You owe me. He came back and wasted more time as predicted. With even more words, which means even more time. He has no self control.Seth wrote:I'll take that bet...Gallstones wrote:Predictable and unremarkable.NineOneFour wrote:No, sorry, I'm not going to waste my time swatting flies. This thread, until I get bored, is it.Gallstones wrote:Please instruct us vulgar and ignorant proles oh Optimus Prime.NineOneFour wrote:
Agree.
I specifically said I didn't think Mick should have been banned.
Apparently the nuance that one can think someone is trolling and should receive a warning, but not be outright banned is lost on Ratskep mods, most of the people in this thread, etc.
Be the example of nuance you seek.
We'll see if you can hold to that.
My money is on "no".
Hi, I'm Mick
- Gallstones
- Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
- Posts: 8888
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
- About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
- Gallstones
- Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
- Posts: 8888
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
- About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
Seth wrote:Hang on there Gallstones, the "Rhetorical Mirror" is my device, remember? I invented it way back in RDF days. Haven't used it in a while. Thanks for reminding me of it.Gallstones wrote:Holding up a mirror is "trolling" to those who don't like the reflection.Horwood Beer-Master wrote:Skirting-around within the letter of the law whilst pissing all-over the spirit of the law is trolling.
You're a troll Mick; and also an utter cunt.
Fuck off.
Patent pending?
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
Sure, it has to be used to support one position over another but I was just trying to say that, when used that way, they are evidence.rEvolutionist wrote:"Arguments" aren't necessarily evidence. Logical reasoning can be evidence.Mr.Samsa wrote:To be fair, arguments are evidence. It's just logical evidence rather than empirical evidence.
Fair enough but I don't think it makes sense to prefer one type of evidence over another. The evidence is either applicable or it's not, and with the question of god as most religions present it (at least the major ones), there is no empirical evidence that could be used to support or disprove them.rEvolutionist wrote:I'd really prefer empirical evidence, mostly because I don't want to wade into the shit pile of idiocy that is religionist logic. It's all been answered before by people who actually care about religious philosophical arguments. If he's got some new logical reasoning, then I suppose I'll listen to it (as much as I'd prefer to spend my time doing something more productive).
“The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man.” - B. F. Skinner.
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
Enough of the hand waving. I'll make the same point as I did earlier.rEvolutionist wrote:I said "evidence", not arguments.
I'll offer evidence. You will deny it. We will both be unimpressed with the case of the other. Then what? You go on feeling smug? I can do that too. You will claim I offered no evidence. Fine. I will deny, and then claim that you offered no good reason to reject my evidence, that your case is weak and unsupported. Where does this leave us?
I'd rather make the historical note that professional philosophers have been arguing about this for 2500 years and that it has thus become a perennial issue in philosophy; and so it seems that reasonable people can disagree.
- FBM
- Ratz' first Gritizen.
- Posts: 45327
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
- About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach" - Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
The post you responded to said that there are lots of people with mature skills in some areas and who lag behind, developmentally speaking, in others. That's my claim, so that's what needs to be evidenced. What are you talking about?Mick wrote: No, since that was never the proposition I took issue with. Don't act dense. You know exactly what needs to be evidenced.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
- FBM
- Ratz' first Gritizen.
- Posts: 45327
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
- About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach" - Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
If you're like practically every other theist, it leaves you in denial. Anybody can refuse to acknowledge that their logic is flawed and their evidence lacking. However, to do so you have to make some profound claims about the unreliability of logic and evidence or deny that a logical fallacy you make is such. Your claim is that there is a god. Others here see no reason to believe you. Give us a reason.Mick wrote:Enough of the hand waving. I'll make the same point as I did earlier.rEvolutionist wrote:I said "evidence", not arguments.
I'll offer evidence. You will deny it. We will both be unimpressed with the case of the other. Then what? You go on feeling smug? I can do that too. You will claim I offered no evidence. Fine. I will deny, and then claim that you offered no good reason to reject my evidence, that your case is weak and unsupported. Where does this leave us?...
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
That was not your claim. You were a bit more exacting about who these people are. Look back.FBM wrote:The post you responded to said that there are lots of people with mature skills in some areas and who lag behind, developmentally speaking, in others. That's my claim, so that's what needs to be evidenced. What are you talking about?Mick wrote: No, since that was never the proposition I took issue with. Don't act dense. You know exactly what needs to be evidenced.
- FBM
- Ratz' first Gritizen.
- Posts: 45327
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
- About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach" - Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
What, that theists are engaged in magical thinking, which is a characteristic of adolescent mentality? You're convinced, despite an utter and complete lack of evidence, that an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient entity is watching you from another dimension and who works miracles when things suit him. What part of that is NOT magical thinking?Mick wrote:That was not your claim. You were a bit more exacting about who these people are. Look back.FBM wrote:The post you responded to said that there are lots of people with mature skills in some areas and who lag behind, developmentally speaking, in others. That's my claim, so that's what needs to be evidenced. What are you talking about?Mick wrote: No, since that was never the proposition I took issue with. Don't act dense. You know exactly what needs to be evidenced.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
So, we can at least agree that your previous claim wasn't what you initially said, what I took issue to. Great.FBM wrote:What, that theists are engaged in magical thinking, which is a characteristic of adolescent mentality? You're convinced, despite an utter and complete lack of evidence, that an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient entity is watching you from another dimension and who works miracles when things suit him. What part of that is NOT magical thinking?Mick wrote:That was not your claim. You were a bit more exacting about who these people are. Look back.FBM wrote:The post you responded to said that there are lots of people with mature skills in some areas and who lag behind, developmentally speaking, in others. That's my claim, so that's what needs to be evidenced. What are you talking about?Mick wrote: No, since that was never the proposition I took issue with. Don't act dense. You know exactly what needs to be evidenced.
Going back to the above post, you're not offering anything more than baseless assertions snuck (or loaded into) questions. I can do the same, accusing atheists of magical thinking, denying obvious evidence to the contrary, and maintaining their skepticism without good evidence. bare assertions are cheap.
You can't just say that theists believe this or that with a complete and utter lack of evidence. That's not how this works.
Last edited by Mick on Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Xamonas Chegwé
- Bouncer
- Posts: 50939
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
- About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse. - Location: Nottingham UK
- Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
No evidence is needed to have skepticism. Evidence is needed to dispel skepticism!Mick wrote:So, we can at least agree that your previous claim wasn't what you initially said, what I took issue to. Great.FBM wrote:What, that theists are engaged in magical thinking, which is a characteristic of adolescent mentality? You're convinced, despite an utter and complete lack of evidence, that an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient entity is watching you from another dimension and who works miracles when things suit him. What part of that is NOT magical thinking?Mick wrote:That was not your claim. You were a bit more exacting about who these people are. Look back.FBM wrote:The post you responded to said that there are lots of people with mature skills in some areas and who lag behind, developmentally speaking, in others. That's my claim, so that's what needs to be evidenced. What are you talking about?Mick wrote: No, since that was never the proposition I took issue with. Don't act dense. You know exactly what needs to be evidenced.
Going back to the above post, you're not offering anything more than baseless assertions snuck (or loaded into) questions. I can do the same, accusing atheists of magical thinking, denying obvious evidence to the contrary, and maintaining their skepticism without good evidence. bare assertions are cheap.
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
- FBM
- Ratz' first Gritizen.
- Posts: 45327
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
- About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach" - Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
Which is?Mick wrote:...I can do the same, accusing atheists of magical thinking, denying obvious evidence to the contrary...
Yes, I can and I did. Yes, they do, and yes it is. At least until you cough up some evidence.You can't just say that theists believe this or that with a complete and utter lack of evidence. That's not how this works.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
Oh? You can do that. Then so can I. I will just claim my bare assertions about your magical thinking to be true until you provide evidence to the contrary.FBM wrote:Which is?Mick wrote:...I can do the same, accusing atheists of magical thinking, denying obvious evidence to the contrary...
Yes, I can and I did. Yes, they do, and yes it is. At least until you cough up some evidence.You can't just say that theists believe this or that with a complete and utter lack of evidence. That's not how this works.
See what happens when we both take your puerile approach? Now we can both sit smugly, with a sense of accomplishment despite the fact that we have accomplished fuck all.
- FBM
- Ratz' first Gritizen.
- Posts: 45327
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
- About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach" - Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
That's exactly right. You haven't accomplished anything at all by returning my comment like an adolescent schoolboy. You could make some progress if you produced some evidence for your god claim. The reason you're playing these rehetorical games is that you know very well that you can't produce any evidence.Mick wrote:Oh? You can do that. Then so can I. I will just claim my bare assertions about your magical thinking to be true until you provide evidence to the contrary.FBM wrote:Which is?Mick wrote:...I can do the same, accusing atheists of magical thinking, denying obvious evidence to the contrary...
Yes, I can and I did. Yes, they do, and yes it is. At least until you cough up some evidence.You can't just say that theists believe this or that with a complete and utter lack of evidence. That's not how this works.
See what happens when we both take your puerile approach? Now we can both sit smugly, with a sense of accomplishment despite the fact that we have accomplished fuck all.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
- FBM
- Ratz' first Gritizen.
- Posts: 45327
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
- About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach" - Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 73433
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
There were around 8 reports, and response is not always a counter argument.rEvolutionist wrote:I don't care about the one's he did on me. And I suspect most of his were just in response to other personal attacks. Seems a bit unfair to target him and not others too. Unless someone specifically reported him and not others.JimC wrote:Seth has been suspended for 48 hours for a variety of personal attacks on members, in this thread and others, coming after a recent 24 hour suspension.
Anyway, I'm sure he will return chastened and repentant...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests