Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>> Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote>>>>>> You dont get to 'allow' or disallow a damned thing. Ever.
>>>>> Actually I do.
>>>> Nope.
>>> If you claim that 2+2=3 and I contend that most good evidence
>>> shows that theory to be weak and you continue claiming that
>>> 2+2=3 on bad evidence, I am allowed in logical discourse to
>>> reclaim your entitlement to make such claim rationally.
>> Wrong, as always.
> Commonly accepted protocols of logic have
> nothing to do with whether I am right or wrong.
Never ever said they did.
You are however wrong anyway. As always.
> Entitlement in logic is a stipulated term used to alert a debater
> that they ether can or cannot continue making particular assertions.
You dont get to 'allow' or disallow a damned thing. Ever.
> It is similar to how in a court of law,
Nope, nothing like it. The judge does indeed get
to allow and disallow some things. You dont, ever.
> after an objection has been sustained if the party objected
> to tries to use the information again the judge orders the
> information stricken from the record and threatens to call a
> mistrial if he/she attempts to use the refuted information again.
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that you aint no judge.
> In debate class you just lose a few points every time you
> re-introduce the information as evidence for your thesis.
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that this aint no debate class.
>>> Now you have a right to continue making the claim
>> So you didn't get to disallow anything.
> In logic and law there is a difference between a rights and entitlements.
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that you aint no judge.
> After I succeeded in removing your entitlement
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> you continued to have a right to the failed assertion.
You dont get to rule on what is or is not a failed assertion. Ever.
And it isnt anyway, whatever you claim.
>>> but evidence subtracts you entitlement to claim it is true without further evidence.
>> Wrong, as always.
> Unless you can refute, to some agreed upon degree, the evidence that
> weakened your claims, your entitlement to those claims has been removed.
Wrong, as always.
You dont get to remove any entitlement. Ever.
>>>>> You see you have been challenged,
>>>> Nope.
>>> You said something like;
>>>> New ideas are nothing like random variations...
>>>> Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.
>> Again, ripped from its context.
> In debate or rhetoric this is a common ploy easily caught by participants and observers.
In spades with ripping from the context as you have done repeatedly.
>>> And I gave evidence that sometimes new ideas can be like random variations
>> Nope, not a shred.
> Actually Neural Darwinism is a well established theory.
Doesnt meant that it has anything useful to say about NEW IDEAS, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
> If you have not heard of it,
Corse I have heard of it, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>> and how the brain works.
>> And that in spades. ALL you ever did is posted some CLAIMS
>> about how the brain works, a different matter entirely. Without
>> a shred of evidence that it actually works like that with ideas either.
> It is a well established theory.
Doesnt meant that it has anything useful to say about NEW IDEAS, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
> Though it has far less evidential support than the theory of gravity,
> it qualifies as worthy of debate and research to test for falsifiability.
Doesnt meant that it has anything useful to say about NEW IDEAS, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>> Then you come back with all this "no" business without any evidence to back it up.
>> YOU made the claim.
> If I make a claim and the burden of truth is upon me, I do not "shift the burden
> upon you" merely by requesting more information about your simple "no" rejection.
You're lying, as always.
>> YOU get to provide the evidence that supports the claim.
> That is better than a simple "no" contention.
You're lying about that, as always.
> Please refer to the information about neural darwinism
> above to satisfy your case against the theory.
>> YOU made the claim.
>> YOU get to provide the evidence that supports the claim.
>> THATS how it works.
>>>>> have not met the challenge,
>>>> You're lying now.
>>> How am I lying?
>> Using your keyboard presumably.
> This notion continues to be vague since you have not specified the lie.
Your problem.
>>> Please explain, or the comment remains meaningless.
>> Wrong, as always.
> The comment was about you general rejection with
> no explaination or supporting counter-argumentation.
You're lying, as always.
>>>>> therefore you are not entitled to your original position.
>>>> More of your mindless wanking.
>>> Logic is not mindless wanking,
>> Thats just mindless wanking, nothing like logic.
>>> you yourself are attempting to use logic each nd every time you contend my proposals.
>> Wrong, as always.
> When you claim I am wrong you are claiming that the proposition is false,
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist desperate wankers ?
> therefore you are using logic plain and simple.
Wrong, as always.
> As you you are also trapped with using grammar with subjects and predicates
> when you explain your position, your position requires logic always.
Wrong, as always.
> Please give an example where you did not use logic and grammer without using logic and grammar,
>> YOU made the claim.
>> YOU get to provide the evidence that supports the claim.
>> THATS how it works.
> its contradictory and illogical.
Wrong, as always.
>>> Arguing is a sub- genre of logic and if you respond your arguing.
>> Wrong, as always.
> Arguments are always use logic else they are illogical arguments,
Wrong, as always.
> your trapped on this one.
Wrong, as always.
>> More mindless irrelevant wanking.
> The youtube video was about some aspects of arguments, and was
> therefore not mindless wanking but was relevant to the conversation.
More of your mindless irrelevant wanking.
> In debate class you lose points for all these infractions
> you know, and you would probably get a bad grade.
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that this aint no debate class.
>>>>>>> as long as you don't reveal how often...
>>>>>> More of your mindless wanking.
>>>>>>>> Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.
>>>>>>> ...your position remains in check, if not checkmate.
>>>>>> More of your mindless wanking.
>>>>>>>>>>> The idea is that there is a plural field of items and
>>>>>>>>>>> then method is applied and some are eliminated.
>>>>>>>>>> Thats nothing like what the fool claimed.
>>>>>>>>> But you claimed that;
>>>>>>>>>>> Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain
>>>>>>>>>>> works. Just like in evolution.
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, not on the generation of the items it isnt.
>>>>>>>>> So your making some claim about all scientists and
>>>>>>>>> researchers and what they do every time they get ideas?
>>>>>>>> Nope. Just pissing on his stupid claim from a great height.
>>>>>>>>>>> When you said
>>>>>>>>>>>>> New ideas are nothing like random variations.
>>>>>>>>>>> that is taken to mean that "no ideas are ideas that are
>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely ever in any way similar to random variations"
>>>>>>>>>> I never ever said anything like that.
>>>>>>>>> Then lets see a clear statement of what you mean when you say;
>>>>>>>>>> Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain
>>>>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>>> You've ripped that from its context. The original was
>>>>>>>> completely clear.
>>>>>>> Whatever the context the proposition refers to either "some"
>>>>>>> or "all" times that evolution is similar to brain processes or
>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>>>>>>>> and this would first off imply omniscience by you
>>>>>>>>>>> since all ideas have not been thought or had yet,
>>>>>>>>>> Wrong again.
>>>>>>>>> If you mean that it is at all times in the past and future the
>>>>>>>>> case that "Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the
>>>>>>>>> brain works"
>>>>>>>> Nope, never ever said anything like that either.
>>>>>>> But then your not willing to reformulate what you said in clear
>>>>>>> words,
>>>>>> I already did. You ripped that from its context.
>>>>> Then please provide some context that will help us establish that
>>>>> your contention about likeness applies neither sometimes nor at
>>>>> all times.
>>>> Nope. Go back to the post that had the context yourself.
>>> You then concede then that you were vague or ambiguous on the point of
>>> quantity in relation to the similarity of some brain functions and evolution?
>> Nope, my original was completely clear.
> Then your saying that thinking is "never" like evolutionary processes?
Nope, not saying anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
>>>>> Seems that your position is the mindless wanking because
>>>>> your position is that it doesn't apply to likeness ever.
>>>> You need to get your seems machinery seen to.
>>> Seems i as I am using it means, "the way it appears to me"
>> Wrong, as always.
> I am not wrong about what "seems" means to me as I use it.
Wrong, as always.
> When I say "seems" I mean "the way it appears to me".
Wrong, as always.
> If you request that I change my usage in this conversaton I may or may not agree.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>>> and this machinery is working fine.
>> Wrong, as always.
> Actually I seem to be doing fine
Wrong, as always.
> and you are very easy to refute just typing off the top of my head.
Wrong, as always.
> But if you desire I would look forward to many months
> of these kinds of conversations with you, good practice.
You'll have wanked yourself completely blind LONG before that.
>>>>>>> something fishy about that position, something dishonest.
>>>>>> More of your mindless wanking.
>>> Your approach appears to be dishonest.
>> Then you need go get your eyes tested too.
> When I say dishonest I mean that you appear to be defending a sinking ship, trying to save face.
Then you need go get your eyes tested too.
> Maybe it says something about the caliber of the debating
> skills of the people you converse with in these groups.
No maybe about the fact that they leave you for dead.
>>> I am not saying you are in any way dishonest but you positions and responses do.
>> More of your mindless wanking.
> You don't really think this wanking business really accomplishes anything do you?
With any luck you'll end up completely blind and there wont be any more shit from you.
More mindless irrelevant wanking.
