Debate: lixluke interviews sisyphus__ about truth

All you want to do is disregard discuss the matter at hand, and attack character. You cannot get anywhere in any discussion about character attacks. <-This whole statement in fact has nothing to do with validity of subject matter, but is about your character. If you want to disregard the subject and bicker about character, you are the one that started it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

80 posts max.
lixluke and I only.
Discussion is about arriving at some agreement of truth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually I was bickering about subject matter, not character. I had clearly stated "everything". I was going to try something with you but it is failing so what do you want now?

Why does the entire surface of philosophy today have a different defination of subjectivity than you do?

If you fail to answer this question I place you on ignore close this thread hopefully, and be done with you forever- I'm sure everyone else would do something similar.

 

1. You have not answered questions I previously posted. I will not answer anything until my questions that I aksed first are answered.

2.

Try what? This is a clear violation of the rules of productive discussion. This shows that your intent is image.

1. The goal of each party in a discussion is to understand what the other party is communicating, and arrive at a conclusion regarding a matter.

2. Discussions can only be productive if they operate within the parameters of logic, and abide by the rules of knowledge.

3. Any party that approaches a discussion with intent to prove another party wrong is not acting with intent of understanding, but acting with intent of image. Such an approach is about discussion, but about debate and tactics used for debate for the sake of image.

According to #3, you are debating for the sake of winning and losing. What exactly is your intent here? Jamesr has stated there is nothing regarding topic.

There must be a specific statement. Such as "The Earth is round." Then people must take opposing t/f position, and continue from there. Yet there doesn't seem to be any specific stated topic.

 

So so sensitive are we.

I've already answered what I thought were your questions. I can't find a "?" in your posts other than the ones I've searched for. Am I missing any?

Wrong. There is no violation of productive discussion. Get it straight.
My intent is not image, but whatever it is that I desire. Get it straight.

Entirely false. Please provide another logic other than the one we are presently abiding by .... For everyone who cares about you.

[firstly if I cared about image any, I'd actually show you where you're wrong. Instead I'm taking my time and being humiliated, for your sake- it's probably whats best for your "image."]

What a total slouch depending on untrue testomony from the authority.
You know precisely the intent. Don't lie to yourself.
Arriving at some agreement on truth.

It's simply a debate to come to an agreement on truth.
We can debate however we like, I guess.


So. Please answer my questions.

 

Sure thing.
The question is irrelevant.
Proof:
1. If all philosophers in history agree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the information.

2. If all philosophers in history disagree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the inforamtion.


This is not a discussion about whether or not a philosopher in the past made a statement or who their ideas relate to information I have provided.

Why bother with insane illogical nonsensical claim that truth is relative? Because it makes you happy? Of course. What a total joke.

 

You're the total joke luke.
You are on ignore, and it is clear who is in the dark.
Good day.

 

Yes it is clear. You.

 

1. If all philosophers in history agree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the information.

:roflmao:

That leaves you with.
2. If all philosophers in history disagree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the inforamtion.


And they do.
So it is you aganist all the philosophers in history.
Who's more dependable?
Not satisfying?

Not satisfying?
Not insane yet are we?
Scan wiki-pedia over, and search for the word "philosophy."

 

Change of mind, you're off ignore.

 

Well,move around and say something.

 

Your question is irrelevant.

These are facts:
1. If all philosophers in history agree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the information.
2. If all philosophers in history disagree with information I presented, it doesn't change validity of the inforamtion.

Is anybody discussing any previous philosophers? No. Does any previous philosopher agreement/disagreement of information affect validity of information? No.

 

question is not irrelevent.
Philosophers facts about that they do disagree with you is pretty straightforward.

But, I guess you'd say that you want SOMEBODY to help you with your theory because it IS THAT ABSURD.

I would guess, you want to state your rules and have everybody wondering exactly how they're wrong.

Am I wrong?

 

I was willing to participate in a legitimate discussion you were the one that conveted it into a flame war. So go flame yourself because I'm not interested in ad hominem or ad populum nonsense.

 

Ok. Well that's what the whole rest of this forum is to you.
Trying to arrive with a point with you is like trying to reason with a retarted baby.

 

Guess not.
But my little discussion has a point-
Sorry yo.