of something is what establishes that it cannot be dismissed - rather than a rigorous process of evidence based investigation establishing this, rather than this process establishing what may appear unlikely to you is in fact true. Now, when this process is applied to your Icke claims and to the provenance of the Protocols of the elders of Zion they crumple, they disintegrate - and they can then safely be dismissed as result. Not as a result of their unlikeliness but as a result of the critical investigation into them.

And i ask again do you doubt that we are

on a fucking rock flying through the universe

?

Not can you, do you?

 

[Santino]

You can choose completely, but then you'd be falling into a similar trap that 'atheists' fall into.

You don't know what 'atheists' are.

 

[faux pas]

You don't know what 'atheists' are.

Don't I? Wow!

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not saying, btw, that because what is understood to be true is so mind-boggling that it makes something else mind boggling more likely - only that, in light of this, it's not unreasonable to have an inch of doubt.

You don't have an inch of doubt though - you have absolute doubt. You have argued repeatedly that Ickes drivel cannot be dismissed.

 

[Santino]

Feel free to refute any of these claims I'm making.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've warned you not to sit next to that Gilad Atzmon chap at Jazz gigs, you know what he's like :rollseyes:

Ah, Gilad, the anti-Semite (and no folks, I don't mean "anti-Zionist") Jew. Good musician with politics that are shittier than a pigsty floor.

 

[faux pas]

Feel free to refute any of these claims I'm making.

Okay, I refute the 'atheist' one.

Your turn.

 

[Santino]

You don't know what 'refute' means.

 

[butchersapron]

Okay, I refute the 'atheist' one.

Your turn.

You don't know what refute means.

edit: ah balls.