Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Also, black is not black when every second 'black' in this sentence is 'white'.

whatwhat wrote:This reminds me of when you argued with the generic dictionary definition of atheism.

It was a bad definition.

I mean, it isn't as if dictionaries are inerrant. They don't spring, fully formed, from the head of Zeus. At best they basically catalog the use of words, and I'm not interested in how most people use words in a definitive sense; I'm interested in what they actually mean given the general implications imposed by context.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:This reminds me of when you argued with the generic dictionary definition of atheism.

It was a bad definition.

I mean, it isn't as if dictionaries are inerrant. They don't spring, fully formed, from the head of Zeus. At best they basically catalog the use of words, and I'm not interested in how most people use words in a definitive sense; I'm interested in what they actually mean given the general implications imposed by context.

And the context was, your argument was being dismissed on the common definition of atheism, therefore you saw fit to change it.

There's a common definition? Why wasn't I informed?

Nurglitch wrote:There's a common definition? Why wasn't I informed?

Erm, yes. What did you think? one person thought it meant bananas, the other thought it mean coconuts?

I know the english language can be implicit at times but are words do have to have some basis so we know twhat the hell other people are talking about.

It certainly seems that way at times.

whatwhat wrote:
And the context was, your argument was being dismissed on the common definition of atheism, therefore you saw fit to change it.

If we're thinking of the same thread, then I was always arguing with the same definition in mind.

Generally what happens is this:

Me) X does not entail Y

Someone else) Nuhuh! X means this according to the dictionary!

Me) I was arguing from Z definition of X, and dictionaries are not inerrant

You may have processed that as dodging a point, but that's likely because you seem to treat dictionaries as inerrant. Whether or not you believe me, I've had most of these debates before, and I come into them with preconceived and well developed notions of the philosophical definitions of terms.

Nurglitch wrote:There's a common definition? Why wasn't I informed?

Dude it was in the memo. I'll have a copy of the memo sent to you.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
And the context was, your argument was being dismissed on the common definition of atheism, therefore you saw fit to change it.

If we're thinking of the same thread, then I was always arguing with the same definition in mind.

Generally what happens is this:

Me) X does not entail Y

Someone else) Nuhuh! X means this according to the dictionary!

Me) I was arguing from Z definition of X, and dictionaries are not inerrant

You may have processed that as dodging a point, but that's likely because you seem to treat dictionaries as inerrant. Whether or not you believe me, I've had most of these debates before, and I come into them with preconceived and well developed notions of the philosophical definitions of terms.

Were obviously thinking of a different argument. Because what happened was this.

Somone else) Atheisim is the rejection of theism.

You) nuhuhuh atheism is what I say it means on the basis of if it meant what you said it meant I wouldn't win the argument.

whatwhat wrote:
Were obviously thinking of a different argument. Because what happened was this.

Somone else) Atheisim is the rejection of theism.

Me) nuhuhuh atheiusm is what I say it means

Well, all words are what we say they mean.

That aside, I have no faith in your judgment; particularly in this case given that I always posit atheism as the rejection of theism. Its simply that I don't necessarily follow the same track of implications that are commonly associated with that fact. Notably, I tend to consider in light ternary logic.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Were obviously thinking of a different argument. Because what happened was this.

Somone else) Atheisim is the rejection of theism.

Me) nuhuhuh atheiusm is what I say it means

Well, all words are what we say they mean.

That aside, I have no faith in your judgment; particularly in this case given that I always posit atheism as the rejection of theism. Its simply that I don't necessarily follow the same track of implications that are commonly associated with that fact. Notably, I tend to consider in light ternary logic.

Yeh we know. Your track of implications change with whatever point your rebuting.

Could you leave your baggage at the door, please?

whatwhat wrote:
Yeh we know. Your track of implications change with whatever point your rebuting.

Of course it does. Why would I follow the implications of nuclear war in an argument about free will?

That would just be silly.

The Dreadnote wrote:Could you leave your baggage at the door, please?

Well this has developed from the argument at hand and how he is making his case. It's not like I just wandered into the thread and called dogma a drama queen or anything. I don't do things like that. But yeh I guess I'll leave it there.

whatwhat:

You could aways work with him to build an argument rather than having to chase him down every third branch.

Nurglitch wrote:whatwhat:

You could aways work with him to build an argument rather than having to chase him down every third branch.

That's not what he does? Really? On the contrary Dogma nitpicks every branch of everyones argument. Your almost guaranteed to end up trying to follow several arguments at once where dogma is concnerned. Just check his previous posts and see the amount of mulitquoting he does.

Anyway, like I said lets leave this.

One could put him on ignore WhatWhat.

ITT people with a laymens grasp of physics engage in semantics debates to cover for a lack of deeper understanding of the principles and theories at work.

Well, some people. Not me. I'm a genius.

Frazzled wrote:One could put him on ignore WhatWhat.

And if he is on ignore, does he exist?

But in all regards, there are those who have a great wealth of information and a vast pool of knowledge wherein you simply cannot walk up to them and begin discussing any random topic that merits serious debate.

dogma and sebster represent a higher pinnacle comparable to your average poster in terms of how they treat logic, how they argue through logic, and how to dissect an argument that has a flawed premise. I am sure there is more than that involved, but my level of intellect is probably not high enough to go much further along this line of reasoning.

It is better to ask questions that help expand your knowledge and increase the ability to grasp where dogma and sebster are coming from.

Hence I don't argue with them. More or less I ask questions to gauge their stance on an issue and to probe the depths of their brains for a better understanding of where they are coming from.

ShumaGorath wrote:ITT people with a laymens grasp of physics engage in semantics debates to cover for a lack of deeper understanding of the principles and theories at work.

Well, some people. Not me. I'm a genius.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:ITT people with a laymens grasp of physics engage in semantics debates to cover for a lack of deeper understanding of the principles and theories at work.

Well, some people. Not me. I'm a genius.

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:One could put him on ignore WhatWhat.

And if he is on ignore, does he exist?

But in all regards, there are those who have a great wealth of information and a vast pool of knowledge wherein you simply cannot walk up to them and begin discussing any random topic that merits serious debate.

dogma and sebster represent a higher pinnacle comparable to your average poster in terms of how they treat logic, how they argue through logic, and how to dissect an argument that has a flawed premise. I am sure there is more than that involved, but my level of intellect is probably not high enough to go much further along this line of reasoning.

It is better to ask questions that help expand your knowledge and increase the ability to grasp where dogma and sebster are coming from.

Hence I don't argue with them. More or less I ask questions to gauge their stance on an issue and to probe the depths of their brains for a better understanding of where they are coming from.

My genious continues to go under appreciated.

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:One could put him on ignore WhatWhat.

And if he is on ignore, does he exist?

But in all regards, there are those who have a great wealth of information and a vast pool of knowledge wherein you simply cannot walk up to them and begin discussing any random topic that merits serious debate.

dogma and sebster represent a higher pinnacle comparable to your average poster in terms of how they treat logic, how they argue through logic, and how to dissect an argument that has a flawed premise. I am sure there is more than that involved, but my level of intellect is probably not high enough to go much further along this line of reasoning.

It is better to ask questions that help expand your knowledge and increase the ability to grasp where dogma and sebster are coming from.

Hence I don't argue with them. More or less I ask questions to gauge their stance on an issue and to probe the depths of their brains for a better understanding of where they are coming from.

Do you actually believe dogma knows all of the gak he comes out with on this forum? No you have the wrong idea of things. Most posters don't air their thoughts on a topic unless they have something to say about it, usually going on what they believe to be right from knowledge they have gained in the past. The likes of Dogma look around for any moment someone expresses what could be a wrong opinion then researches it with google before ragging the gak out of what you got wrong. Your idea that they are the fountain of all knowledge and you can't challenge what they say does more to suggest your own self esteem than theirs. I'd be prepared to put a bet down on the fact that dogma knew less about determinism before this topic was posted than he does now, and not because he learnt anything in this thread. When your challenging dogma your challenging what he's just learnt five minutes beforehand. But yeh, that's not something you really want to compete with I guess. The idea that dogma has a "vast pool of knowledge" is false. Obviously he's not dim but he's not fricking heredotus neither.

ShumaGorath wrote:My genious continues to go under appreciated.

ShumaGorath wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:One could put him on ignore WhatWhat.

And if he is on ignore, does he exist?

But in all regards, there are those who have a great wealth of information and a vast pool of knowledge wherein you simply cannot walk up to them and begin discussing any random topic that merits serious debate.

dogma and sebster represent a higher pinnacle comparable to your average poster in terms of how they treat logic, how they argue through logic, and how to dissect an argument that has a flawed premise. I am sure there is more than that involved, but my level of intellect is probably not high enough to go much further along this line of reasoning.

It is better to ask questions that help expand your knowledge and increase the ability to grasp where dogma and sebster are coming from.

Hence I don't argue with them. More or less I ask questions to gauge their stance on an issue and to probe the depths of their brains for a better understanding of where they are coming from.

My genious continues to go under appreciated.

That often happens. If its any consolation, your heirs will get stinking rich living off your name.
In the words of the immortal bard: "I won't lie to you about your chances, but you have my...sympathies."

whatwhat wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:One could put him on ignore WhatWhat.

And if he is on ignore, does he exist?

But in all regards, there are those who have a great wealth of information and a vast pool of knowledge wherein you simply cannot walk up to them and begin discussing any random topic that merits serious debate.

dogma and sebster represent a higher pinnacle comparable to your average poster in terms of how they treat logic, how they argue through logic, and how to dissect an argument that has a flawed premise. I am sure there is more than that involved, but my level of intellect is probably not high enough to go much further along this line of reasoning.

It is better to ask questions that help expand your knowledge and increase the ability to grasp where dogma and sebster are coming from.

Hence I don't argue with them. More or less I ask questions to gauge their stance on an issue and to probe the depths of their brains for a better understanding of where they are coming from.

Do you actually believe dogma knows all of the gak he comes out with on this forum? No you have the wrong idea of things. Most posters don't air their thoughts on a topic unless they have something to say about it, usually going on what they believe to be right from knowledge they have gained in the past. The likes of Dogma look around for any moment someone expresses a wrong opinion then researches the it with google before ragging the gak out of what you got wrong. Your idea that they are the fountain of all knowledge and you can't chalenge what they say does more to suggest your own self esteem than theirs. I'd be prepared to put a bet down on the fact that dogma knew less about determinism before this topic was posted than he does now, and not because he learnt anything in this thread. When your challenging dogma your chalenging what he's just learnt five minutes beforehand. But yeh, that's not something you really want to compete with I guess. The idea that dogma has a "vast pool of knowledge" is false. Obviously he's not dim but he's not fricking hurterado neither.

Oh crap, he knows my secret technique. Fortunately he spelled my name wrong. I better change my avatar and signature to maintain my secret.

I shall never respect you opinion until the fighting monkeys are restored.

Is Brownian Motion random?

I like that. "Dogma doesn't know anything. He just reads a lot of books."

Nurglitch wrote:I like that. "Dogma doesn't know anything. He just reads a lot of books."

That's not what I said at all, read again. Dogma may know quite a bit but a large amount of what he posts on this forum he will have learnt five minutes beforehand. I imagine if you had a conversation with him in person he'd be half the genius he is on here.

Sorry but I generally don't see many people outside of the internet who happen to know everything about everything and never confess to lack knowledge in an area. You might, I don't.

They were right before, you are a drama queen.