On the Political Philosophy of Time Travelers

TimeFlipper said:
May I inform you our member the Juvenile Oppositionist, whose only desire is to constantly argue with Paranormalis members, simply cannot comprehend the fact that every member has the right to their OWN opinions...(Patriarchal Dominance To Blame-Maybe?)
But then again you have to bare in mind the Juvenile Oppositionist is, by his own written word, a "Genius"!! :ROFLMAO: (Stated in the thread, Sports and Betting with HDR Unit)
Click to expand...
As I said in my previous post, dimension-1hacker could prove these things to himself, if proof was what he was really seeking. Of couse this is not his goal. His goal, as you stated, is simply to argue. I would not mind this so much if he were able to do so effectively, but he seems not to have the ability to do so. His constant demands for proof, and his dismissal of proof when it is offered, are little more than evasion tactics which would not be allowed even in a high school debate. When added to an almost incomprehensible syntax and grammar, debate becomes almost impossible. I am sure that he has "won" many debates in this manner in the past, which no doubt confirms his belief in his own genius.
 
Last edited:
TimeFlipper said:
May I inform you our member the Juvenile Oppositionist, whose only desire is to constantly argue with Paranormalis members, simply cannot comprehend the fact that every member has the right to their OWN opinions...(Patriarchal Dominance To Blame-Maybe?)
But then again you have to bare in mind the Juvenile Oppositionist is, by his own written word, a "Genius"!! :ROFLMAO: (Stated in the thread, Sports and Betting with HDR Unit)
Click to expand...
I right to their own opinions, but not a right to their correctness
 
Yeats said:
As I said in my previous post, dimension-1hacker could prove these things to himself, if proof was what he was really seeking. Of couse this is not his goal. His goal, as you stated, is simply to argue. I would not mind this so much if he were able to do so effectively, but he seems not to have the ability to do so. His constant demands for proof, and his dismissal of proof when it is offered, are little more than evasion tactics which would not be allowed even in a high school debate. When added to an almost incomprehensible syntax and grammar, debate becaomes almost impossible. I am sure that he has "won" many debates in this manner in the past, which no doubt confirms his belief in his own genius.
Click to expand...
Well, I am.
I asked you to prove your proofs, something that has no reason to be true has no reason to be true. Every reason that does not have a reason to be true has no reason to be true, you may have said something, is the source accurate, even if I looked it up? How can I know? give some reasons? give some reasons? I win debates against people that don't look beyond the first set of proofs, you gave proofs, where are the proofs for your proof?

saying perhaps, means just that, perhaps, maybe. I am debating you based off what I perceive to be your way of debating. I can never be sure of what I read though so I say, perhaps, maybe, it is not incomprehensable
 
Prove my proof? What would be the point, since doing so would only spur you to demand proof of the proof of the proof? I suppose I cannot expect any better from one who has also demanded proof concerning a poem or of a satirical post. In any case, I refuse to follow you into the rabbit hole of self-delusion and feigned doubt. I am done with this silliness. You may now claim victory. I hope the taste is sweet.
 
Yeats said:
Prove my proof? What would be the point, since doing so would only spur you to demand proof of the proof of the proof? I suppose I cannot expect any better from one who has also demanded proof concerning a poem or of a satirical post. In any case, I refuse to follow you into the rabbit hole of self-delusion and feigned doubt. I am done with this silliness. You may now claim victory. I hope the taste is sweet.
Click to expand...
I do not claim victory when you do not disprove the tautology "every reason needs a reason to be true or there is no reason for it to be true". How can I claim victory when you do nothing to disprove it but call the statement delusional, the person that does not question everything understands nothing.

The peom? Do you know what the metaphor can be applied to, asked if you can prove it. Asked if you could prove the peom was written by who think is the author. A poem is a poem if you perceive it to be one, I did not question that as you implied and am not questioning what something is when it is subjective. You said this information is true that a quick google search proved it, why? How do you know the sources are correct? No source is inherently trustworthy which I can prove, to blindly pick and choose if to eat an apple that could be rotten with your eyes closed, and once you taste the apple you don't spit it out as to potentially retain what you perceive to be pride. It is going down a rabbit hole of self delusion never to emerge one can go so deep, I do not call a statement delusional, I ask you to prove the statement, I do not because I admit I do not know but you seem sure, why not show it? Don't laugh in Descarte's face!
 
Last edited:

Top