I asked a besotted, devout and extremely devoted knuckle-dragging
commie inspired Kantian Tim;

Why did he need to "know a carrot in itself" to know with 100%%
certainty whether or not that the carrot was not in fact, an elephant
in itself?

Tim said, he didn't need to do that at all, (he obviously knows with
100%% certainty that they are in fact not the same entity), however.

Tim said, he needed to "know a carrot in itself" (HOW that happens he
didnt want to talk about) he needs to know a carrot in itself to know
for certain things like, the taste of the carrot itself.

Soooo I asked Tim;
What would he gain in his knowledge of the taste of a carrot, by
"knowing the carrot in itself", that he couldn't or wouldn't know with
100%% certainty, about the taste of the carrot, by eating it?

Tim's run away, and who could blame him?

"Michael Gordge" xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1189068408.131159.255830@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

And three times now I've explained the straw-man nature of your question.

No he didn't

Hey Tim,

Michael has pissed off so many people here with his style, that he tries to
evoke any response he can get.

He's like a dog with a toy. He gets his teeth into something, and wont let
go.I dont remember reading anything he writes that doesnt refer to Kant.

It is fairly obvious that he needs to know "the Gordge in itself" :-)

BOfL

"Tim" qwerty.com> wrote in message
news:_r2dnd1zstqVfkLbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@aci.on.ca...

brian fletcher wrote:

On Sep 7, 3:47 am, D H budweiser.com> wrote:

The Kantian nightmare is dead without it, so the "things-in-
themselves" BS matters everything to be Kantian.

You're being just be as slly as any Kantian could ever dream to be
now. FFS consensus aint gonna stop the sun from shining nor stop the
bus from running you over.

When consensus, which can only apply among man, is the only thing
keeping you alive as you appear to be saying, then consensus has
become your biggest threat and your worst enemy.

You seem wishing a middle ground between faith and reason, where there
aint one, sushine.

A zillion humans having a consensus aint gonna stop a tree being what
it is.

On Sep 6, 8:22 pm, "Tim" qwerty.com> wrote:

Me off again? Not even in your dreams Timmmm.

Its you running away all the time Timmm, its you who doesn't want to
explain to the world how you "knowing a carrot in itself", is the only
way you can know with absolute 100%% certainty that its not a
strawberry you're tasting.

How does it work Tim? HOW does "knowing a carrot in itself" help you
to distinguish it from "knowing in itself" what a cow is?

See if you can stay on subject.

Michael Gordge

"Michael Gordge" xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1189114990.398116.279610@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

See, there you go again attributing statements of yours to me. My original
post is there for all to see; it's clear, to me, and I wrote the fucking
thing, that your statements do no constitute a replacement instance of my
statements. In short you continue to straw-man.

On Sep 6, 9:56 pm, "brian fletcher" bigpond.net.au> wrote:

Translated;
Brian forces himself to read what I write because he likes being
pissed off.

Its not my "style" Brian that you dont like and you know its not.

e.g. If style was a thing you hated, then why dont we see you
lambasting the knuckle-dragging commie cunt Tim e.g. when he goes
totally off subject and calls me a sheep fucker, or when he wishes my
wife cancer, or when he wishes me dead, or when he recently expressed
a desire to smash my head in?

You seeee Brian, so far only ONE person has ever pulled Tim up on his
disgusting cowardly behaviour at this forum, zinnic from memory.

I provide my name as a genuine and meaningful gesture. I have never
wished or threatened anyone with any harm at this forum harm, its
never been my style, my style is that of a peaceful human being, as a
first resort to conflict or threat, I choose words.

"D H" budweiser.com> skrev i melding
news:1189104447.573901.29110@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

.....

And this goes unchallenged ....?
I dont remember reading anything he writes that actually refers to Kant.

T

I'm only sending this because it didn't show up on google groups 1st x
round.

"Michael Gordge" xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1189114990.398116.279610@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

See, there you go again attributing statements of yours to me. My original
post is there for all to see; it's clear, to me, and I wrote the fucking
thing, that your statements do no constitute a replacement instance of my
statements. In short you continue to straw-man.