I have HIV, I decide not to reproduce and pass it to another. Or lets say I have a non lethal STD and I dont pass it on. This goes against the evolutionary model. Its not altrusim either. It based on an inane moral standard that science CANNOT explain. Explain!
@996vtwin2 because we are group based animals and without morality, we would not have got this far. and you use the God-of-the-Gaps-argument here. "science doesn't know this or that, and therefore God exists"; a statement lacking any kind of logic.
All the criticisms aside, Mother Teresa was RELIGIOUS, she believed to act upon the teachings of JESUS, and wanting to please an authority figure is OBVIOUSLY a way of gaining status.
Aside from that, we haven't evolved to like McDonald's right, so how can we enjoy it? The answer to that is similar to the answer to the "altruism problem" ;)
Allah was all ways used insted of God, before the word God was used it was Allah even the arab christians dont say God they say Allah even the jews did and there were christians in arab lands before europe (christian arabs call God Allah) . and if u dont belive this then ask your self this,
what did they call God before the word God was invented, the word God came from the word good. and the bible was not writing in english God did not say his name is God and names dont change in translations
Intuition a valid form of knowledge??? Yes, well I suppose quantum electrodynamics (to date the most precise and comprehensive scientific model for all of reality) is very intuitive isn't it? What a crock of shit.
@russellrummage Stop talking shit! All great scientific ideas were intuitive - the rest is just mathematical development. Einstein's E=MC2, Mendeleev's Table of elements - they were a product of analysis and intuition. Real science is inseparable from the philosophy. Also, does calling smth "most precise and comprehensive scientific model for all of reality" change anything ? What sense does model make if it describes very little and doesn't work. One day the earth was flat - it was a model !
@valgez1 Imagination, yes. But as for intuition I'd say it only gets you so far. I like physics, so tend to base my points around it, so you may find many exceptions elsewhere, but I'm talking about the Universe here. I don't really think curved space and time is intuition. Besides, it's intuition that the World is flat, or that we're the centre of the Universe. Intuition needs transcending before we discover that it's not the case.
@russellrummage That's the problem with modern people - they believe in intuition less and less. Intuition is when you KNOW it, but can't say for sure why.
@valgez1 I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't see intuition the way you do. One may have intuition, and be correct, but I'd say it's a coincidence rather than the power of intuition. I'd hazard a guess that many more peoples intuitions (on the big questions) are in fact wrong. Believing you're right when you don't know can be positively dangerous in my opinion.
@russellrummage Depending on the situation, intuition may be the only way to go, e.g. when the problem is too complex. The Humans should learn to read and use their intuition - it's a powerful tool, btw some do use it.
@valgez1 I didn't say intuition was useless, nor did I say it's always wrong, I just don't think it's a valid form of knowledge. Ok, it may lead you to the right answer but you'd still have to prove it. So if someone came to you and said they know something because of intuition, you'd believe them? I'd need more than that, not that I'd ignore what they say, just that I wouldn't treat it as true knowledge. I don't see how you say E=MC2 is intuitive, absolute space is intuitive, not relativity.
@russellrummage I wouldn't trust someone's intuition (except for my wife's :-) ) if my decision making depended on that, - that's not what I mean. I mean relying on my own intuition as a form of gaining a knowledge. Many events are so complex and if I sense smth then I take it as it is. Regarding E=MC2 How did Einstein come to this idea? You think it was through mathematical development ? I don't think so.
@valgez1 Well in a way I think he did. Einstein took Maxwell's equations as true for everyone & as c was in them, he took that to mean that one's speed didn't influence the value of c. There is a good book called, "Why E=MC2 and why we should care" by Brian Cox that describes exactly how he got there. He may have used some intuition too, sure, but I hazard a guess that many of his ideas were wrong before finding the right one. But maybe not.
@russellrummage Yeah, I guess, it happens that one has first to come to an idea and then check whether it's true or wrong. For example, the collider in Switzerland - they scientists don't really know what they are going to achieve, just speculation, sort of "let's do it and see what happens"
@valgez1 It seems we agree on most things. All I'm saying is that I don't really regard intuition as a good form of knowledge. If something later shown to be correct is arrived at through intuition, then that's great (although I'd regard it more as a lucky, yet educated, guess). It's just if all someone has is intuition (which many of faith forward) then I'm not gonna take it very seriously. God speed.
@russellrummage I regard an intuition as a sixth sense - one is able to get information that cannot be obtained by "thinking / reasoning" means. There are many things that the society is not advancing in, and even degrading. For example, all sorts of "Grandmother's medicines" - you'll rarely find a doctor that will advice you use it. Instead, you're gonna buy loads of pills - i think, unless it's a surgery, one should almost never see a doctor.
@russellrummage For example, when relative dies being a distance away and you JUST KNOW IT. Rather fascinating the world we live in. There is much more to it then just thinking / reasoning and dealing with material things. Intuition, sixth sense are the ways to get that info, which is present, just cannot be obtained using rational means. Neither are we able to study it - just draw conclusions from the experience - which is unique for everyone and everyone's conclusions may be unique.
@valgez1 Fair enough. I'm not one to rule anything out, but I can only go by what I've experienced. I've never had any intuition of the sort you've described, I hope one day I do so it'll blow my mind. But the interconnectedness (that's a word, right?) of things doesn't surprise me. There are scientific theories and phenomena that point toward it. Bohm's holographic theory and the quantum entanglement experiments. Many science followers are reductionist, but I try not to be.
@russellrummage I "feel" that it's even more to it. For example "Thinking" - it's not like running a computer program - a computer processes data, but doesn't "Think" - it cannot be aware of its own self , cannot realize that it's actually thinking and cannot be wondering why it's able to think. With all due respect to the neurologists, they can say nothing about where self awareness is coming from. But we take it as it is, without a need for a "Proof", don't we?
@russellrummage I reckon "interconnectedness" is a right word to describe evrth. We're at a rather basic level in our understanding and our ability to control and reproduce many things. The idea of Faith can be interpreted as acceptance of the "interconnectedness" and therefore - interdependence, when evrth has its cause, for any action there's a reaction (Newtons Law :-), while we don't know exactly what laws are "Action and Reaction" following. For ages people sensed smth, some patterns
@russellrummage For ages people sensed smth, some patterns, invented "Heaven and Hell", - we're not obliged to accept Christian doctrine, but should we rule out the possibility that we somehow in some way are / will be held responsible for our actions? Some call it Karma, some call it interconnectedness and interdependence - may be it's all about the same ? We have rights to demand "Proof" of someone trying to force their agenda on us, but should we demand "proof" of ourselves ?
Yes - supernatural justice after the death is easily recognized as wish fulfillment and extension of conscience. I don't accept my own "feelings" of hoping for an afterlife or picturing a posthumous court room as pointing to those things being real, thanks.
"For example, all sorts of "Grandmother's medicines" - you'll rarely find a doctor that will advice you use it. Instead, you're gonna buy loads of pills - i think, unless it's a surgery, one should almost never see a doctor."
@twooffour That's the difference, you don't trust you sixth sense and your subconscious, but I DO - to me it's a valid source of knowledge, you're not really obliged to accept that.
@twooffour Dude, your dumbness literary drives me crazy :-) HAHA!!! if that's your purpose, you've achieved it! You want me to give your "validity" of reason why I'm trusting my sixth sense ? Dude, how can't you see your own idiotism?! :-) Indeed, atheistic squareness has no limits. It's never getting boring arguing with atheists! You say "dodge"? , ... just stop it, you've made enough clown out of yourself already Sorry, no offense meant, but when I face some dumbass, I just loose any tact.
"You want me to give your "validity" of reason why I'm trusting my sixth sense ? Dude, how can't you see your own idiotism?! "
No. You said it actually has demonstrable effects on reality, such as being able to tell if a relative dies somewhere - this stuff can actually be verified if it's true, and if it can't, you may as well have fallen into the traps of confirmation bias and poor evaluation of probabilities, making the belief in a 6th sense unfounded - hence invalid.
The fact that you can't see the need for such "verifications" despite having tried to offer one by citing the dead relative thing, is what makes YOU idiotic.
"You say "dodge"?"
Yes, that's what you're doing right now - making stupid jokes about defecation, toss insults and say "hahaha" instead of answering questions and meeting challenges.
@twooffour Truing to meet your challenges would mean becoming the same silly dumbass like you. The best way is to leave such a shit talker like you alone :-))) Next time you wanna shit or puke up, do empirical research :-)
"Truing to meet your challenges would mean becoming the same silly dumbass like you."
Yea, because asserting things such as "never go to the doctor, trust your grandma" without backing them up is smart, while presenting your reasons and defending them against scrutiny somehow makes you "dumb".
Just as making a long-winded case for something is dumb, while responding with "ur a dumbass, go the doctor when you wanna shit" is smart.
Mhm. You've come here to present your pro-faith...
Well I'm not sure what "square" is supposed to mean, but whoever is reading this exchange to find out whether the representative of "faith" (or medical paranoia/crankery) has anything worthwhile to offer, or, indeed, relies on errors in judgment, a solipsistic approach (overestimation of one's own infallibility, disregard of accumulated knowledge and methods from others) and an inability to defend their position in a discussion, as expected - has found the latter option to be true ;)
Can the faithful or alternative medicine proponents actually stand up to scrutiny and answer questions, or will they quickly find themselves to be cornered, losing their composure and replacing actual responses with childish insults when they can't back up their position?
Well, you clearly have shown the latter to be the case.
Whoever wanted to see whether the "faithful" (at least in this instance) has a valid position or is a complete idiot, has found their answer to be the latter.
@twooffour You see how square you are :-))) You don't even understand what "Square" means. Square means being unable to see farther than your nose (of which existence you have a "proof" :-)
@twooffour What is "ineptitude", btw ? Sorry, English is my 3rd language . but, please, put it in one sentence and learn to be laconic in expressing yourself HAHA!!!
Ineptitude - being inept. Incompetent, stupid, unable, bad at something.
Sorry for boring you with presenting actual arguments and points, I know an intelligent person can only read 3 lines of "laconic" blank statements before getting tired and angry, but I just couldn't hold myself.
"You are Invalid, you're mentally invalid"
Laconic, blank statement is blank.
You haven't given a SINGLE argument why my position should be invalid, but you can't defend your own - and that speaks...
"I wish I could reach over and punch you for overflowing my inbox"
Childish insults or fantasies of violent retribution - it's still attempting to compensate for the inability to defend your position rationally.
You've just committed intellectual suicide with this response, and have put an exclamation mark to the vastly negative picture everyone reading this has already made of you.
"Here's examples where relying on one's own judgment is worthless, and relying on the observations made by others is the only or best option you have; also, here's examples where solely relying on your own experience isn't enough, it has to be compared to that of others in a certain way that prevents errors of judgment."
"Ah, whatever, you're dumb. And square!"
Great argumentation skills there - I have nothing to add, nor do I have to.
@twooffour I didn't intend to argue with you :-)) , I gave you my opinion, nothing more. If you had a little bit of smth in the box you call brain, you'd understand that my ways are just different from yours :-)) But NO! You started sending me tons of messages - I really wish I could punch you :-)) HAHAHA!!!!
Well, I'm sorry, if you're gonna go around telling people not to see doctors, you'll have to BACK UP your opinion with a defendable argument, or otherwise no one's gonna pay attention to you.
EVERYONE has an opinion - and only the opinions that are actually backed up by arguments are the valid ones.
You've just shown that you can't back up yours, so it's invalid and irrelevant.
The fact that you don't even understand the CONCEPT of...
... volumes about who's REALLY mentally invalid here.
Adults have long realized that pointing a finger at someone and saying "you're stupid yourself" won't cut it anywhere outside the schoolyard - seems like you still have to learn your lesson.
Well, you've got a lot of growing up to do - if you can't do it yourself, get help.
"Ah, thanks for the definition, but that applies to you, not to me"
What a shame that I've made my case why that applies to you, while all you can do is just assert it like the kid at the schoolyard.
Sorry, I don't have time for any more of this childish "you're dumb no you're dumb" banter - you've clearly presented yourself as a complete idiot here to anyone reading this exchange, and you're casting a bad light on faith and medical skepticism with your behavior; I'm done here.
@twooffour Wait a min, first, present me a solid hard evidence that you're a living intelligent person, cause you appear to be some sort of messages producing robot
"I'm ready to back up my opinions, but only for the decent audience, not of your kind , sorry"
That's interesting, because the only reason you decided that I was an "indecent" audience is because I presented you a bunch of arguments that you could neither comprehend nor respond to.
Of COURSE you can't back up your opinions, because everytime you're challenged, you'll decide that your opponent is somehow "indecent", turn 9 years old and start behaving exactly as you are now.
@twooffour Prove to me that you are actually the one worth reasoning with :-)) All I've witnessed is lots of messages, that I didn't bother to read all of them. So far, you have miserably failed in presenting me any evidence of YOU being an intelligent person and not just messages producing robot.
"Prove to me that you are actually the one worth reasoning with :-)) All I've witnessed is lots of messages, that I didn't bother to read all of them."
Well if THAT'S not proof of mental retardation or extraordinary stupidity, I don't know what is.
Do you even realize how stupid you sound?
The only way you can judge whether I'm "worth reasoning with" is by... READING WHAT I WRITE, and doing it THOROUGHLY.
The only way I can show you whether I'm reasonable or not... is by
@twooffour You don't realize how right you are !!! Of course, it's a proof of your own " Mental retardation or extraordinary stupidity..". You don't know what it is ? Then go to see a doctor, he'll diagnose you !!!! HAHA!!!
If you don't read them, you can't decide that I'm unreasonable.
If I'm reasonable, you still can't conclude that without reading my messages.
And if you're making judgments about me without reading what I have to say - YOU'RE MAKING UP JUDGMENTS OUT OF THIN AIR.
And if you freely admit to not reading responses, you prove yourself to be not worth reasoning with - guess why? Because no matter how well someone reasons with you, it flies past your brain.
You know fully well that I'm not a "robot" - the only reason you feel compelled to engage in this silly trolling pseudo-paranoia is because you've been cornered in the preceding discussion and are now looking for ways to evade the embarassing situation.
It's hilarious :D
"Anyway, there's no way to reason with you"
I read your responses, you don't read mine.
I don't talk stupid shit about punching and robots, you do.
@twooffour Do I owe any evidence in the first place ? :-))) I'd gladly stop this talk, but you keep on mercilessly spamming me, so you carry the burden of "Proof"
You owe it to yourself because that's the only way you could show you're not a complete moron - as you clearly have shown yourself to be with your childish, empty trolling and spamming for lack of reasonable responses so far.
But seeing as you couldn't do it anyway, yea, forget it. You don't owe me anything, you've already exposed yourself well enough as it is.
And the fact that I just had to spell this out for you, while you demanded me to prove myself to you without reading my responses, is proof that you're a hopeless retard not worth talking to.
"cause you appear to be some sort of messages producing robot"
Which you actually can't assess without reading my messages.
@twooffour Yeah, thanks ! You've just proved that you're some sort of a computer program or just junkie :-)) Anyway, there's no way to reason with you
There is a certain limit of realistically imitating human writing and responses that AI software is currently bound by, and the only reason to even SUSPECT that you may be talking to a spambot or an AI software (like in the chat with God) is by... EVALUATING THE WAY THEY RESPOND.
Which you can't do without reading their messages - so you have no grounds to even suspect that I may be an AI... but then again, you're only saying all that because you couldn't defend your position. So yea.
@twooffour I evaluated the way you respond - sending tons of messages is nothing more by spam, your talking much but saying nothing doesn't leave me any desire to reason with you
"I evaluated the way you respond - sending tons of messages is nothing more by spam, your talking much but saying nothing"
You're making judgments about the content of my posts without reading them.
Evaluating a response means COMPREHENDING and ANALYZING it - not just making the observation that there are "many posts". Are you really this stupid or are you just tapdancing around your inability to defend your position?
Anyway, yea - reasonable response from you, until then /ignore.
"but quickly stopped after seeing some 7-8 messages in my Inbox"
8 youtube comments isn't that much text, and being overwhelmed by so little information (especially when it challenges your claims :p) tells me EVERYTHING about your intellectual faculties that I need to know.
Yea, sorry, some complex topics can't be "laconically" summed up in 2 sentences if you really want to explain them so the other person understands it.
Anyway, it should be clear to you that as soon as you feel overwhelmed by someone's responses, or stop reading them, you've LOST THE DEBATE.
And if not lost, then this is the point where you BOW OUT.
Which means you bow out, you stop responding, and you stop making unfounded claims about your opponent's stupidity, if YOU'RE TOO THICK TO EVEN READ WHAT THEY SAY.
If you have nothing to say, then piss off - I don't need some 4 year old dork with ADS to tell me how they don't read my...
@twooffour HAHAHA!!!! Bingo! You did It!!! As soon as someone starts talking about "Winning / Loosing debate" - well, the rest you know yourself ! Go, have a sleep, really ....
"As soon as someone starts talking about "Winning / Loosing debate" - well, the rest you know yourself"
It's "losing", and no, I don't.
Two opponents defend their positions and criticize each other's. The one with all reason and attention on their side "wins", as well as demonstrates the validity of their own position to others. The one with no reason or attention on their side "loses" and shows their position to be bogus.
Pretty ironic for someone who does nothing but toss insults..
The fact that you still haven't realized that... well, you're a pathetic fart and probably one of the most embarassing, insecure mouthbreathers I've encountered on the web in a LONG time.
Sorry for keeping replying - I guess exposing your pathetic fallacies and defense mechanisms is just way too fun, even after the realization that you cannot converse at a level higher than kindergarten banter.
The urge to punch ANYONE because they're winning an argument or internet fight against you, points to extreme personal insecurity and a complete lack of understanding of any reasonable social norms.
You, sir, are a pathetic fart, and you keep driving this image home with each reply you post.
Aside from that, you're doing the same thing to me - overflowing my inbox with dozens of message. Only that yours are completely empty of sensible content and consist of nothing but threats, insults and nonsense about "robots".
And that doesn't make me want to punch you - I can easily delete them all from my inbox without any psychological stress at all - it just makes me laugh at your pathetic and stubborn idiocy.
And because you don't have that luxury, that makes you aggressive.
"I'm just protecting myself, you idiot :-))) At least, my messages are not as big as yours"
Well, quality matters more than quantity, and 10 messages full of sensible arguments are actually more worth than one-liners of childish nonsense.
Guess you needed this obvious conclusion spoonfed as well, yea?
And yea, exactly - you're "protecting" yourself. Defending your ego from challenge is the only option you have, because actually making a case for your POSITION is too much to ask.
Sorry, as I said - just way too fun seeing you making your hilarious deer-in-the-headlights impression.
Everytime you keep coming back with some pathetic attempt to picture me as the fool and yourself on the high-ground, and it's just way too fun to rebuke that again and again.
Like just now:
"You mean 10 messages full of shit - if for you shit = sensible arguments"
Yea, you can't just let go without insisting one last time that my messages were "shit".
@twooffour I'm just stating a fact , a proof of which i have - your messages are shit. Don't worry, kiddo, I'm leaving soon, you'll have your rest. HAHA!!!
The problem is - you haven't read them, and what little you've read, you haven't comprehended as you've clearly shown.
So even if my arguments were "shit", you're only arriving at the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons, because it's just a defense mechanism applied to boost your ego, rather than a conclusion based on rational evaluation and criticism.
Your crap, on the other hand... well, I've just deconstructed your newest piece, haven't I?
The act of distracting from the topic, or accusations, by saying something sarcastic, nonsensical, aggressive or insulting, in order to make up for one's shortcomings in what REALLY matters.
"but the truth is that you're incredibly annoying brat"
I'm sure your inability to make a case for ANYTHING, be it your claims about medicine or my stupidity, is annoying to you, but I prefer being annoying to being retarded and cornered, as you are.
@twooffour OK, time to go (unfortunately) . My advice - learn to express yourself in a laconic way, kiddo. :-))) I really started arguing just for fun, sorry if I made you nervous.
"My advice - learn to express yourself in a laconic way, kiddo."
I can already express myself in a REASONABLE way - if the topic is too complicated to express in 5 words, I shouldn't be laconic; if I want to savour my pwnage of a moronic statement, I don't want to; and unless I'm talking to someone with a mental disability, or ADS, I don't have to.
"sorry if I made you nervous."
More like sad, because I know you're not any less stupid than the way you've just presented yourself.
If I may give you a piece of advice - learn to express yourself in a reasonable way. That is, making arguments for your claims, carefully reading the responses, and avoiding dishonesties and defense mechanisms.
That's much more important than being "laconic" - and not only that, but the "ability" to be laconic means being able to express something effectively, or even reasonable, by using very few words.
You've clearly shown that your own brand of "laconic" means sacrificing all...
@twooffour Yeah! Sure !!! You are VERY laconic, indeed, - sending 7 comments trying to impress with useless gobbing off, i quickly realized what a dork you, in fact, are :-)))) You would fit in very well in some "Freak Talking show"
Alright, dude, you have some serious issues with comprehension of written text - I have no other way of explaining your OBSCENELY crude misapprehensions.
Haven't I just explained that REASON is much more important than being "laconic"? And yet here you go:
"You are VERY laconic, indeed, - sending 7 comments"
Where did I ever claim to be laconic?
All I said was:
-being laconic DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER
-you're bad at it, because your short messages contain nothing but crap.
Crap I can repeatedly show to be crap, instead of just claiming it is, at that.
"with useless gobbing off"
You wouldn't know that since you haven't read it.
"i quickly realized what a dork you"
You didn't "realize" anything, because you didn't read anything.
You just talked yourself into it, because dismissing a "dork" is much more comfortable than admitting to have nothing left to say in a given discussion.
.... keep making long-winded logical arguments boring all the idiots to death, right? They don't do stuff like "I'll punch you in the face" or poop insults on those "freak shows", right?
"Hmm, you are pretty good in tossing worthless multi - liners"
You wouldn't know how "worthless" they are - you haven't read them.
"Have you said anything smart, anything original, anything of your own self, your OWN opinion"
All the time - but you wouldn't know that, you haven't read anything.
... you obviously fail HARD at - and I can say that because I've just spent 4 comments dissecting each line of your bullshit, which you obviously can't do with my comments.
At any rate, last time I'm fucking asking this, you hamster - are you going to respond with anything reasonable to whatever points I've made hours ago about the topic, or are you just gonna continue prancing like a frog?
@twooffour No, I am not going to respond to a dork like you, you are just NOT good enough for that ! You are just a miserable atheist living in your pathetic atheistic world, believing in nothing, with no imagination, no senses, no phantasy, you're demanding proof for evrth. You are a typical product of the modern tech civilization - a perfect consumer, with no independent thinking, relying on others to chew evrth up and serve you in a "proven" way - you're capable of nothing, apart of spamming
"No, I am not going to respond to a dork like you, you are just NOT good enough for that"
Well, thanks for that - in reality, of course, the one who can't defend their position or come up with a sensible response in a discussion is "not good enough". But that would take some self-honesty to admit.
"You are just a miserable atheist living in your pathetic atheistic world"
You've failed to explain how any of that is miserable, however, you've demonstrated plenty of "miserable"...
... dishonesty, insecurity and stupidity yourself.
And not to generalize, but this traits seems very common among religious people, especially the dimwitted kind.
"believing in nothing"
Believing in nothing would be nihilism or solipsism.
Atheism is simply not believing in GOD, which even you dimwitted crackpot can admit not to be EVERYTHING, because apart from God, there's also a WORLD he created, and other minds.
Skepticism is believing in nothing that can't be demonstrated to...
In that sense, yea, I guess I'm a "miserable" skeptic who doesn't want to subscribe to a belief that isn't based on anything that demonstrates its actual truth.
You may swallow the blue pill if it makes you "less miserable", but it's still the blue pill, and I don't see how deciding to believe in reality rather than fantasy is somehow "miserable".
Seems like the only reason you've decided that I'm "not good enough" is because I don't accept your ideas and beliefs - which tells a lot more about you than me.
"no senses"
Lolwut?
"you're demanding proof for evrth"
Because that's the only way you can tell (probable) reality from (probable) delusion? Why in hell should I NOT do that? Aside from the fact that it's simply HARDER than engaging in credulity?
In desperate search for negative labels you can stuff me into, you've actually started to contradict yourself.
If I just buy a study conducted by Merck or some other questionable pharma company, I have no "independent thinking", but if I don't, "I demand proof" for everything.
Well... only one of those things is bad, isn't it.
"relying on others to chew evrth up"
Actually it's about contrasting your own observations with that of others.
One person's experience, perception, memory and ability to gain knowledge is extremely limited and flawed, and that OBVIOUSLY requires taking humanity's accumulated knowledge into account as well.
There are situations (some of which I've described) in which an single individual experience means next to nothing, because only large numbers can start to point to some conclusion.
Recognizing such situations, and learning to see yourself in the larger context, will lead to "relying on...
others' judgment" - but it's done so as a result of your OWN thinking and realizations.
What you're proposing here, knowledge based on nothing but your own personal experience, is in no way reasonable, or reliable, when applied to certain areas of knowledge.
You can whine about it and try to convince yourself that taking others' achievements into account is somehow "lame", but at the end, if you're honest to yourself, you'll come to realize that, as well.
... are NOT the way to go if you want to make sense.
That's why researchers do "double-blind" experiments - each researcher realizes the fallibility and biases of their own minds, so they allow themelves to stay ignorant about certain conditions of the experiment so their knowledge can't influence their evaluation of test results.
If you were a participant, you'd probably say "bah, my own experience is good enough, I don't have to rely on others to do my job!"... and be disqualified
Yea, I'm sure that the realization of one's own limitations and fallibility as an individual must seem like "lack of self-respect for you", but that's only from the perspective of over-confidence, arrogance and pride.
If you think that you and your grandma can do medical research on par with, or even better than professional research teams conducting mass studies...
... subjecting themselves to peer review, and eventually entering the international forum of comparison and verification - then yea, the realization that you can't must seem like horrible self-loathing by comparison.
It's rather curious that while scientific researches have to subject their findings to peer review and criticism, you already collapse under the slightest challenge to your claims and obviously can't admit that you're capable of misapprehensions of various kinds.
An arrogant, small-minded and bloated prick living in his own little universe of superiority and infallibility.
Nevermind all the knowledge that CAN'T be accumulated on your own. Nevermind that modern medicine CAN predict the return of symptons due to an infectious disease, while you yourself can't because you're going through it the first time.
Relying on others' knowledge is pathetic consummerism!
You never have a chance of growing until you climb out of this hole of pathetic solipistic arrogance, and no amount of label-tossing (something about "brainless consumers" or "robots without senses"... what?) will change that, or fool anyone aside from yourself.
Seeing as how you've announced to never make any sensible argument in this forum, I guess that about concludes it all.
@twooffour Stop mumbling, you infantile cretin :-) Did you ask FDA whether it's OK for your health to sit many hours in front of your PC ? You are just an arrogant, weak minded, gutless, fearful atheist, unable to make a little independent step without "Proof" , you are a failure, all you are capable of is ... what are you, in fact, capable of ?
@twooffour So, you are aware that it is bad for your health to sit many hours in front of your PC ? Sure thing, there's an empirical evidence! You would have never known it yourself !
Actually, an interesting point you've raised - how can I know that "sitting for hours in front of my PC" is unhealthy?
Well, I can obviously tell if it drags me down, makes me semi-dizzy or reduces my working ability after a week or so.
However, I have no way to tell that it can actually lead to stroke, heart disease, or a variety of other problems, with high probability, but possible after DECADES of such an unhealthy lifestyle.
"Smth tells me, you're lying - you would have never concluded that alone, without some sort of scientific research - just not for you"
Obviously you CAN'T make the conclusion that lack of movement can cause stroke or heart attack in the long term, without scientifc research to back it up.
That's the whole point.
Obviously, nothing I ever say will ever go through your thick skull - you may call that "independent thinking", but we both know that it's nothing but plain ol' stupidity.
@twooffour I know it without your silly "scientific research". Of course, nothing you ever say will ever go through my skull - I am immune against assholes. Nothing I say will ever go through your skull - cause there's a wood inside your skull
"Nothing I say will ever go through your skull - cause there's a wood inside your skull"
Your hilarious childish nonsense goes perfeclty through my skull, reaches my brain, is subjected to analysis and returned to you via refutations you can't even begin to address properly.
"I know it without your silly "scientific research"."
Just the intellectual suicide I was waiting for - yea, how do you know that, hm? How do you know that certain activities now can lead to a stroke in 20 years
... without science to provide you with this information? How would you know what actually happens during a stroke without the scientific research to provide you with this information (it requires knowledge of anatomy and physiology FOR ONE THING)?
How would you know how to TREAT a stroke without knowing from science what works and what doesn't, which in turn is only possible by knowing what actually leads to a stroke?
Would you take it upon yourself to treat your grandma...
... should she suffer a stroke, or would you call the ambulance? And could you really justify to yourself not to call it?
Then again, you've just shot yourself in the foot with this, because you've already admitted the validity of surgery... which... is based entirely on scientific research and collaborative medical practice.
A surgeon doesn't invent their techniques each on their own, they go through a rigorous education that provides them with already accumulated knowledge.
The aspiring surgeon won't declare "I don't need no silly science, let me kill 50 patients before I figure out how to stop bleeding", and neither will you refuse to "rely on a surgeon's knowledge and skills" if you or someone close to you should suffer a medical emergency.
So of course what you're saying here is pure nonsense to save your own face, as well as contradicting your previous assertions.
Of COURSE you rely on science to provide you with this knowledge - otherwise, you...
...save you from further embarassment - but of course you're unaware of this embarassment because you're insecure and dishonest, so you've convinced yourself that it's some form of "grace".
Well, well, what matters it? Believe that, too.
Had I quitted, it would've been a grace towards myself, as well - because the point where I've realized that you're beyond reasonable communication has LONG passed, or should I say, arrived.
... the accumulated knowldge provided by scientific research, which shows that it happens, and explains why it happens.
If you just convince yourself that as long as it doesn't happen to you or your grandma, it's not real and some bullshit fabricated by Big Pharma, well... I'll let you make your own conclusions, but if that doesn't make you realize your fallacies, you're simply beyond hope.
You don't "make your own conclusions", you believe whatever you prefer to believe and refuse to subject it to feedback and criticism.
Again, that's not independent thinking, it's credulity/gullibility (yes, uncritically believing yourself is just as credulous as uncritically believing others), but until you become honest with yourself, you won't realize that.
"Are you sure you used "solipsism" correctly in the first place?"
@twooffour So, Mr "Science" or more correctly "Shit Talker" ? I don't happen to believe "Only" in my own experience, but i give it big weight. - so solipsism is irrelevant.You are just ordinary Youtube demagogue, you don't even know meaning of the words you're using. Does it makes sense to continue with you? I think it's got too far already, so let me reserve the grace of quitting first, Farewell
For someone who, according to you, relies only on others to provide knowledge, I must be a very strange "solipsist".
Do you even know what solipsism is?
I mean, that's not even dumb. It's just the mindless "no, you're dumb" kneejerk reaction from the 1st grade - heck, you just don't know the meaning of the "insult" you just tried to toss back at me like a brickwall tossing back the squash ball.
for Mother Theresa watch the documentary on YT: Hell's Angel! she wasn't as good as most people think.
doyoublush 2 months ago
I have HIV, I decide not to reproduce and pass it to another. Or lets say I have a non lethal STD and I dont pass it on. This goes against the evolutionary model. Its not altrusim either. It based on an inane moral standard that science CANNOT explain. Explain!
996vtwin2 2 months ago
@996vtwin2 because we are group based animals and without morality, we would not have got this far. and you use the God-of-the-Gaps-argument here. "science doesn't know this or that, and therefore God exists"; a statement lacking any kind of logic.
doyoublush 2 months ago
Atheist 1
Christian 0
MrGunwitch 3 months ago
@USAdude30 Stick to your own brain. I will stick to mine!
clorofilazul 3 months ago
The religious guy gets a lesson of SCIENCE and PSYCHOLOGY which he can´t grasp. Poor guy. He is beaten so hard!!!! Ahahahaha
clorofilazul 3 months ago
All the criticisms aside, Mother Teresa was RELIGIOUS, she believed to act upon the teachings of JESUS, and wanting to please an authority figure is OBVIOUSLY a way of gaining status.
Aside from that, we haven't evolved to like McDonald's right, so how can we enjoy it? The answer to that is similar to the answer to the "altruism problem" ;)
twooffour 4 months ago
At around 3:00, I realized that the Christian expectedly suffers from fallacies and is on the losing side.
Thrilled to see how it's gonna progress, though.
twooffour 4 months ago
@MrLichtgetint
die atheisten, die!
twooffour 4 months ago
Allah was all ways used insted of God, before the word God was used it was Allah even the arab christians dont say God they say Allah even the jews did and there were christians in arab lands before europe (christian arabs call God Allah) . and if u dont belive this then ask your self this,
what did they call God before the word God was invented, the word God came from the word good. and the bible was not writing in english God did not say his name is God and names dont change in translations
numani12345 6 months ago
Intuition a valid form of knowledge??? Yes, well I suppose quantum electrodynamics (to date the most precise and comprehensive scientific model for all of reality) is very intuitive isn't it? What a crock of shit.
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage Stop talking shit! All great scientific ideas were intuitive - the rest is just mathematical development. Einstein's E=MC2, Mendeleev's Table of elements - they were a product of analysis and intuition. Real science is inseparable from the philosophy. Also, does calling smth "most precise and comprehensive scientific model for all of reality" change anything ? What sense does model make if it describes very little and doesn't work. One day the earth was flat - it was a model !
valgez1 5 months ago
@russellrummage Without intuition and imagination the science would go nowhere.
valgez1 5 months ago
@valgez1 Imagination, yes. But as for intuition I'd say it only gets you so far. I like physics, so tend to base my points around it, so you may find many exceptions elsewhere, but I'm talking about the Universe here. I don't really think curved space and time is intuition. Besides, it's intuition that the World is flat, or that we're the centre of the Universe. Intuition needs transcending before we discover that it's not the case.
russellrummage 5 months ago
@russellrummage That's the problem with modern people - they believe in intuition less and less. Intuition is when you KNOW it, but can't say for sure why.
valgez1 5 months ago
@valgez1 I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't see intuition the way you do. One may have intuition, and be correct, but I'd say it's a coincidence rather than the power of intuition. I'd hazard a guess that many more peoples intuitions (on the big questions) are in fact wrong. Believing you're right when you don't know can be positively dangerous in my opinion.
russellrummage 5 months ago
@russellrummage Depending on the situation, intuition may be the only way to go, e.g. when the problem is too complex. The Humans should learn to read and use their intuition - it's a powerful tool, btw some do use it.
valgez1 5 months ago
@russellrummage In other words, intuition is the way to use subconscious or whatever to extract and analyze necessary information.
valgez1 5 months ago
@valgez1 I didn't say intuition was useless, nor did I say it's always wrong, I just don't think it's a valid form of knowledge. Ok, it may lead you to the right answer but you'd still have to prove it. So if someone came to you and said they know something because of intuition, you'd believe them? I'd need more than that, not that I'd ignore what they say, just that I wouldn't treat it as true knowledge. I don't see how you say E=MC2 is intuitive, absolute space is intuitive, not relativity.
russellrummage 5 months ago
@russellrummage I wouldn't trust someone's intuition (except for my wife's :-) ) if my decision making depended on that, - that's not what I mean. I mean relying on my own intuition as a form of gaining a knowledge. Many events are so complex and if I sense smth then I take it as it is. Regarding E=MC2 How did Einstein come to this idea? You think it was through mathematical development ? I don't think so.
valgez1 5 months ago
@valgez1 Well in a way I think he did. Einstein took Maxwell's equations as true for everyone & as c was in them, he took that to mean that one's speed didn't influence the value of c. There is a good book called, "Why E=MC2 and why we should care" by Brian Cox that describes exactly how he got there. He may have used some intuition too, sure, but I hazard a guess that many of his ideas were wrong before finding the right one. But maybe not.
russellrummage 5 months ago
@russellrummage Yeah, I guess, it happens that one has first to come to an idea and then check whether it's true or wrong. For example, the collider in Switzerland - they scientists don't really know what they are going to achieve, just speculation, sort of "let's do it and see what happens"
valgez1 5 months ago
@valgez1 It seems we agree on most things. All I'm saying is that I don't really regard intuition as a good form of knowledge. If something later shown to be correct is arrived at through intuition, then that's great (although I'd regard it more as a lucky, yet educated, guess). It's just if all someone has is intuition (which many of faith forward) then I'm not gonna take it very seriously. God speed.
russellrummage 5 months ago
@russellrummage I regard an intuition as a sixth sense - one is able to get information that cannot be obtained by "thinking / reasoning" means. There are many things that the society is not advancing in, and even degrading. For example, all sorts of "Grandmother's medicines" - you'll rarely find a doctor that will advice you use it. Instead, you're gonna buy loads of pills - i think, unless it's a surgery, one should almost never see a doctor.
valgez1 5 months ago
@russellrummage For example, when relative dies being a distance away and you JUST KNOW IT. Rather fascinating the world we live in. There is much more to it then just thinking / reasoning and dealing with material things. Intuition, sixth sense are the ways to get that info, which is present, just cannot be obtained using rational means. Neither are we able to study it - just draw conclusions from the experience - which is unique for everyone and everyone's conclusions may be unique.
valgez1 5 months ago
@valgez1 Fair enough. I'm not one to rule anything out, but I can only go by what I've experienced. I've never had any intuition of the sort you've described, I hope one day I do so it'll blow my mind. But the interconnectedness (that's a word, right?) of things doesn't surprise me. There are scientific theories and phenomena that point toward it. Bohm's holographic theory and the quantum entanglement experiments. Many science followers are reductionist, but I try not to be.
russellrummage 5 months ago
@russellrummage I "feel" that it's even more to it. For example "Thinking" - it's not like running a computer program - a computer processes data, but doesn't "Think" - it cannot be aware of its own self , cannot realize that it's actually thinking and cannot be wondering why it's able to think. With all due respect to the neurologists, they can say nothing about where self awareness is coming from. But we take it as it is, without a need for a "Proof", don't we?
valgez1 5 months ago
@russellrummage I reckon "interconnectedness" is a right word to describe evrth. We're at a rather basic level in our understanding and our ability to control and reproduce many things. The idea of Faith can be interpreted as acceptance of the "interconnectedness" and therefore - interdependence, when evrth has its cause, for any action there's a reaction (Newtons Law :-), while we don't know exactly what laws are "Action and Reaction" following. For ages people sensed smth, some patterns
valgez1 5 months ago
@russellrummage For ages people sensed smth, some patterns, invented "Heaven and Hell", - we're not obliged to accept Christian doctrine, but should we rule out the possibility that we somehow in some way are / will be held responsible for our actions? Some call it Karma, some call it interconnectedness and interdependence - may be it's all about the same ? We have rights to demand "Proof" of someone trying to force their agenda on us, but should we demand "proof" of ourselves ?
valgez1 5 months ago
@valgez1
Yes - supernatural justice after the death is easily recognized as wish fulfillment and extension of conscience. I don't accept my own "feelings" of hoping for an afterlife or picturing a posthumous court room as pointing to those things being real, thanks.
"For example, all sorts of "Grandmother's medicines" - you'll rarely find a doctor that will advice you use it. Instead, you're gonna buy loads of pills - i think, unless it's a surgery, one should almost never see a doctor."
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour That's the difference, you don't trust you sixth sense and your subconscious, but I DO - to me it's a valid source of knowledge, you're not really obliged to accept that.
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"That's the difference, you don't trust you sixth sense and your subconscious, but I DO"
Yea, and I asked you about the validity of the reasons for trusting the "sixth sense" - you really shouldn't try to dodge that.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Dude, your dumbness literary drives me crazy :-) HAHA!!! if that's your purpose, you've achieved it! You want me to give your "validity" of reason why I'm trusting my sixth sense ? Dude, how can't you see your own idiotism?! :-) Indeed, atheistic squareness has no limits. It's never getting boring arguing with atheists! You say "dodge"? , ... just stop it, you've made enough clown out of yourself already Sorry, no offense meant, but when I face some dumbass, I just loose any tact.
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"You want me to give your "validity" of reason why I'm trusting my sixth sense ? Dude, how can't you see your own idiotism?! "
No. You said it actually has demonstrable effects on reality, such as being able to tell if a relative dies somewhere - this stuff can actually be verified if it's true, and if it can't, you may as well have fallen into the traps of confirmation bias and poor evaluation of probabilities, making the belief in a 6th sense unfounded - hence invalid.
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
The fact that you can't see the need for such "verifications" despite having tried to offer one by citing the dead relative thing, is what makes YOU idiotic.
"You say "dodge"?"
Yes, that's what you're doing right now - making stupid jokes about defecation, toss insults and say "hahaha" instead of answering questions and meeting challenges.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Truing to meet your challenges would mean becoming the same silly dumbass like you. The best way is to leave such a shit talker like you alone :-))) Next time you wanna shit or puke up, do empirical research :-)
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"Truing to meet your challenges would mean becoming the same silly dumbass like you."
Yea, because asserting things such as "never go to the doctor, trust your grandma" without backing them up is smart, while presenting your reasons and defending them against scrutiny somehow makes you "dumb".
Just as making a long-winded case for something is dumb, while responding with "ur a dumbass, go the doctor when you wanna shit" is smart.
Mhm. You've come here to present your pro-faith...
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
... position, and I think you've done this job just about successfully. Congratulations.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour I hope so :-)) Surely, you've done your job of presenting yourself as a completely square person in an excellent way. Congratulations !
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
Well I'm not sure what "square" is supposed to mean, but whoever is reading this exchange to find out whether the representative of "faith" (or medical paranoia/crankery) has anything worthwhile to offer, or, indeed, relies on errors in judgment, a solipsistic approach (overestimation of one's own infallibility, disregard of accumulated knowledge and methods from others) and an inability to defend their position in a discussion, as expected - has found the latter option to be true ;)
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
Can the faithful or alternative medicine proponents actually stand up to scrutiny and answer questions, or will they quickly find themselves to be cornered, losing their composure and replacing actual responses with childish insults when they can't back up their position?
Well, you clearly have shown the latter to be the case.
Whoever wanted to see whether the "faithful" (at least in this instance) has a valid position or is a complete idiot, has found their answer to be the latter.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour You see how square you are :-))) You don't even understand what "Square" means. Square means being unable to see farther than your nose (of which existence you have a "proof" :-)
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"Square means being unable to see farther than your nose"
Well, then thanks for digging your own grave with this one, because this is exactly what I've just described right after asking what "square" means.
Seeing as how that applies to you ("my experience counts, everyone else pfft bah"), not seeing past your own nose is exactly what you're doing.
So yes, you're square - thanks for giving a name to your own ineptitude, I guess.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Are you on ecstasy or smth ? :-)) may be you'd better have a wank ... :-)
valgez1 4 months ago
@twooffour What is "ineptitude", btw ? Sorry, English is my 3rd language . but, please, put it in one sentence and learn to be laconic in expressing yourself HAHA!!!
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
Ineptitude - being inept. Incompetent, stupid, unable, bad at something.
Sorry for boring you with presenting actual arguments and points, I know an intelligent person can only read 3 lines of "laconic" blank statements before getting tired and angry, but I just couldn't hold myself.
"You are Invalid, you're mentally invalid"
Laconic, blank statement is blank.
You haven't given a SINGLE argument why my position should be invalid, but you can't defend your own - and that speaks...
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour It's not just "Childish" insults :-)) I wish I could reach over and punch you for overflowing my inbox
valgez1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@valgez1
"I wish I could reach over and punch you for overflowing my inbox"
Childish insults or fantasies of violent retribution - it's still attempting to compensate for the inability to defend your position rationally.
You've just committed intellectual suicide with this response, and have put an exclamation mark to the vastly negative picture everyone reading this has already made of you.
"HAHAHA!!!!"
Idiot.
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
"I don't rely on others' judgment, only my own."
"Here's examples where relying on one's own judgment is worthless, and relying on the observations made by others is the only or best option you have; also, here's examples where solely relying on your own experience isn't enough, it has to be compared to that of others in a certain way that prevents errors of judgment."
"Ah, whatever, you're dumb. And square!"
Great argumentation skills there - I have nothing to add, nor do I have to.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour I didn't intend to argue with you :-)) , I gave you my opinion, nothing more. If you had a little bit of smth in the box you call brain, you'd understand that my ways are just different from yours :-)) But NO! You started sending me tons of messages - I really wish I could punch you :-)) HAHAHA!!!!
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
Oh, now the "its just my opinion" retreat, hm?
Well, I'm sorry, if you're gonna go around telling people not to see doctors, you'll have to BACK UP your opinion with a defendable argument, or otherwise no one's gonna pay attention to you.
EVERYONE has an opinion - and only the opinions that are actually backed up by arguments are the valid ones.
You've just shown that you can't back up yours, so it's invalid and irrelevant.
The fact that you don't even understand the CONCEPT of...
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour You're gonna be down soon
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
... volumes about who's REALLY mentally invalid here.
Adults have long realized that pointing a finger at someone and saying "you're stupid yourself" won't cut it anywhere outside the schoolyard - seems like you still have to learn your lesson.
Well, you've got a lot of growing up to do - if you can't do it yourself, get help.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Ah, thanks for the definition, but that applies to you, not to me :-))
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"Ah, thanks for the definition, but that applies to you, not to me"
What a shame that I've made my case why that applies to you, while all you can do is just assert it like the kid at the schoolyard.
Sorry, I don't have time for any more of this childish "you're dumb no you're dumb" banter - you've clearly presented yourself as a complete idiot here to anyone reading this exchange, and you're casting a bad light on faith and medical skepticism with your behavior; I'm done here.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Wait a min, first, present me a solid hard evidence that you're a living intelligent person, cause you appear to be some sort of messages producing robot
valgez1 4 months ago
@twooffour Of course, you're done. It would take a total Psycho to go any further than you did :-)))
valgez1 4 months ago
@twooffour Sometimes it makes sense to point on someone and say Hey Stupid!!! - That is what i did. You are truly stupid one :-))
valgez1 4 months ago
@twooffour You are Invalid, you're mentally invalid :-))
valgez1 4 months ago
@twooffour Why don't you drink some water, you're gonna a dehydrate yourself
valgez1 4 months ago
@twooffour I'm ready to back up my opinions, but only for the decent audience, not of your kind , sorry
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"I'm ready to back up my opinions, but only for the decent audience, not of your kind , sorry"
That's interesting, because the only reason you decided that I was an "indecent" audience is because I presented you a bunch of arguments that you could neither comprehend nor respond to.
Of COURSE you can't back up your opinions, because everytime you're challenged, you'll decide that your opponent is somehow "indecent", turn 9 years old and start behaving exactly as you are now.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Prove to me that you are actually the one worth reasoning with :-)) All I've witnessed is lots of messages, that I didn't bother to read all of them. So far, you have miserably failed in presenting me any evidence of YOU being an intelligent person and not just messages producing robot.
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"Prove to me that you are actually the one worth reasoning with :-)) All I've witnessed is lots of messages, that I didn't bother to read all of them."
Well if THAT'S not proof of mental retardation or extraordinary stupidity, I don't know what is.
Do you even realize how stupid you sound?
The only way you can judge whether I'm "worth reasoning with" is by... READING WHAT I WRITE, and doing it THOROUGHLY.
The only way I can show you whether I'm reasonable or not... is by
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour I don't understand... You're really on smth HAHAHA!!! You've just said you've been done !!!
valgez1 4 months ago
@twooffour You don't realize how right you are !!! Of course, it's a proof of your own " Mental retardation or extraordinary stupidity..". You don't know what it is ? Then go to see a doctor, he'll diagnose you !!!! HAHA!!!
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
WRITING MESSAGES FOR YOU TO READ.
If you don't read them, you can't decide that I'm unreasonable.
If I'm reasonable, you still can't conclude that without reading my messages.
And if you're making judgments about me without reading what I have to say - YOU'RE MAKING UP JUDGMENTS OUT OF THIN AIR.
And if you freely admit to not reading responses, you prove yourself to be not worth reasoning with - guess why? Because no matter how well someone reasons with you, it flies past your brain.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Don't write to me messages to read , you were supposed to be DONE, weren't you ??? You're a real psycho !!
valgez1 4 months ago
@twooffour What ? Out of your batteries, messages producing brainless robot ???
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
You know what's funny?
You know fully well that I'm not a "robot" - the only reason you feel compelled to engage in this silly trolling pseudo-paranoia is because you've been cornered in the preceding discussion and are now looking for ways to evade the embarassing situation.
It's hilarious :D
"Anyway, there's no way to reason with you"
I read your responses, you don't read mine.
I don't talk stupid shit about punching and robots, you do.
The content of our posts speaks for itself.
twooffour 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@twooffour Ha! here it goes again, what ? Recharged the batteries ?
valgez1 4 months ago
@twooffour Of course, it's easy to read my responses, can't say the same about your spam
valgez1 4 months ago
@twooffour Evidence? I'm still waiting for evidence that you're not a dumb asshole
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"Evidence? I'm still waiting for evidence that you're not a dumb asshole"
The evidence presented to you so far - my responses - is more than you have looked in until now.
You'll have your evidence when you go back to my responses on the subject, comprehend them and make your conclusions about my reasoning based on that.
Then you'll have to demonstrate your comprehension by replying to them reasonably.
Until you do this here, you're on /ignore.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Do I owe any evidence in the first place ? :-))) I'd gladly stop this talk, but you keep on mercilessly spamming me, so you carry the burden of "Proof"
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"Do I owe any evidence in the first place?"
You owe it to yourself because that's the only way you could show you're not a complete moron - as you clearly have shown yourself to be with your childish, empty trolling and spamming for lack of reasonable responses so far.
But seeing as you couldn't do it anyway, yea, forget it. You don't owe me anything, you've already exposed yourself well enough as it is.
Got nothing to say, fuck off. Bye.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour You're fucking off already ? So soon ? :-))) I'm disappointed in you. But, to keep the word, I'll follow you
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
And the fact that I just had to spell this out for you, while you demanded me to prove myself to you without reading my responses, is proof that you're a hopeless retard not worth talking to.
"cause you appear to be some sort of messages producing robot"
Which you actually can't assess without reading my messages.
You, sir, are a complete retard.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Yeah, thanks ! You've just proved that you're some sort of a computer program or just junkie :-)) Anyway, there's no way to reason with you
valgez1 4 months ago
@twooffour So far, you've failed big time to produce any sort of "Robust scientific evidence, supported by empirical research" of your being a human
valgez1 4 months ago
@twooffour Your software needs to be reprogrammed to laconic expressing your ideas and not just spamming others' mailboxes
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
There is a certain limit of realistically imitating human writing and responses that AI software is currently bound by, and the only reason to even SUSPECT that you may be talking to a spambot or an AI software (like in the chat with God) is by... EVALUATING THE WAY THEY RESPOND.
Which you can't do without reading their messages - so you have no grounds to even suspect that I may be an AI... but then again, you're only saying all that because you couldn't defend your position. So yea.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour I evaluated the way you respond - sending tons of messages is nothing more by spam, your talking much but saying nothing doesn't leave me any desire to reason with you
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"I evaluated the way you respond - sending tons of messages is nothing more by spam, your talking much but saying nothing"
You're making judgments about the content of my posts without reading them.
Evaluating a response means COMPREHENDING and ANALYZING it - not just making the observation that there are "many posts". Are you really this stupid or are you just tapdancing around your inability to defend your position?
Anyway, yea - reasonable response from you, until then /ignore.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour I read some at the very beginning, but quickly stopped after seeing some 7-8 messages in my Inbox - you're just silly
valgez1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@valgez1
"but quickly stopped after seeing some 7-8 messages in my Inbox"
8 youtube comments isn't that much text, and being overwhelmed by so little information (especially when it challenges your claims :p) tells me EVERYTHING about your intellectual faculties that I need to know.
Yea, sorry, some complex topics can't be "laconically" summed up in 2 sentences if you really want to explain them so the other person understands it.
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
Anyway, it should be clear to you that as soon as you feel overwhelmed by someone's responses, or stop reading them, you've LOST THE DEBATE.
And if not lost, then this is the point where you BOW OUT.
Which means you bow out, you stop responding, and you stop making unfounded claims about your opponent's stupidity, if YOU'RE TOO THICK TO EVEN READ WHAT THEY SAY.
If you have nothing to say, then piss off - I don't need some 4 year old dork with ADS to tell me how they don't read my...
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour HAHAHA!!!! Bingo! You did It!!! As soon as someone starts talking about "Winning / Loosing debate" - well, the rest you know yourself ! Go, have a sleep, really ....
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"As soon as someone starts talking about "Winning / Loosing debate" - well, the rest you know yourself"
It's "losing", and no, I don't.
Two opponents defend their positions and criticize each other's. The one with all reason and attention on their side "wins", as well as demonstrates the validity of their own position to others. The one with no reason or attention on their side "loses" and shows their position to be bogus.
Pretty ironic for someone who does nothing but toss insults..
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour OMG!!! You said Bye , but coming back ? What's wrong with you ? Not only insults, I'd punch you if i could
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"I'd punch you if i could"
Which makes you even WORSE.
The fact that you still haven't realized that... well, you're a pathetic fart and probably one of the most embarassing, insecure mouthbreathers I've encountered on the web in a LONG time.
Sorry for keeping replying - I guess exposing your pathetic fallacies and defense mechanisms is just way too fun, even after the realization that you cannot converse at a level higher than kindergarten banter.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour WORSE ? what bad is in punching a knob head like you ?
valgez1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@valgez1
"what bad is in punching a knob head like you?"
The urge to punch ANYONE because they're winning an argument or internet fight against you, points to extreme personal insecurity and a complete lack of understanding of any reasonable social norms.
You, sir, are a pathetic fart, and you keep driving this image home with each reply you post.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour So, what bad is in punching a knob head like you that tries to overflow and overwhelm with tens of messages?
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
Aside from that, you're doing the same thing to me - overflowing my inbox with dozens of message. Only that yours are completely empty of sensible content and consist of nothing but threats, insults and nonsense about "robots".
And that doesn't make me want to punch you - I can easily delete them all from my inbox without any psychological stress at all - it just makes me laugh at your pathetic and stubborn idiocy.
And because you don't have that luxury, that makes you aggressive.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour I'm just protecting myself, you idiot :-))) At least, my messages are not as big as yours
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"I'm just protecting myself, you idiot :-))) At least, my messages are not as big as yours"
Well, quality matters more than quantity, and 10 messages full of sensible arguments are actually more worth than one-liners of childish nonsense.
Guess you needed this obvious conclusion spoonfed as well, yea?
And yea, exactly - you're "protecting" yourself. Defending your ego from challenge is the only option you have, because actually making a case for your POSITION is too much to ask.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Be consistent at least , you said Bye many times, but coming for more. :-) What exactly d u want ?
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"What exactly d u want?"
Sorry, as I said - just way too fun seeing you making your hilarious deer-in-the-headlights impression.
Everytime you keep coming back with some pathetic attempt to picture me as the fool and yourself on the high-ground, and it's just way too fun to rebuke that again and again.
Like just now:
"You mean 10 messages full of shit - if for you shit = sensible arguments"
Yea, you can't just let go without insisting one last time that my messages were "shit".
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour I'm just stating a fact , a proof of which i have - your messages are shit. Don't worry, kiddo, I'm leaving soon, you'll have your rest. HAHA!!!
valgez1 4 months ago
@twooffour You mean 10 messages full of shit - if for you shit = sensible arguments - then it's a good world you live in
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
The problem is - you haven't read them, and what little you've read, you haven't comprehended as you've clearly shown.
So even if my arguments were "shit", you're only arriving at the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons, because it's just a defense mechanism applied to boost your ego, rather than a conclusion based on rational evaluation and criticism.
Your crap, on the other hand... well, I've just deconstructed your newest piece, haven't I?
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Of course, I haven't read them - why should i read shit ? HAHA!!!!
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
It's called "defense mechanism" - look it up.
The act of distracting from the topic, or accusations, by saying something sarcastic, nonsensical, aggressive or insulting, in order to make up for one's shortcomings in what REALLY matters.
"but the truth is that you're incredibly annoying brat"
I'm sure your inability to make a case for ANYTHING, be it your claims about medicine or my stupidity, is annoying to you, but I prefer being annoying to being retarded and cornered, as you are.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour You proved your fast typing abilities - that's for sure
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"You proved your fast typing abilities - that's for sure"
Because that's the only part your brain can comprehend. "Oh, he's putting out many messages... but I can't comprehend them"
"a proof of which i have"
Like what proof? :DD
"Yes, you are retarded, cornered"
Keep telling yourself that, with nothing but empty assertions and defense mechanisms to back you up. Mhm.
"Of course, I haven't read them - why should i read shit ? HAHA!!!!"
Because... you can't... tell if they're shit...
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour OK, time to go (unfortunately) . My advice - learn to express yourself in a laconic way, kiddo. :-))) I really started arguing just for fun, sorry if I made you nervous.
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"My advice - learn to express yourself in a laconic way, kiddo."
I can already express myself in a REASONABLE way - if the topic is too complicated to express in 5 words, I shouldn't be laconic; if I want to savour my pwnage of a moronic statement, I don't want to; and unless I'm talking to someone with a mental disability, or ADS, I don't have to.
"sorry if I made you nervous."
More like sad, because I know you're not any less stupid than the way you've just presented yourself.
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
If I may give you a piece of advice - learn to express yourself in a reasonable way. That is, making arguments for your claims, carefully reading the responses, and avoiding dishonesties and defense mechanisms.
That's much more important than being "laconic" - and not only that, but the "ability" to be laconic means being able to express something effectively, or even reasonable, by using very few words.
You've clearly shown that your own brand of "laconic" means sacrificing all...
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Yeah! Sure !!! You are VERY laconic, indeed, - sending 7 comments trying to impress with useless gobbing off, i quickly realized what a dork you, in fact, are :-)))) You would fit in very well in some "Freak Talking show"
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
Alright, dude, you have some serious issues with comprehension of written text - I have no other way of explaining your OBSCENELY crude misapprehensions.
Haven't I just explained that REASON is much more important than being "laconic"? And yet here you go:
"You are VERY laconic, indeed, - sending 7 comments"
Where did I ever claim to be laconic?
All I said was:
-being laconic DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER
-you're bad at it, because your short messages contain nothing but crap.
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
Crap I can repeatedly show to be crap, instead of just claiming it is, at that.
"with useless gobbing off"
You wouldn't know that since you haven't read it.
"i quickly realized what a dork you"
You didn't "realize" anything, because you didn't read anything.
You just talked yourself into it, because dismissing a "dork" is much more comfortable than admitting to have nothing left to say in a given discussion.
"in some "Freak Talking show""
Yea, because the people on such shows....
twooffour 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.... keep making long-winded logical arguments boring all the idiots to death, right? They don't do stuff like "I'll punch you in the face" or poop insults on those "freak shows", right?
"Hmm, you are pretty good in tossing worthless multi - liners"
You wouldn't know how "worthless" they are - you haven't read them.
"Have you said anything smart, anything original, anything of your own self, your OWN opinion"
All the time - but you wouldn't know that, you haven't read anything.
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
... you obviously fail HARD at - and I can say that because I've just spent 4 comments dissecting each line of your bullshit, which you obviously can't do with my comments.
At any rate, last time I'm fucking asking this, you hamster - are you going to respond with anything reasonable to whatever points I've made hours ago about the topic, or are you just gonna continue prancing like a frog?
If you give no clear answer, you're done.
If you answer with the latter, you're done.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour No, I am not going to respond to a dork like you, you are just NOT good enough for that ! You are just a miserable atheist living in your pathetic atheistic world, believing in nothing, with no imagination, no senses, no phantasy, you're demanding proof for evrth. You are a typical product of the modern tech civilization - a perfect consumer, with no independent thinking, relying on others to chew evrth up and serve you in a "proven" way - you're capable of nothing, apart of spamming
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"No, I am not going to respond to a dork like you, you are just NOT good enough for that"
Well, thanks for that - in reality, of course, the one who can't defend their position or come up with a sensible response in a discussion is "not good enough". But that would take some self-honesty to admit.
"You are just a miserable atheist living in your pathetic atheistic world"
You've failed to explain how any of that is miserable, however, you've demonstrated plenty of "miserable"...
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
... dishonesty, insecurity and stupidity yourself.
And not to generalize, but this traits seems very common among religious people, especially the dimwitted kind.
"believing in nothing"
Believing in nothing would be nihilism or solipsism.
Atheism is simply not believing in GOD, which even you dimwitted crackpot can admit not to be EVERYTHING, because apart from God, there's also a WORLD he created, and other minds.
Skepticism is believing in nothing that can't be demonstrated to...
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
... to be true.
In that sense, yea, I guess I'm a "miserable" skeptic who doesn't want to subscribe to a belief that isn't based on anything that demonstrates its actual truth.
You may swallow the blue pill if it makes you "less miserable", but it's still the blue pill, and I don't see how deciding to believe in reality rather than fantasy is somehow "miserable".
"no imagination"
Again, how so?
I just can tell between imagination and reality.
Again, how so
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
Seems like the only reason you've decided that I'm "not good enough" is because I don't accept your ideas and beliefs - which tells a lot more about you than me.
"no senses"
Lolwut?
"you're demanding proof for evrth"
Because that's the only way you can tell (probable) reality from (probable) delusion? Why in hell should I NOT do that? Aside from the fact that it's simply HARDER than engaging in credulity?
"with no independent thinking"
Demanding proof is actually the opposite of..
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
... of "no independent thinking" :D
In desperate search for negative labels you can stuff me into, you've actually started to contradict yourself.
If I just buy a study conducted by Merck or some other questionable pharma company, I have no "independent thinking", but if I don't, "I demand proof" for everything.
Well... only one of those things is bad, isn't it.
"relying on others to chew evrth up"
Actually it's about contrasting your own observations with that of others.
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
One person's experience, perception, memory and ability to gain knowledge is extremely limited and flawed, and that OBVIOUSLY requires taking humanity's accumulated knowledge into account as well.
There are situations (some of which I've described) in which an single individual experience means next to nothing, because only large numbers can start to point to some conclusion.
Recognizing such situations, and learning to see yourself in the larger context, will lead to "relying on...
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
others' judgment" - but it's done so as a result of your OWN thinking and realizations.
What you're proposing here, knowledge based on nothing but your own personal experience, is in no way reasonable, or reliable, when applied to certain areas of knowledge.
You can whine about it and try to convince yourself that taking others' achievements into account is somehow "lame", but at the end, if you're honest to yourself, you'll come to realize that, as well.
Solipsism and arrogance...
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
... are NOT the way to go if you want to make sense.
That's why researchers do "double-blind" experiments - each researcher realizes the fallibility and biases of their own minds, so they allow themelves to stay ignorant about certain conditions of the experiment so their knowledge can't influence their evaluation of test results.
If you were a participant, you'd probably say "bah, my own experience is good enough, I don't have to rely on others to do my job!"... and be disqualified
twooffour 4 months ago
Comment removed
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1 and @twooffour
Please stop posting comments. It's filling up the comment section with unnecessary drivel about which one of you is worse. Get a room already.
wimsweden 4 months ago
Comment removed
valgez1 4 months ago
Comment removed
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
... and laughed out of the project immediately.
That's the price of pride, I suppose.
"the least self respect"
Yea, I'm sure that the realization of one's own limitations and fallibility as an individual must seem like "lack of self-respect for you", but that's only from the perspective of over-confidence, arrogance and pride.
If you think that you and your grandma can do medical research on par with, or even better than professional research teams conducting mass studies...
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
... subjecting themselves to peer review, and eventually entering the international forum of comparison and verification - then yea, the realization that you can't must seem like horrible self-loathing by comparison.
It's rather curious that while scientific researches have to subject their findings to peer review and criticism, you already collapse under the slightest challenge to your claims and obviously can't admit that you're capable of misapprehensions of various kinds.
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
An arrogant, small-minded and bloated prick living in his own little universe of superiority and infallibility.
Nevermind all the knowledge that CAN'T be accumulated on your own. Nevermind that modern medicine CAN predict the return of symptons due to an infectious disease, while you yourself can't because you're going through it the first time.
Relying on others' knowledge is pathetic consummerism!
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
You never have a chance of growing until you climb out of this hole of pathetic solipistic arrogance, and no amount of label-tossing (something about "brainless consumers" or "robots without senses"... what?) will change that, or fool anyone aside from yourself.
Seeing as how you've announced to never make any sensible argument in this forum, I guess that about concludes it all.
Thanks for the unintentional spark of honesty :D
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Stop mumbling, you infantile cretin :-) Did you ask FDA whether it's OK for your health to sit many hours in front of your PC ? You are just an arrogant, weak minded, gutless, fearful atheist, unable to make a little independent step without "Proof" , you are a failure, all you are capable of is ... what are you, in fact, capable of ?
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"OK for your health to sit many hours in front of your PC"
That's known to be unhealthy, yes.
"unable to make a little independent step without "Proof""
=leap of faith = accepting a belief founded on no evidence = a belief ist more probably FALSE.
Yea, I really don't have any guts to subscribe to unfounded, made-up beliefs, do I? What a pussy!
You'll never get this will you.
"what are you, in fact, capable of?"
Writing sensible comments, for one thing.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Nope, you are just capable of shitting all around - that's for sure ! Nothing apart from it
valgez1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@twooffour So, you are aware that it is bad for your health to sit many hours in front of your PC ? Sure thing, there's an empirical evidence! You would have never known it yourself !
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
Actually, an interesting point you've raised - how can I know that "sitting for hours in front of my PC" is unhealthy?
Well, I can obviously tell if it drags me down, makes me semi-dizzy or reduces my working ability after a week or so.
However, I have no way to tell that it can actually lead to stroke, heart disease, or a variety of other problems, with high probability, but possible after DECADES of such an unhealthy lifestyle.
And neither do you - you HAVE to rely on...
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour HA!!! Smth tells me, you're lying - you would have never concluded that alone, without some sort of scientific research - just not for you
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"Smth tells me, you're lying - you would have never concluded that alone, without some sort of scientific research - just not for you"
Obviously you CAN'T make the conclusion that lack of movement can cause stroke or heart attack in the long term, without scientifc research to back it up.
That's the whole point.
Obviously, nothing I ever say will ever go through your thick skull - you may call that "independent thinking", but we both know that it's nothing but plain ol' stupidity.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour I know it without your silly "scientific research". Of course, nothing you ever say will ever go through my skull - I am immune against assholes. Nothing I say will ever go through your skull - cause there's a wood inside your skull
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"Nothing I say will ever go through your skull - cause there's a wood inside your skull"
Your hilarious childish nonsense goes perfeclty through my skull, reaches my brain, is subjected to analysis and returned to you via refutations you can't even begin to address properly.
"I know it without your silly "scientific research"."
Just the intellectual suicide I was waiting for - yea, how do you know that, hm? How do you know that certain activities now can lead to a stroke in 20 years
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
... without science to provide you with this information? How would you know what actually happens during a stroke without the scientific research to provide you with this information (it requires knowledge of anatomy and physiology FOR ONE THING)?
How would you know how to TREAT a stroke without knowing from science what works and what doesn't, which in turn is only possible by knowing what actually leads to a stroke?
Would you take it upon yourself to treat your grandma...
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
... should she suffer a stroke, or would you call the ambulance? And could you really justify to yourself not to call it?
Then again, you've just shot yourself in the foot with this, because you've already admitted the validity of surgery... which... is based entirely on scientific research and collaborative medical practice.
A surgeon doesn't invent their techniques each on their own, they go through a rigorous education that provides them with already accumulated knowledge.
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
The aspiring surgeon won't declare "I don't need no silly science, let me kill 50 patients before I figure out how to stop bleeding", and neither will you refuse to "rely on a surgeon's knowledge and skills" if you or someone close to you should suffer a medical emergency.
So of course what you're saying here is pure nonsense to save your own face, as well as contradicting your previous assertions.
Of COURSE you rely on science to provide you with this knowledge - otherwise, you...
twooffour 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@valgez1
... have any of it ;)
"but i give it big weight"
Everyone should give their own experience the weight it deserves - and you're giving it FAR more than that.
For example in application to situations where individual experience is, evidently, nearly WORTHLESS except as a tiny part in a bigger picture.
"demagogue, you don't even know meaning of the words you're using"
The irony in this succession is GAPINGLY huge :D
"so let me reserve the grace of quitting first"
All this does is...
twooffour 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@twooffour
*wouldn't have any of it*
twooffour 4 months ago
@valgez1
...save you from further embarassment - but of course you're unaware of this embarassment because you're insecure and dishonest, so you've convinced yourself that it's some form of "grace".
Well, well, what matters it? Believe that, too.
Had I quitted, it would've been a grace towards myself, as well - because the point where I've realized that you're beyond reasonable communication has LONG passed, or should I say, arrived.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour P.S. You are full of shit, man.
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
... the accumulated knowldge provided by scientific research, which shows that it happens, and explains why it happens.
If you just convince yourself that as long as it doesn't happen to you or your grandma, it's not real and some bullshit fabricated by Big Pharma, well... I'll let you make your own conclusions, but if that doesn't make you realize your fallacies, you're simply beyond hope.
Let's see...
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Of course, I make my own conclusions - unlike you, who is used to get evrth served to him
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
You don't "make your own conclusions", you believe whatever you prefer to believe and refuse to subject it to feedback and criticism.
Again, that's not independent thinking, it's credulity/gullibility (yes, uncritically believing yourself is just as credulous as uncritically believing others), but until you become honest with yourself, you won't realize that.
"Are you sure you used "solipsism" correctly in the first place?"
Hehe... yea. As well as "demagogy".
thxbai
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour So, Mr "Science" or more correctly "Shit Talker" ? I don't happen to believe "Only" in my own experience, but i give it big weight. - so solipsism is irrelevant.You are just ordinary Youtube demagogue, you don't even know meaning of the words you're using. Does it makes sense to continue with you? I think it's got too far already, so let me reserve the grace of quitting first, Farewell
valgez1 4 months ago
@twooffour If you choose to be gullible - be gullible - but don't forget that leaves you without any hope
valgez1 4 months ago
@twooffour Just take it easy, dude, and let it go, it will pass :-))
valgez1 4 months ago
@twooffour You are a complete failure and you are fully aware of it - that's why you're spitting venom all around :-)))
valgez1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@valgez1
"You are a complete failure and you are fully aware of it - that's why you're spitting venom all around :-)))"
=worthless vitriolic insult, a clear sign of capitulation. Thanks for presenting yourself on a silver tray in this manner, "valgez1".
"Nope, you are just capable of shitting all around"
Ah, yea, just don't admit to yourself that you're not keeping up with this exchange and can't make sense to save your life - don't be a man!!
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Solipsistic arrogance ? HAHA!!! Right!!! You are one Solipsistic arrogant asshole !
valgez1 4 months ago
@valgez1
"You are one Solipsistic arrogant asshole!"
For someone who, according to you, relies only on others to provide knowledge, I must be a very strange "solipsist".
Do you even know what solipsism is?
I mean, that's not even dumb. It's just the mindless "no, you're dumb" kneejerk reaction from the 1st grade - heck, you just don't know the meaning of the "insult" you just tried to toss back at me like a brickwall tossing back the squash ball.
It's BEYOND hopeless retardation.
twooffour 4 months ago
@twooffour Are you sure you used "solipsism" correctly in the first place ? Are you kidding ? :-)
valgez1 4 months ago
Comment removed
valgez1 4 months ago