If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   This is the thread where you defend what you believe in and call everyone else's believes bollocks. Now with a Venn diagram for easy navigation   (crispian-jago.blogspot.co.uk) divider line 531
    More: Cool, Venn diagram, critical thinking  
•       •       •

16600 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2013 at 3:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



531 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-28 02:27:29 PM

Farking Canuck: RedVentrue: I read the posts. There is nothing unambiuous about "There is no God", and when there are no other qualifying statements to go along with it, then it is Gnostic Atheist. If you mean something else, then say something else.

I guess we all belong to thousands of religious then because we are not specific enough to please you.


Right, but don't get bent out of shape when someone interpets what you mean by what you say, and not what you meant in your head.
 
2013-03-28 02:36:02 PM

RedVentrue: Right, but don't get bent out of shape when someone interpets what you mean by what you say, and not what you meant in your head.


No problem. Who cares what a person's actual position is ... we'll label them based on semantic interpretations of their words (even though we don't do this on any other topic).

Got ya!
 
2013-03-28 02:51:31 PM

Farking Canuck: RedVentrue: Right, but don't get bent out of shape when someone interpets what you mean by what you say, and not what you meant in your head.

No problem. Who cares what a person's actual position is ... we'll label them based on semantic interpretations of their words (even though we don't do this on any other topic).

Got ya!


Of course we do. Ever been participated in a Fark Global Warming thead, or the Politics tab?
 
2013-03-28 02:51:53 PM

Farking Canuck: RedVentrue: Right, but don't get bent out of shape when someone interpets what you mean by what you say, and not what you meant in your head.

No problem. Who cares what a person's actual position is ... we'll label them based on semantic interpretations of their words (even though we don't do this on any other topic).

Got ya!


Meh, common tactic used as a last resort of the weaker argument. Pedant Power!

Like I said, it's a good measure for people to test who's going to kneejerk react to the phrase, and who's going to more simply and level headedly ask for clarification of a very very common phrase and in general be willing to discuss something rationally.

But, as I've seen your behavior in other threads, and directly at me, when it's employed by people who often spout kneejerk reactions themselves, it's no longer valid in that sense. It becomes a misleading trap.  Intent and implementation is key.
 
2013-03-28 03:02:27 PM

omeganuepsilon: But, as I've seen your behavior in other threads


Heh heh ... you should see the tag I have for you.
 
2013-03-28 03:08:17 PM

RedVentrue: Of course we do. Ever been participated in a Fark Global Warming thead, or the Politics tab?


I don't go into the politics tab.

As for GW threads - they are usually fought with links to scientific papers or partisan blogs (no need to go into who links to which).

Whereas, theism/religion/etc is entirely about people's opinions, beliefs, and positions. The two topics are not really similar.
 
2013-03-28 03:12:11 PM

Farking Canuck: The two topics are not really similar.


LOL

They are both based on taking the word of others for granted, certain parties in both threads simply do not allow for a skeptical view, they write them off as anti- with hardly any though or reason, more of an emotional judgement.

Ala:

Farking Canuck: omeganuepsilon: But, as I've seen your behavior in other threads

Heh heh ... you should see the tag I have for you.

 
2013-03-28 03:32:37 PM

omeganuepsilon: They are both based on taking the word of others for granted, certain parties in both threads simply do not allow for a skeptical view, they write them off as anti- with hardly any though or reason, more of an emotional judgement.


Yeah that's exactly what happens.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
- Isaac  Asimov
 
2013-03-28 03:45:21 PM

Farking Canuck: RedVentrue: Of course we do. Ever been participated in a Fark Global Warming thead, or the Politics tab?

I don't go into the politics tab.

As for GW threads - they are usually fought with links to scientific papers or partisan blogs (no need to go into who links to which).

Whereas, theism/religion/etc is entirely about people's opinions, beliefs, and positions. The two topics are not really similar.


I think the only real difference between the two subjects are the initials following the names of the papers'/ blogs' authors. Both are espousing beliefs and world veiws that are incompatable to the opponents view. One is a philososphical argument, the other an arguement about data interpetation and the implications of the data. Neither arguement currently has enough data for a conclusive determination, but we all still need to coninve each other we are "Right", don't we?
 
2013-03-28 03:45:51 PM
Yes, it's always everyone else who's an anti-intellectual, never you.

That's why you're finding yourself loathed by religious people as well as people like myself, and held in contempt for your behavior.

If multiple people from a wide variety of backgrounds consistently have problems with 1 specifiic other person, and over a wide variety of topics, that specific person tends to be the asshole.

You are That Guy.
 
2013-03-28 03:46:38 PM
coninve = convince
 
2013-03-28 03:50:34 PM

RedVentrue: coninve = convince


Funny, because I thought you might have meant connive or contrive as well, both oddly fitting.
 
2013-03-28 03:54:37 PM

omeganuepsilon: You are That Guy.


The guy who gets his science from scientists instead of politicians and oil execs. The guy who does not seek wisdom from books written by violent, sadistic cavemen or from men who claim to speak to god. They guy who asks that people argue against his position instead of the words he chooses to call his position.

The guy who is not remotely apologetic about any of the above.

Yes, I am that guy.

www.topofarmer.com
 
2013-03-28 04:22:07 PM

Farking Canuck: scientists instead of politicians


I like how you pretend those are two exclusive groups.

As to the rest of your post, mental masturbation.  Poor wittle FC got his feewings hurt when legitimately called out as an impotent douche and had to prove his virility by going on at length about his largely imagined strengths.  I can almost picture you doing daily affirmations in front of a mirror, and then crying yourself to sleep.

With you it's always a dick measuring contest, you take it, and make it, personal.   Address the arguments?  That's a flat out lie, same as your other self flattery.  You are a Fallacy Queen, ruler of the land of misdirection, deceit, and non sequiturs.

/look out, we have a badass over here . jpg
 
2013-03-28 05:05:03 PM

omeganuepsilon: RedVentrue: coninve = convince

Funny, because I thought you might have meant connive or contrive as well, both oddly fitting.


It could have been. :)
 
2013-03-28 08:16:25 PM

omeganuepsilon: Poor wittle FC got his feewings hurt when legitimately called out as an impotent douche and had to prove his virility by going on at length about his largely imagined strengths. I can almost picture you doing daily affirmations in front of a mirror, and then crying yourself to sleep.


Wow! Where did this come from?? I was legitimately enjoying our banter here.

Physician heal thyself.
 
2013-03-28 08:28:36 PM

Farking Canuck: I was legitimately enjoying our banter here.


"Our" banter?  You thought you were contributing in a positive manner?
lol

Farking Canuck: Wow! Where did this come from??


Dude, I quoted the farking post where all you do is attempt to talk yourself up with lies about how awesome you are.  It's only like 3 posts above this one.

You being a dick and several disparate people calling you on it is not "banter".  Deluding yourself into believing it only supports our argument.
 
2013-03-28 08:37:07 PM
Somebody missed their nap.

* backs away slowly *
 
2013-03-28 08:40:39 PM
About damned time.

/Try not to suck any dick on your way to the parking lot.
 
2013-03-28 10:45:54 PM

Farking Canuck: Somebody missed their nap.

* backs away slowly *


If you are going to speak in a rude or arrogant tone, then don't be suprised when you get it sent back to you.
 
2013-03-29 05:39:48 AM

Farking Canuck:

GeneralJim: Do you see what I mean? For example, since it's only this one thread, please show me where I say that everyone must use my terminology?

I don't buy the waffling about how long other answers are.  How hard is it to say "I don't believe in God."?   It's only one word longer, and it avoids ambiguity.

This is what I was referring to. You are justifying your categorizing of people as gnostic atheists because they are not clarifying things well enough for you.

So, you are saying that asking for further clarity is the same thing as demanding that everyone use my terminology, eh?  You're a very special kind of stupid, aren't you?

 
2013-03-29 05:54:29 AM

Farking Canuck:

omeganuepsilon: They are both based on taking the word of others for granted, certain parties in both threads simply do not allow for a skeptical view, they write them off as anti- with hardly any though or reason, more of an emotional judgement.

Yeah that's exactly what happens.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"

- Isaac  Asimov

Yes, exactly.  It's like when I tell you (and others, of course) that I know the characteristics of feedback systems, and looking at the Vostok ice core records shows conclusively that carbon dioxide level change is NOT a major controller of temperature, and carbon dioxide level does NOT have a 2x positive feedback. Then, you argue that, despite fact that you do NOT know the characteristics of feedback systems, your ignorance is not only is as good as, it OVERRIDES my knowledge of the subject.

 
2013-03-29 05:59:47 AM

Farking Canuck:

As for GW threads - they are usually fought with links to scientific papers or partisan blogs (no need to go into who links to which).
I do find it amusing that the warmer alarmist crowd has gone from posting links to "peer-reviewed" papers, claiming practical infallibility for them through the magic of peer review, while ridiculing anyone who questioned either the paper itself, the data upon which it was based, or its applicability to the situation at hand as "deniers" -- to people who post links to the partisan blog "skepticalscience.com" and deny every single peer-reviewed paper brought in as evidence.
 
2013-03-29 06:02:03 AM

omeganuepsilon:

RedVentrue: coninve = convince

Funny, because I thought you might have meant connive or contrive as well, both oddly fitting.

Meh, just call it "the 'C' word," and be done with it.
 
2013-03-29 06:07:52 AM

Farking Canuck:

The guy who is not remotely apologetic about any of the above.

Yes, I am that guy.

www.topofarmer.com

i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-29 09:38:29 AM
Thread's over ... so here comes the green threadshiat.
 
2013-03-29 11:25:51 AM

Farking Canuck: Thread's over ... so here comes the green threadshiat.


Didn't mommy and daddy love you enough?  Is this why you seek out any attention, even negative? Seriously, if desperation were a cheap cologne, you could choke people to death with yours.
 
2013-03-29 04:57:09 PM

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: omeganuepsilon: They are both based on taking the word of others for granted, certain parties in both threads simply do not allow for a skeptical view, they write them off as anti- with hardly any though or reason, more of an emotional judgement.
Yeah that's exactly what happens. "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac  AsimovYes, exactly.  It's like when I tell you (and others, of course) that I know the characteristics of feedback systems, and looking at the Vostok ice core records shows conclusively that carbon dioxide level change is NOT a major controller of temperature, and carbon dioxide level does NOT have a 2x positive feedback. Then, you argue that, despite fact that you do NOT know the characteristics of feedback systems, your ignorance is not only is as good as, it OVERRIDES my knowledge of the subject.


Knowledge is not a democracy, but a popularity contest. Miss Peer Review maybe?
 
2013-03-30 04:38:43 AM

RedVentrue:

Knowledge is not a democracy, but a popularity contest. Miss Peer Review maybe?

Peer review?  Of knowledge of feedback systems?   It doesn't work that way.  There might be a test that one could take.  On the other hand, I did spend time designing the suckers -- perhaps that will count?

/ Or, perhaps I missed your point?
 
2013-03-30 12:43:54 PM
 
2013-03-30 02:30:08 PM

GeneralJim: RedVentrue: Knowledge is not a democracy, but a popularity contest. Miss Peer Review maybe?
Peer review?  Of knowledge of feedback systems?   It doesn't work that way.  There might be a test that one could take.  On the other hand, I did spend time designing the suckers -- perhaps that will count?

/ Or, perhaps I missed your point?


Only that the unpopular opinion is usually considered the "wrong" opinion, and the popular opinion is considered "right", regardless of evidence or support (or lack thereof).  Usually a generation of scientists have to retire before the prevailing opinion changes. I hope you are a patient person.

Speaking of GW models. They predict what they are programmed to predict because of the way the model parameters are designed, and are not a reflection of the real Earth, yet are considered proof of the "DANGER" we are all in. We don't even know what we don't know.
 
Displayed 31 of 531 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report