Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength... - Page 9 - Fandom Forums
Fandom Forums



Go Back   Fandom Forums > Anime & Manga > Naruto Series > Naruto Manga

Naruto Manga Talk about the manga series Naruto here! Remember, this is manga only. No anime!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-21-2013, 01:15 PM   #121
ask me anything
Simply AMAzing
 
ask me anything's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Impel Down
Posts: 3,197
Thanks: 9,035
Thanked 3,649 Times in 1,598 Posts
ask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really nice
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Holy dingle berries batman. To many walls of text. Skipping all this shit, and replying to the only thing that interests me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Let's start with KYF: you know what I find it funny? The fact that you say "oh if you were around children, you'd know how little morals they have!" while still holding Freudian considerations as still true. Actually, KYF, I spend at least an afternoon a week with my nephew, who is 4 as we speak, and I know he isn't as selfish as Freud made toddlers out to be. Sure, he only developed most of his current morals with parenting, but he was capable of acts of selflessness and altruism even before fully understanding spoken language.

Not only that, I have read many papers and seen a few documentaries on the issue, and toddlers are capable of basic morality even when they're among other toddlers with minimal parental influence (like in a playground). So yeah, I do say Freud is wrong on that department and he has been wrong since the 90's (and since the 60's in female psychology and other issues).
As a father of 4, and uncle to many, MANY more, I concur. Based purely off my personal observations, children don't tend to be any more or less selfish then adults. If anything they are simply more honest and more inclined to act on their feelings then us adults who have learned to hide, lie, or suppress them over time. Especially the much younger kids.
Quote:
When you start using a concept, you parrot it like there's no tomorrow, even if you don't what the fuck you're talking about.
He seems to be infatuated with the term Contextomy here lately.
__________________

ask me anything is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ask me anything For This Useful Post:
kael03 (09-21-2013), ninjalostboy95 (09-21-2013), Numinous (09-21-2013)


Old 09-21-2013, 01:15 PM   #122
NeoKakarott023
Tha One to the 23rd Power
 
NeoKakarott023's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Parts Unknown, East Blue
Posts: 5,148
Thanks: 3,841
Thanked 1,776 Times in 1,057 Posts
NeoKakarott023 is a glorious beacon of lightNeoKakarott023 is a glorious beacon of lightNeoKakarott023 is a glorious beacon of lightNeoKakarott023 is a glorious beacon of lightNeoKakarott023 is a glorious beacon of lightNeoKakarott023 is a glorious beacon of lightNeoKakarott023 is a glorious beacon of lightNeoKakarott023 is a glorious beacon of lightNeoKakarott023 is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

They're are some debates I don't deal in, too personal for some, not as important for others, they'res bound to be a gash, not even a rift. Americans are particular, stubborn, and sometimes too emotional. These are ingrained within ones personality here, these are my opinions after living in other countries and viewing Americans through others eyes. I know not all here are Americans, but opinion wise they'res that volatile factor, which I won't touch too much.

When living in Japan with my first Wife, I had no choice but to embrace where I was, even though I enjoyed living they're, one can notice differences in the opinions of people from different places. Each country I visited offered even moar varying opinions, from Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Hong Kong, Thailand, Singapore, Austrailia, Kenya, Russia, name the place overwhelmingly religion was that one topic where a general statement could mean disrespect, and not always on purpose. I just respect each persons opinion on religion, and keep it moving. In religion everyone can be correct, its up to what they follow.
__________________

Show Me How Much You Have Evolved...(As Tian walks toward an Army he's been waiting eons for).


I speak 4 languages...

English, Profanity, Sarcasm, and Real Shit.
NeoKakarott023 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 02:19 PM   #123
MrBIG
Genin
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 167
Thanks: 123
Thanked 93 Times in 51 Posts
MrBIG is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
The biggest of them all was saying someone lacks the belief and disbelief in a concept and not being apathetic towards the concept, which is a flagrant logical paradox.
Pathetic once again. lack of Belief or disbelief doesn't mean someone does not care.

Apatheism is the stance that they do not care about "gods", and the question itself is irrelevant.

source

A pure agnostic does not make such a claim.

Educate yourself about the subject matter before you spit out drivel based on what you believe is true and not what you KNOW is true. It only makes you look desperate trying to come up with altered or strictly made up definitions.

Quote:
This is why I insisted agnosticism was about knowledge, not belief, because agnostics simply don't know whether God exists or not. They can believe it, disbelieve it
Another failure at reading comprehension. What I said agnosticism was:

Quote:
Agnostic people do not have a definite belief in god(s) (they neither believe nor disbelief) because the required knowledge/evidence/facts to make such a decision is unavailable.
Now you're basically paraphrasing what I said and trying to pass it off as an counter-argument. Once again, you prove to me you're still incapable of formulating a proper arguments in this discussion.

Quote:
So, in my opinion, you bickering about how you're strictly talking about agnosticism is just backpedaling when you got caught with your pants down.
That's just it, you've based your argument on your "OPINION". OPINIONS have nothing to do in this discussion. These definitions and semantics can be proven by using sources of documented work like I have.

I have listed sources that have proven that a person that is purely agnostic does not have the same stance as one that is an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist or purely atheist. Their null hypothesis are all different.

If you believe this to be wrong, provide evidence or sources saying the contrary. Till then you're only trying to save face with constant made up argumentation created from our imagination and not reality.


Quote:
Another thing that really irks me is when you complain about me not knowing my terminology when you only acknowledge concepts after I said them
I was the first to bring up agnostic atheism and agnosticism to this thread.
Any other concepts you may have brought up, but certainly they were all useless to the discourse at hand. (i.e I didnt bring them up cause I had no need to).

If you bring up concepts like Apatheism of course I will integrate them in discussion and not simply ignore it.

lol Or do you believe I should list all school of thoughts and their ideologies on belief or lack of. simply to get to claim "first" later on?

Get over yourself.

Quote:
and just putting links that in no way, shape or form contradict what I said before.
The sources I've used in my argumentation were to prove specific differences between terminology. If you believe that they didn't contract your prior argumentation maybe you should see this as a sign that your arguing for argument sake and have no real point to be made.

Quote:
you just have to run to Google to attempt to save face and pretend you knew all along
This is probably the most pathetic thing I've ever heard someone say in argument.

I back up my claims with sources or documented work because that is the proper way to form a logical and provable/disprovable argumentation.

You on the other hand, just come up with definitions you believe are right.
This again further proves your total ignorance on how to lay out a proper argumentative points.

Which leads to this next paragraph in your quotes that makes no sense whatsoever and seems to be more nonsensical drivel:

Quote:
You're still harping like a moron about me not knowing that atheistic agnosticism=agnostic atheism when I said with all letters that I simply pointed out because you were pretty much tripping all over yourself with the terminology
The fact that you even brought up me using the terminology Atheistic agnosticism was incorrect proved to me that in fact, you were the one harping about terminology.

I claimed that they were the same, provided sources that backed up my claim. If you do not have any evidence stating otherwise, then it's best you move on.

Quote:
And funny how you simply ignored that portion of my post and only quoted the satire I made. Cherry-picking at its finest.
that portion of your post was incoherent and more nonsensical babel.
It seemed like you were just totally confused at what point you were trying to make.

But if you really want me to go through this quote, I will.

Quote:
What a load of crock. I didn't call on your shit because somehow I didn't made the connection of atheistic agnosticism and agnostic atheism, I called because your usage of words looked like you were still considering atheism and anti-theism to be synonymous and that somehow agnosticism was something apart from it.
I've explained the differences between Atheism, Anti-theism, Agnostic atheism, Agnostic Thiesm and Agnosticism in my reply; and once again provided verifiable sources and work as proof of those definitions in my reply.


Quote:
In other words, you looked like you didn't know what the hell you were talking about, which is blatant now when you still get many definitions and semantics wrong and start to backpedal like a sir.
Once again I will ask you to provide verifiable evidence proving to me the definitions i've used and proved through used of sources were false.

Your opinion that they were "wrong", is of no use when these definitions are facts and not subject to what you think is right or not.


Quote:
Then you say "I said the man wasn't an atheist but possibly an agnostic or agnostic atheist" with a straight face like it isn't stupid at all! He is an atheist AND an agnostic, because you seem to still haven't computed that they intersect. And the worse part is that you pretend to know they aren't mutually exclusive but argue like they are.
Because something is not mutually exclusive does not mean they cant be separate entities.

Like I said, he wasn't purely an atheist he is an agnostic atheist and those two school of thoughts have different definitions and views on the question of god.


Quote:
Oh, and thanks for letting me know that your level of argumentation is below junior high school, considering that you completely ignore that positive and negative claims have opposite implications even if are similar in phrasing.
Like I said it's fact that declarative/affirmative sentences all can be written in negative or positive form and still hold the same meaning.

Im not arguing "similar phrasing here".

Now about negative and positive claims.


How wrong are you...refuting a claim of knowledge implies that you yourself have knowledge that the claim is wrong. You cannot refute something you have no understanding of. I really have to argue with you that saying "there are no living dinosaurs" implies that the person believes that all dinosaurs are dead?

The same as someone stating that all dinosaurs are dead, must also agree with the statement that there are no living dinosaurs. For someone to claim that there are no living dinosaurs, he must believe that all dinosaurs are dead. If he doesn't believe that all of them are extinct, then his claim that there are no dinosaurs living is contradictory.

Both sentences hold the same meaning. A person that claims ignorance would simply state "I dont know if all dinosaurs are dead".


Furthermore, the idea that negative claims can't be falsified is folk logic at best and has no scientific or philosophical ground.

For god sakes, saying "you cannot prove a negative" is a negative claim itself. This some backwards load of crap. An illogical loop. I could claim that there are no giant horses to have been on earth in the past. (a negative statement). This negative statement could be proven false or true by simply looking at fossil records or genetic background of modern horses.

The burden of proof relies solely on the person that makes a claim, whether it is a positive one or negative, doesn't matter. And like always, I will provide verifiably documentations and sources to my argumentative points:

source 1: THINKING TOOLS: YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE by Steven D. Hales

Quote:

I've said that evolutionary process matter in morality, not that they're all they matter, and I even pointed out that I do know that society has a prime role, thus not saying that society hasn't anything to do with morality.
Then why link me to documentation about Evolutionary Morality, a topic that insists that morals are a genetic propriety?



Quote:
you forgot that there are people who believe in the existence of God but not in its agency (namely deists and pantheists) and, guess what, most of them do not follow religious doctrine,
what a poor choice you've used as a counter-argument that can be resumed to "not everyone that believes in god believes in the 10 commandments".

The point im trying to make is that certain people have shaped their moral views and ethics on their belief of God's existence.

God exists thus his moral laws must be true

Yes certain people may believe in a God but not the moral laws that govern the religion, but they really are not important to the point im trying to make.

I'm not claiming that everyone who believes in God, have molded their morals through religion.

Last edited by MrBIG; 09-21-2013 at 02:26 PM.
MrBIG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 02:50 PM   #124
jekyl_hyde
Hunter-Nin
 
jekyl_hyde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,362
Thanks: 763
Thanked 1,248 Times in 521 Posts
jekyl_hyde is on a distinguished roadjekyl_hyde is on a distinguished road
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Ok, this is off topic....

But KYF... c'mon man.... you've been here much longer than I have, but you still screw up your quoting of other people. I don't know what you're doing to mess it up, whether it is purposeful or not... but get with the program man.
jekyl_hyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 03:04 PM   #125
Konnaha_yellow_flash
Kage
 
Konnaha_yellow_flash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 7,810
Thanks: 853
Thanked 2,439 Times in 1,577 Posts
Konnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to all
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ask me anything View Post
Holy dingle berries batman. To many walls of text. Skipping all this shit, and replying to the only thing that interests me.



As a father of 4, and uncle to many, MANY more, I concur. Based purely off my personal observations, children don't tend to be any more or less selfish then adults. If anything they are simply more honest and more inclined to act on their feelings then us adults who have learned to hide, lie, or suppress them over time. Especially the much younger kids.
He seems to be infatuated with the term Contextomy here lately.
LMAO what kind of babies do you have that they are born with your morals, thus douche's out of the womb... I mean, I cannot express in words how completely moronic it is to believe that MORALS like INSTINCTS are Hardwired into us at birth despite the FACT babies are born with a BLANK slate, ONLY having the INSTINCTS passed on, thus have to learn MORALS to distinguish good from bad... Because again, Morals are ONLY a point of veiw, just like evil...
And the IDEA the concept of good and bad of the parents, grand parents, ancestors, ect is passed on to the baby like INSTINCTS at birth, is so ridiculus that I literally do not have the words to express How moronic I think such a belief is...

And where have I been using CONTEXTOMY ALLOT to the point you would say I am infatuated with the term??? WTF are you talking about... I have not used contextomy any more then I have been taken out of context or you idiots have cherry picked using confirmation BIAS, much less the obvious argumentS from silence with the V1 and V2 lightning armour argument...

You just Keep Making claims of things with nothing more then your BIAS, prejudice and preconceived idea's altered reality of my actual arguments to support them... Thus end up making these absolutely moronic abortions of arguments based on nothing more then your own inaccurate personal reality of who I am and what I argue...
Pretty much, Claiming I have been using the word CONTEXTOMY so much it seems I am infatuated with it is CONTEXTOMY since you clearly having taken my actual Meaning OUT OF CONTEXT while recognizing your obvious contextomy of my argument/s, but you clearly missed that...
__________________
KNOWLEDGE TO LIVE BY...

No matter how POWERFUL/STRONG you are. If you cannot CATCH your Enemy, all you POWER/STRENGTH is no more USEFUL then a squirt gun....
And if You cannot possibly TRACK/REACT to your enemies attacks to Defend yourself, then how can you possibly stop him from DEFEATING you at WILL...


MINATO "KYF" NAMIKAZE.

People live relying on they're Knowledge and Perception, and thus are bound to them.....
Those Boundaries are what they tend to accept as "Reality".....
However..... Knowledge and Perception are both ambiguous....
so "Reality" could be nothing more....
then an illusion....


ITACHI UCHIHA
Konnaha_yellow_flash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 03:09 PM   #126
Konnaha_yellow_flash
Kage
 
Konnaha_yellow_flash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 7,810
Thanks: 853
Thanked 2,439 Times in 1,577 Posts
Konnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to all
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jekyl_hyde View Post
Ok, this is off topic....

But KYF... c'mon man.... you've been here much longer than I have, but you still screw up your quoting of other people. I don't know what you're doing to mess it up, whether it is purposeful or not... but get with the program man.
WHo gives a flying ass trash compactor if I mess up a quote every now and then... It is not messed up to the point that the person I quote doe snot know I am quoting him at first glance because it ONLY says his name along with quotes of him...

Not sure why this is something worth mentioning while ignoring the FACT Numious is actually arguing that MORALS, Like INSTINCTS are hardwired at birth... Thus Human babies are not born the selfish, Instincts driven for instant gratification of desires as every baby has been since the dawn of the human fucking race... But, with the ability to know the difference between right and wrong (which is subjective I might add), thus have morals LMAO...
__________________
KNOWLEDGE TO LIVE BY...

No matter how POWERFUL/STRONG you are. If you cannot CATCH your Enemy, all you POWER/STRENGTH is no more USEFUL then a squirt gun....
And if You cannot possibly TRACK/REACT to your enemies attacks to Defend yourself, then how can you possibly stop him from DEFEATING you at WILL...


MINATO "KYF" NAMIKAZE.

People live relying on they're Knowledge and Perception, and thus are bound to them.....
Those Boundaries are what they tend to accept as "Reality".....
However..... Knowledge and Perception are both ambiguous....
so "Reality" could be nothing more....
then an illusion....


ITACHI UCHIHA
Konnaha_yellow_flash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 04:38 PM   #127
jekyl_hyde
Hunter-Nin
 
jekyl_hyde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,362
Thanks: 763
Thanked 1,248 Times in 521 Posts
jekyl_hyde is on a distinguished roadjekyl_hyde is on a distinguished road
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

@KYF
1) It's a courtesy, as well as visually appealing. Also, it doesn't misconstrue to others who may want to join the topic of discussion.
2) I have no idea what your level of education is, but I've come to the realization (after it was pointed out to my by an accounting professor of all people in an auditing class) that one's beliefs tend to point to a person's views on any and every subject/topic. Following the money trail (a person's views) will often lead you to what that person believes about in regards to God (or gods), the afterlife, and the human soul. Most people that I know that are self-proclaimed atheists tend to believe that morals and/or ethics are hard-wired, because by their philosophy, there wasn't anyone to teach man how to behave. Meanwhile, those that believe in God (or gods) believe as you state, because there was someone to teach those morals/ethics.

In reference to AMA, my take would be this... what you are referring to about children, especially those at the toddler stage... those children have not developed what we all now know as a filter. Many put on a facade, filtering their true intentions to one another.
That being said, I'm of the personal belief that children are born with "sin", but are almost blank slates. Love, as well as hate, are taught. They learn from the examples set forth hopefully by their mother and father (and hopefully this is of what one would consider good morals). There's a reason why children of... villainous parents tend to follow in their footsteps (and for those of you nitpicking, I'm being vaguely general here). That doesn't mean that children of... wholesome parents turn out to be wholesome, or that the aforementioned kids can't turn from that path. But every person I know that was in the situation of having... not good parents, the ones that turned out for the better, had someone in their life that intervened and provided a good example.
jekyl_hyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 05:01 PM   #128
Numinous
Writing speed: snail
 
Numinous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Porto, Portugal
Posts: 4,783
Thanks: 8,386
Thanked 11,563 Times in 3,932 Posts
Numinous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Wow, and the two boobs still go pretending they know what they're talking about.

KYF, I'm the one who seriously doubt you actually observed child behavior to think Freud's hyper-simplistic approach to it holds any water. While children do have simpler behavior patterns than adults, they aren't devoid of behavioral complexity. And no, my nephew is just like any other kid, you simply don't know any kid to even consider they're simply selfish and don't have basic morals. They are just like adults, some more selfish, others more altruistic, it's just like AMA said, if anything they act more on their whims than adults do.

Oh and the one link you pretend to have read but clearly only bothered to read the summary isn't enough? Don't worry, here are more links if you aren't satisfied:
  1. Social Evaluation by Preverbal Infants
  2. The considerations by the same team of the previous studies about a possible refutation
  3. The Moral Life of Babies
  4. Emerging Morality: How Children Think About Right and Wrong
  5. Varieties of Altruism in Children and Chimpanzees (with the bonus of denoting the difference between the two species' altruism, meaning that chimpanzees, while to a much lesser degree, also are altruistic, a concept that is vital for morality, so the link between instinct and morality you love to mock is serious)
  6. Children's Altruism in Public Good and Dictator Experiments
And I'd link you to a documentary on apes' behavior that also included child behavior (namely altruism and basic morality), but I saw it on TV and I unfortunately I still haven't tracked it down on the net.


Oh and:

Quote:
2). I never said the writers of the paper were "arguing from ignorance",
O'rly?

Quote:
They do not actually confirm the motivation of the act, just try to argue that such Prosocial acts can equal altruistic without ANY evidence to show it...
Gee, you could have fooled me. Because I actually know what argument from ignorance and knew YEARS before you did, thank you very much, spare me of your noxious strawmen of my arguments when you pretty much lie through your teeth trying to deny what you blatantly said.


And you don't need credentials, only common sense. Oh my, I didn't know your delusions were common sense nor that common sense superseded scientific knowledge (I'd love you to apply common sense to quantum physics). No, you DO need credentials if you are claiming better knowledge of the subject than people who specialized in the field. So yeah, until you actually show a paper with your name on it to justify your claims, I'll stick to the position of thinking you're just an arrogant bastard bullshitting his way through to not admit defeat.

Finally, I love how you accuse me of projection when you project the most. I don't know anything about conditioning but somehow I know that conditioning DOES require two stimuli because the whole point of conditioning is to evoke with the conditioned stimulus the normal response to the unconditioned stimulus, so do tell me how the fucking hell can you pull conditioning when you lack one of its core components? Oh yeah, you fucking don't, because it's not conditioning, it's just a bullshit excuse by KYF to defend Kishimoto's sloppy writing!

And, just like your fellow boob MrBig, you still haven't address the issue of the roots of morality, considering them being taught causes an infinite regress.



And speaking of him, pathetic is how MrBig completely ignores the portion where I explain how it is a paradox just to push his bullshit all the way through. Just follow my analogy here, if a person neither likes or dislikes chocolate, what would you think is that person's relation to chocolate? If you find an option that isn't apathy or plain ignorance of what chocolate is (which would be irrelevant in the discussion being made), please, do tell me what it is, because I'm having an excruciatingly hard time figuring out what the hell it is.

And how funny is you to join KYF in your little projection trip. I say "save face" and you instantly repeat it towards me, how cute! You may cherry-pick all the definitions you want, but if you don't actually use your brain to understand them, they won't be of use to you. Your constant repetition of "pure agnostics" is idiotic because you're arguing a position that is logically impossible and, in my experience, those advocating they're on it are simply fence-sitters that don't want to own their position due to fear of hate from either field.

And I find hilarious your point on saying that if the links you post don't contradict what I said, then I'm arguing just to argue. It's not the links I'm arguing against, I'm arguing against your misunderstanding of their actual meaning and your weaselly tactics when cornered with proper understanding. You even try to argue you defined terms but you only did after I pushed you to them, not by your own initiative/knowledge. You seem to think you're the first trying to throw this kind of bullshit my way but even in this forum I've already countered it a few times.

And I got to love your silly argumentation. "I said he wasn't purely an atheist, he is an agnostic atheist and agnosticism and atheism are different things". What fucking part of intersecting simply refuses to dig its way into your goddamn thick skull? He's both an atheist AND an agnostic, so arguing from the "pure" definitions is, guess what, silly. And you didn't say he wasn't "purely" an atheist, you said he wasn't an atheist and an agnostic period. Only then, by some weird reason that contradicted the previous one, you used the eternally phony "atheistic agnosticism" line that only a faux-intellectual like you would profess. So, please, don't think I'm that stupid to fall for that.

And, poster boy for failed Philosophy classes, you can refute a claim of knowledge with a claim of ignorance, that's the whole point of asking for proof, since you're ignorant of the knowledge of the other. And you still haven't fit in your head the whole burden of proof issue with positive and negative claims, haven't you? Hell, the link you provided was about proving a negative, not about falsifying a negative which was I was talking about, you dolt. You do know what falsification of a claim is or do you have to Google it? And burden of proof is only on the positive claim, I don't care if you call it folk logic like you straight out copied from the link your provided, it is only logical that you can't ask someone to prove their ignorance. You'd know that if you actually knew what you were talking about instead of pretending so.

Moving on, I referred you to Evolutionary Morality for you to acknowledge that is consideration on the evolutionary roots of morality, not for you to be stupid enough to create a goddamn strawman about how I said morality is only evolutionary and hasn't anything to do with civilization.

Finally:

Quote:
God exists thus his moral laws must be true
WRONG. Fixing that premise, God has AGENCY, thus his moral laws must be true. If God only existed and didn't have agency, he wouldn't have moral laws, is that simple. So yeah, morality in the discussion of God's existence? Totally irrelevant to anyone that isn't a dimwit.
__________________
My writings and ramblings:

Water of Ocean Darkest Chapters: 1 - 2
Weaver Chapters: 0 - 1 - 2 - 3







Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
kael03 (09-21-2013)
Old 09-21-2013, 05:50 PM   #129
MrBIG
Genin
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 167
Thanks: 123
Thanked 93 Times in 51 Posts
MrBIG is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
And speaking of him, pathetic is how MrBig completely ignores the portion where I explain how it is a paradox just to push his bullshit all the way through. Just follow my analogy here, if a person neither likes or dislikes chocolate, what would you think is that person's relation to chocolate? If you find an option that isn't apathy or plain ignorance of what chocolate is (which would be irrelevant in the discussion being made), please, do tell me what it is, because I'm having an excruciatingly hard time figuring out what the hell it is.
Really? If someone doesn't hold a yes or no position on a question or subject then he must be apathetic? My word, this is hilarious.

If I neither like nor hate chocolate doesn't mean im disinterested by it.
Likewise if I dont believe nor disbelieve in God does not mean im not concerned with the question.

Quote:
And how funny is you to join KYF in your little projection trip. I say "save face" and you instantly repeat it towards me, how cute!
1. I guess you coined the term saving face?
2. Obviously you have no idea what projection means.
3. this is some elementary school level of argumentation
"I CALLED YOU DUMB FIRST, U CANT CALL ME DUMB!!11"

Quote:
You may cherry-pick all the definitions you want, but if you don't actually use your brain to understand them, they won't be of use to you.[
Like i've said before ive just paraphrased the definitions I've used, If you're incapable of providing evidence to back your own claims then your argumentative points have no ground to stand on.

Quote:
Your constant repetition of "pure agnostics" is idiotic because you're arguing a position that is logically impossible and, in my experience, those advocating they're on it are simply fence-sitters that don't want to own their position due to fear of hate from either field.
"In your experience".

Being purely agnostic is indeed possible. You don't need a boolean answer to the question of whether god exists or not. If YOU find this to be impossible then thats not my problem, cause factually millions of people don't see themselves as agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist. Their null hypothesis is simply "I don't know so I can't decide"

Quote:
And I find hilarious your point on saying that if the links you post don't contradict what I said, then I'm arguing just to argue. It's not the links I'm arguing against, I'm arguing against your misunderstanding of their actual meaning and your weaselly tactics when cornered with proper understanding
You've shown nothing nor evidence to back up your claims.
You can keep singing the same tired song of me misunderstanding but the only thing I misunderstand is the made up definitions and you've created to back up your nonsensical arguments.

Quote:
You even try to argue you defined terms but you only did after I pushed you to them, not by your own initiative/knowledge. You seem to think you're the first trying to throw this kind of bullshit my way but even in this forum I've already countered it a few times.
More nonsense babel, proving nothing and adding nothing to the discussion.
I had to define terms I've used for the simple fact that you fail to grasp basic concepts. I didn't know someone could be pathetic enough that I had to explain to them the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

But when questioned I won't hesitate to back my claims with evidence, thats how argumentative discussion work. Another thing you fail to understand.

Quote:
And I got to love your silly argumentation. "I said he wasn't purely an atheist, he is an agnostic atheist and agnosticism and atheism are different things". What fucking part of intersecting simply refuses to dig its way into your goddamn thick skull? He's both an atheist AND an agnostic, so arguing from the "pure" definitions is, guess what, silly.
Atheist =/= agnostic atheism. I've provided evidence and sources proving this. Again if you disagree, provide verifiable sources proving the contrary.
Till then what you're doing is merely ranting and arguing about something you believe is right without facts.

Quote:
And you didn't say he wasn't "purely" an atheist, you said he wasn't an atheist and an agnostic period.
I said he wasn't an atheist and argued that he was either an agnostic or an agnostic atheist. In the same post.

Quote:
Only then, by some weird reason that contradicted the previous one, you used the eternally phony "atheistic agnosticism" line that only a faux-intellectual like you would profess. So, please, don't think I'm that stupid to fall for that.
lol "phony" Atheistic agnosticism. Fall for what? Atheistic agnosticism is a real term and synonymous with agnostic atheism. I've explained this and provided evidence, move on.

Quote:
And, poster boy for failed Philosophy classes, you can refute a claim of knowledge with a claim of ignorance, that's the whole point of asking for proof
Asking for proof is not refutation of a claim. Yes, I would probably fail the philosophy classes you've taken judging by your arguments; It must of been some nonsensical crap.

Quote:
since you're ignorant of the knowledge of the other. And you still haven't fit in your head the whole burden of proof issue with positive and negative claims, haven't you? Hell, the link you provided was about proving a negative
You claimed that the burden of proof was on the person making the postive claim. Which is folk logic, the negative claim is just as much responsible for providing proof to their affirmations.

Which is what my link explained.


Quote:
I don't care if you call it folk logic like you straight out copied from the link your provided, it is only logical that you can't ask someone to prove their ignorance.
Diving more and more into deeper levels of pathetic.

A negative claim isn't one of ignorance. You're failure to understand simple grade school level grammatical syntax is outstanding.


Quote:
You'd know that if you actually knew what you were talking about instead of pretending so.
Time and time again you've only proven to make up your statements, providing no proof and expecting people to believe you on your word?
Like I've said again and again, ive provided sources and evidence to back up what i've said. If you find them to be wrong, then the burden of proof is on your hands.

You can continue ranting and fuming about some factually incorrect opinions you hold, it doesn't make them right. Only serves to make you look immature.


Quote:
Moving on, I referred you to Evolutionary Morality for you to acknowledge that is consideration on the evolutionary roots of morality, not for you to be stupid enough to create a goddamn strawman about how I said morality is only evolutionary and hasn't anything to do with civilization.
You linked me to documents about evolutionary theory which is based on the assumption that morals are a genetic trait. Then you go on about how environment/society shapes morals. Two very different schools of thought and also contradicting.

You have no idea what you're talking about basically.

Quote:
WRONG. Fixing that premise, God has AGENCY, thus his moral laws must be true. If God only existed and didn't have agency, he wouldn't have moral laws, is that simple. So yeah, morality in the discussion of God's existence? Totally irrelevant to anyone that isn't a dimwit.
Now I can only facepalm, this is so basic I'm baffled by how I have to hold your hand through every simple statement. I've known young children able to understand some of these concepts better.

For millions of religious people, their religion is synonymous with morals. They are the same, inseparable. God provided to them their moral compass.
In a discussion about God, the believers religion is highly relevant.
MrBIG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 06:13 PM   #130
ask me anything
Simply AMAzing
 
ask me anything's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Impel Down
Posts: 3,197
Thanks: 9,035
Thanked 3,649 Times in 1,598 Posts
ask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really nice
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

It is perfectly clear KYF doesn't have children. Thank god.
__________________

ask me anything is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ask me anything For This Useful Post:
Human Rasengan (09-21-2013), kael03 (09-21-2013), Numinous (09-21-2013)
Old 09-21-2013, 08:26 PM   #131
Numinous
Writing speed: snail
 
Numinous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Porto, Portugal
Posts: 4,783
Thanks: 8,386
Thanked 11,563 Times in 3,932 Posts
Numinous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Quote:
It is perfectly clear KYF doesn't have children. Thank god.
+1 for hope in humanity. Too bad for the -1 because MrBig is pretty much recycling his bullshit without even bothering to acknowledge what I say. I ask questions, he evades them like a Cactuar; he believes his link demonstrated that negative claims have the burden of proof when it simply said they could be proved which is entirely different and that somehow negative claims aren't claims of ignorance; he really doesn't understand the difference between agency and existence and how morals have nothing to do with the latter; more bafflingly, he doesn't seem to know that two schools of thought can complement each other for a more proper point of view and, the cherry on top of the moronic cake, he thinks he's explaining what atheism and agnosticism are to an agnostic atheist.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, because I really don't want to deal with this amount of both stupidity and pretense rolled into one. So yeah, even if the topic is interesting, I'll just stop myself from clicking on "view post" if it's only to irritate myself in the process.


I'll just comment on something j_H said:

Quote:
That being said, I'm of the personal belief that children are born with "sin", but are almost blank slates.
This is one of the tenets of Christianity that really does not sit well with me. It's like a guilt trip just for existing and I really find it shameful, considering I'm optimist about people even when they are morally reprehensible. I don't know, if I actually had an inkling for believing in a deity I'd still not pick Christianity because of that (and some other tenets too).
__________________
My writings and ramblings:

Water of Ocean Darkest Chapters: 1 - 2
Weaver Chapters: 0 - 1 - 2 - 3







Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
kael03 (09-21-2013), Miburo (10-07-2013)
Old 09-21-2013, 10:13 PM   #132
jekyl_hyde
Hunter-Nin
 
jekyl_hyde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,362
Thanks: 763
Thanked 1,248 Times in 521 Posts
jekyl_hyde is on a distinguished roadjekyl_hyde is on a distinguished road
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
I'll just comment on something j_H said:

Quote:
I'm of the personal belief that children are born with "sin", but are almost blank slates.
This is one of the tenets of Christianity that really does not sit well with me. It's like a guilt trip just for existing and I really find it shameful, considering I'm optimist about people even when they are morally reprehensible. I don't know, if I actually had an inkling for believing in a deity I'd still not pick Christianity because of that (and some other tenets too).
I'll be blatantly honest with you... Christianity is not for everyone. But let me ask you this, do you believe that children are born "perfect"? Because if so, then that would mean at some point in that child's life, that child would fall from grace, for a lack of better terms. Because I'm sure we'll all agree, no one on this world is perfect. So if a child is not born "perfect" then that child does have sin.

I'm not a universalist (Unitarian) Christian, one that thinks everyone will end up in Heaven. I believe that all of mankind was born in sin (Gen. 3) and was born with a free will. You choose to deny his existance (and in turn rules), while I accept them and try to live by them the best I can. I'm not saying that I'm perfect, because I fall everyday and try to repent as best as possible. But I am saying that you, and I, are sinners, and have been so since the day we were born. As I stated before, the only difference between us, I choose to accept said terms while you do not.
jekyl_hyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 11:20 PM   #133
MrBIG
Genin
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 167
Thanks: 123
Thanked 93 Times in 51 Posts
MrBIG is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
+1 for hope in humanity. Too bad for the -1 because MrBig is pretty much recycling his bullshit without even bothering to acknowledge what I say. I ask questions, he evades them like a Cactuar; he believes his link demonstrated that negative claims have the burden of proof when it simply said they could be proved which is entirely different and that somehow negative claims aren't claims of ignorance; he really doesn't understand the difference between agency and existence and how morals have nothing to do with the latter; more bafflingly, he doesn't seem to know that two schools of thought can complement each other for a more proper point of view and, the cherry on top of the moronic cake, he thinks he's explaining what atheism and agnosticism are to an agnostic atheist.
Hilarious, I tell ya.

Failure to understand that Evolutionary Morality is at odds with cultural and social moral development.

Failure to understand that burden of proof relies not on positive nor negative claims but on the person that makes a claim.

Failure to understand basic grammatical syntax and the difference between a negative and positive claim and how in no way does a negative claim automagically become one of ignorance.

Failure to understand that morals and religion are intertwined and one in the same for many of the religious.

Failure to understand that in a discussion of God, religion is highly relevant.

Failure to understand that one must support their argumentative points with evidence.

Failure to understand that just because one identifies with a school thought does not make him or her an expert on the field.


This is what I had to deal with.

Last edited by MrBIG; 09-21-2013 at 11:21 PM.
MrBIG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 12:29 AM   #134
ask me anything
Simply AMAzing
 
ask me anything's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Impel Down
Posts: 3,197
Thanks: 9,035
Thanked 3,649 Times in 1,598 Posts
ask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really niceask me anything is just really nice
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jekyl_hyde View Post
I'll be blatantly honest with you... Christianity is not for everyone. But let me ask you this, do you believe that children are born "perfect"? Because if so, then that would mean at some point in that child's life, that child would fall from grace, for a lack of better terms. Because I'm sure we'll all agree, no one on this world is perfect. So if a child is not born "perfect" then that child does have sin.

I'm not a universalist (Unitarian) Christian, one that thinks everyone will end up in Heaven. I believe that all of mankind was born in sin (Gen. 3) and was born with a free will. You choose to deny his existance (and in turn rules), while I accept them and try to live by them the best I can. I'm not saying that I'm perfect, because I fall everyday and try to repent as best as possible. But I am saying that you, and I, are sinners, and have been so since the day we were born. As I stated before, the only difference between us, I choose to accept said terms while you do not.
The problem is "sin" (aka evil) isn't the opposite of perfection. The opposite of sin would be righteousness (aka good), while the opposite of perfection would be imperfection. I don't think the 2 set of terms are mutually exclusive, but I do find the idea of perfection to be rather impossible and/or unattainable. Therefore the only real combinations are someone being an imperfect sinner or a imperfect righteous guy, or some shade of gray in between.

Personally, I'm pretty much apathetic towards all religions in general, but do find some of the lore and characters behind them rather interesting from a "fictional" standpoint. I have no problem with most religious doctrines (like the 10 commandments), because I see them purely as constructs of man simply stamped with Gods name to make it seem legitimate, and to keep order. It's boils down to a chicken or the egg argument, with laws made by men being the egg, and God(s) being creating later and credited as the almighty chicken that laid them.

I've always said that if you take the concept of god out of the bible, then it basically turns into something like Aesop's Fables, or Poor Richards Almanac. A book full of interesting stories and ideas that teaches how good morals and actions are beneficial to oneself, rather than the purpose of avoiding the enmity of some big douche in the sky.
__________________


Last edited by ask me anything; 09-22-2013 at 12:31 AM.
ask me anything is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ask me anything For This Useful Post:
Human Rasengan (09-24-2013)
Old 09-22-2013, 09:38 AM   #135
jekyl_hyde
Hunter-Nin
 
jekyl_hyde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,362
Thanks: 763
Thanked 1,248 Times in 521 Posts
jekyl_hyde is on a distinguished roadjekyl_hyde is on a distinguished road
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

I'm going to try to be quick and to the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ask me anything View Post
The problem is "sin" (aka evil) isn't the opposite of perfection. The opposite of sin would be righteousness (aka good), while the opposite of perfection would be imperfection. I don't think the 2 set of terms are mutually exclusive, but I do find the idea of perfection to be rather impossible and/or unattainable. Therefore the only real combinations are someone being an imperfect sinner or a imperfect righteous guy, or some shade of gray in between.
Perfection, for me, means to be without fault. A sin is a fault.

Quote:
Personally, I'm pretty much apathetic towards all religions in general, but do find some of the lore and characters behind them rather interesting from a "fictional" standpoint. I have no problem with most religious doctrines (like the 10 commandments), because I see them purely as constructs of man simply stamped with Gods name to make it seem legitimate, and to keep order. It's boils down to a chicken or the egg argument, with laws made by men being the egg, and God(s) being creating later and credited as the almighty chicken that laid them.

I've always said that if you take the concept of god out of the bible, then it basically turns into something like Aesop's Fables, or Poor Richards Almanac. A book full of interesting stories and ideas that teaches how good morals and actions are beneficial to oneself, rather than the purpose of avoiding the enmity of some big douche in the sky.
I've heard this notion/thought process numerous times, and I understand what you're saying. I, too, have an interest in the other mythologies. But the reasoning for my belief in Christianity is because of my personal experiences. That is why I stated this earlier:
Quote:
True believers in any religion believe because of their experiences (or lack thereof). People who are "raised" in religions usually aren't the practicing type and usually fall under the agnostic group.
jekyl_hyde is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jekyl_hyde For This Useful Post:
MrBIG (09-22-2013)
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need for Speed The Run Limited Edition . B.A.H Gaming 0 11-12-2011 06:22 AM
[WU] Need for Speed Most Wanted [PC/2005/Full iso] huongco23 Gaming 0 09-22-2011 09:56 AM
Need for Speed World v.1.8.1.53 (2010/ENG) | 819 MB NEW!!! iwantcools90 Gaming 0 09-01-2010 12:51 PM
The Naruto Debating FC MikeyM1979 Official Fanclubs 1734 07-09-2009 08:59 PM
naruto's speed & hearing power phyomin Naruto Manga 10 01-05-2009 03:40 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.