blowero:
If you want to castigate someone in the pit, you ought to have a specific reason.
cainxinth:
Pardon me, but I thought that’s what I was doing.
Time to get those meds adjusted, cainxinth.
uh… TVAA was being a cocky prick and I pitted his ass, what exactly is the confusion about that? What is there a form I forgot to fill out or something?
Maybe because there was a perfectly fine Pit topic on this already, and you opened a duplicate of it, basically, just to have your own thread to snipe at TVAA. jarbabyj and neuroman pointed this out as well. Normally, it is frowned upon to leave one Pitting and to open a clone of it.
Also there is some serious smiley abuse going on here people- knock it off or I will call PETA.
No, really, you aren’t.
TVAA’s remark was aimed specifically at kambukta, not at you. And kambukta was being told to pit me, not TVAA.
Your interpretation of TVAA is way off base. Get with the program.
You’re all welcome to come around to the Spiritus Mundi thread and Pit me there if you don’t like me calling stupid people stupid.
Which reminds me: cainxinth, you’re a stupid person. You lower the tone of the whole gene pool just by existing, and your mother is not proud of you: she lied.
(Well, that should keep cainxinth topped off for a good while. I wouldn’t want him to run out of juice just because everyone started being reasonable towards him.)
Actually you appear to be a self-Pitting model. With each post you annoy more people, thus ensuring even more flames.
Even if you were right (which remains to be seen in an area that currently under heavy research and has many open questions), your strident approach ensures that nobody will ever take you seriously in this area, which seems to be your ardent desire.
Unless you turn the smug asshole dial down from “9”, to around “4” or so, you will be considered just another one-trick pony. Not that I care in the end, but you may want to think about that.
I’m afraid I must disagree. Individuals who disagree intelligently with my arguments should be respected; it is their right to have their own opinion, and ultimately no one can truly be certain their own position is correct, so a degree of humility on my part is called for.
I am under no obligation to respect pastawits who can’t think.
Yes, and to add to this: If you want to pit someone for being a jerk, it would make a lot more sense to quote the actual post in which you thought he was being a jerk. What cainxinth did instead was to quote a fairly reasonable argument that TVAA made, and then try to rehash the whole argument in a parallel thread. What’s the point of that? It makes it look like cainxinth was actually sore about losing the argument, not TVAA’s decorum.
Yeah, I was up all night wiping the tears away
I opened this thread to turn the tables on a jackass who was pitting a doper I respect and calling him an idiot. On top of all that he was wrong about GIT and now he’s wrong about dualism. And he’s just too fucking cocky to be that wrong twice… he was begging for a pitting of his own.
Oh Joy. The first X-page thread wherein TVAA stepped on his soap box so many times it has been reduced to a pile of splinters … wasn’t enough.
So now we get round 2, right? Same song, same verse, a little bit louder and a little bit worse?
I have to say, for my part, that anyone who is disagreeing with ultrafilter, Spiritus Mundi and Libertarian about something non-religious, and furthermore all three AT THE SAME TIME, is probably not going to come out of that all too well. Once the brain has deceived itself sufficiently well it is only a matter of time before utter madness sets in and the building of Justhink-style arguments and strawmen commences.
Or maybe that should be past tense…
O.K., I’ll let you slide this time.
I’m not wrong about either. GIT has a wide range of well-understood consequences, and dualism is just a joke.
No, you’re actually quite wrong about both, and you’re not adult enough to admit it. “a wide range of well-understood consequences” is a classic example of you covering up your ineptitude with obfuscation and vacillation. That doesn’t sound like the same person that said, “I am, however, officially noting that Spiritus is grossly wrong and unable to interpret simple English statements about mathematics.” Or that, “His arguments are wrong, and in many cases, they’re outright stupid. A spade is a spade, and dumb is dumb, and my opponents are being really, really dumb.” What happened to that cocky smartass we all know and loathe? All of a sudden there’s a range of answers?
And you clearly didn’t follow up on my Steven Pinkner thread, because if you had you would’ve found an excellent collection of essays and articles detailing precisely what we do know about the brain and the mind from a true expert in the field, none of which I might add say, “the mind is clearly just a big computer that conforms to all known physical laws… and everyone is a moron but me and my team of secret PHD’s.”
The mind may not conform to known physical laws… but it conforms to the physical laws.
Dualism is simply a stupid philosophical position. It’s much like Vitalism, actually: the belief that there’s something fundamentally different about living things that distinguishes them from unliving matter.
The claims of Vitalism were slowly shown to be inconsistent with the observable world… and while no one can rule out the possibility that scientists will one day discover some special property shared only by life, no one’s suggesting it either.
If mind is truly more than the physical structure of the brain, why hasn’t anyone ever demonstrated what this “something more” is? Why do brains seem to be necessary for the properties of mind? Why do those properties cease to be (in predictable ways) when the brain is damaged? Why can’t minds interact directly instead of requiring input filtered through the brain?
It may one day be the case that actual evidence for Dualism surfaces. Until that time, it’s not worth the neural capacity to consider.
For what it’s worth, I have never seen a poster with an arrogance/ignorance ratio as high as TVAA seems to have.
No, you’ve just never seen someone with a rationality/politeness ratio as high as mine.
Gah. You’re freaking nuts.
Not at all. I’m simply unwilling to ‘respect’ an incorrect point of view.
If something is wrong, I refuse to ignore it just because some idiot is convinced it’s true. cainxinth has no idea of the logical problems associated with dualistic philosophies of mind.
True. A tiny but measureable amount of rationality divided by politeness arbitrarily close to zero yields a very high number, but that doesn’t mean you are a rational man.
It means you’re an asshole.