theowarner: incompetent, shallow-minded idiot

[painterQjensen]

wow, R-Rguy, is from THIS moment on my favorit comedian,

at the hours 02:22:35am and 02:23:36am 7th june 2010.

oh, the moment has gone.

[painterQjensen]

@painterQjensen

if you match a 2 dimentional square with a 2 dimentional circle.

you get a 3 dimentional thingie.

1 is taken from top, 1 from the side.

it cant be done. IT CANT, GOD FORBIDS IT!!!

[yistackness]

What about a cylinder? From the end it looks like a circle, and from the side it can look like a square. And lets not forget about being fair. If you want to ask if a square circle exists, you should first tackle the question of whether a square or circle exist to begin with. Will you ever find a perfect circle? - without any form of rough edges on the most minute of scales. Does a square exist? - with absolute perfect 90 degree angles?

[theowarner]

I would like also to point out that invisibility and immateriality are separate properties.

So... I guess RationResponseGuy just made a mistake, or, as RRG would put it: "RationalResponseGuy" is lying.

[rationalresponseguy]

@theowarner LOL! Whatever. If you want me to change it to immaterial have at you then. The fact that you think immaterial square circles exist (let alone that they exist by 1%) shows that you're a complete moron.

[theowarner]

@rationalresponseguy

Keep on with that damage control.

[rationalresponseguy]

@theowarner There wasn't much damage done and I'm not even willing to control it. But, uhm, yeah, it's damage control when I'm willing to concede your point on immaterialism anyway, which doesn't make any difference on the fact that you think square circles (whether immaterial or invisible) exist at a percentage. Honestly, theowarner, I'm crying as I type this because you caught me. You're just too good. I'm reminded of the time when you said 1 Cor. 15:4-5 had 4 facts when it had 5 facts.

[theowarner]

@rationalresponseguy

You're the one who proposed an immaterial object. It so nonsensical an object that as far as I can tell, if we ascribe it existence, nothing happens.

Let's take this example: I am 100% sure that a penguin with no matter exists. I am 100% sure that that penguin can have contradictory attributes... why not? With no matter there, why is there objection to an immaterial contradiction?

You probably won't understand my comment. Can you put it your own words?

[rationalresponseguy]

@theowarner "I am 100% sure that that penguin can have contradictory attributes... why not?" LOL! Well, if you think a penguin can be a 2 feet tall penguin and yet AT THE SAME TIME be a 5 thousand feet penguin anyway, and you think that can STILL exist, then have it your way. LOLOLOLOLOL! "You probably won't understand my comment." I don't think you even understand your own comment. "Can you put it your own words?" I just used your penguin example and put it in words.

[theowarner]

@rationalresponseguy

Well... here we go again. You really need to follow this very carefully...

If the penguin is immaterial, why can't it have two different heights?

Height is about matter. It has no matter. It's meaningless to suggest it has height, as you do, but no more meaningless to suggest it has two heights.

Starting to follow?

[rationalresponseguy]

@theowarner Do you? I mean, you think it's rational to say that it's one percent for sure that an immaterial square circle exists. So, how much percentage do you think an immaterial short/tall penguin exists? You even admitted "I am 100% sure that that penguin can have contradictory attributes... why not?" So, you concede that this penguin exists.

[theowarner]

@rationalresponseguy

What restrains an immaterial penguin? I'm asking you. Define for me the limits that would establish impossibility in contradiction when it comes to the immaterial.

[rationalresponseguy]

@theowarner "What restrains an immaterial penguin?" You tell me, you're the one who thinks it's rational to believe it's a 1% chance this penguin exists. Or do you think the percentage is higher than that? Do tell, theo.

[theowarner]

@rationalresponseguy

You do problem answering straight forward questions, don't you?

After all, I'm the one asking you and you're the one who proposed this this "immaterial square circle."

You applied immateriality to an object. You need to be able to talk about or you could just admit that I trapped you in your thinking as I have so many times before.

[rationalresponseguy]

@theowarner Well, you're the one who thinks immaterial square circles exist. You answered my question that it exists by a probability of 1%. I'm not so sure why you're so insecure about this with question after question and comment after comment. Sheesh! Just be happy theo. Be happy knowing you're actually delusional... I mean "smart" enough to believe square circles exist and that a penguin can be simultaneously tall and short. If that satisfies you why keep arguing about it?

[theowarner]

@rationalresponseguy

Okay. You've convinced me. There are no such things a square circles, immaterial or otherwise.

Thanks!

[myjizzureye]

@rationalresponseguy This is gold, you just get your ass handed to you again and again but puff up your chest and look about saying "Yep I won that point" as if by virtue of saying it loud enough and often enough it might become true. Its either you are smart enough to understand you're getting owned but hoping nobody will notice or you are to stupid to know you are being owned and dont understand the concepts. My money is on the latter.

[antybu86]

That just made me think, I wonder if square circles might exist in a non-Euclidean geometry. After all, things like triangles with >180 degrees exist as long as you allow alternate geometries.

Thoughts?

[TheVodkaHaze]

@antybu86 Perhaps. Or maybe they do exist in such a way that the circle vaguely looks like it has 4 sides. In terms of logic, a 4-sided 1-sided shape cannot exist.

[theowarner]

@antybu86

The key in my response was the immateriality of it. If something has no matter, then I think we can label it with whatever properties we want to. "Immateriality" and "existence" in terms of objects are contradictions. So, it's a nonsensical term. We can say it exists. We can say it doesn't.

RRG was just being clumsy when he asked. I actually no interest in square circles, of course, but it does go to show how truly devoted to me RRG really is. I find it pathetic.

[mutomeister]

@antybu86 They do exist in non-euclidean geometry, if by squared circle you mean the possibility to construct a circle out of a square so that circle and square have equal volume, by only using dividers and straightedge. In euclidean geometry this proved to be impossible, hence the term squared circle became synominous with something impossible. If by squared circle you mean somthing that is a square and a circle this is easy if you change the metric inducing the topology of C.