but i REALLLLLLY don't want to steer this into a 9/11 debate


 if you follow logics' path, like many philosophers, you will hits many brick walls. There are many different modes of 'thought', have a look at most Eastern culture and philosophy, Zen 'paradoxical Logic' for instance, Quantum theory also generally turns logic on its head.
 if you follow logics' path, like many philosophers, you will hits many brick walls. There are many different modes of 'thought', have a look at most Eastern culture and philosophy, Zen 'paradoxical Logic' for instance, Quantum theory also generally turns logic on its head. 

yeh i know i cant be arsed either i got no energy but im trying to say is, there is a lot of solid evidence proving a lot of the things the US say is a lie. and most likely enough evidence in a court of law to prove bin laden and al qeada could not be responsible, and that what they said happend was impossible.hurlingdervish wrote:you are right that things don't add up, and it may have been a false flag operation...
but i REALLLLLLY don't want to steer this into a 9/11 debate
firky wrote:Blood, guts, and stuff like that doesn't phase me. I have seen the body of a woman who cut her throat open with a tile and although that burned an image in my head that will never leave, it did not make me gag or feel sick. However.... ginger people make me fucking sick.
good post!Scarecrow wrote:
Ha! I understand, but logic in general dismisses multiple variables, so it is flawed by its very nature (Human, vulcan or otherwiseif you follow logics' path, like many philosophers, you will hits many brick walls. There are many different modes of 'thought', have a look at most Eastern culture and philosophy, Zen 'paradoxical Logic' for instance, Quantum theory also generally turns logic on its head.
Have you ever heard of 'Zenos paradox'?, it is a prime example of logics main flaw, in my opinion. Anyway, that's my
do we?Osky wrote:we KNOW what the government has told us is physically impossible
go on prove what you just said!hurlingdervish wrote:
If you make any claim
YOU have to prove it.
The listener doesn't have to prove anything because they didn't make a claim!

logic has no flaws, if it has flaws it's bad logic (or no logic more precisely)hurlingdervish wrote:good post!Scarecrow wrote:
Ha! I understand, but logic in general dismisses multiple variables, so it is flawed by its very nature (Human, vulcan or otherwiseif you follow logics' path, like many philosophers, you will hits many brick walls. There are many different modes of 'thought', have a look at most Eastern culture and philosophy, Zen 'paradoxical Logic' for instance, Quantum theory also generally turns logic on its head.
Have you ever heard of 'Zenos paradox'?, it is a prime example of logics main flaw, in my opinion. Anyway, that's my
yes logic has flaws but a mix of logic and intuition is necessary where as too much of either can be unhealthy
zenos paradox is like fractal logic...very interesting
well logic does have flaws because if you are looking to buy a car you can choose between the cheaper used car, and the more expensive but reliable new car, logic wont tell you what to choose.alien pimp wrote:logic has no flaws, if it has flaws it's bad logic (or no logic more precisely)hurlingdervish wrote:good post!Scarecrow wrote:
Ha! I understand, but logic in general dismisses multiple variables, so it is flawed by its very nature (Human, vulcan or otherwiseif you follow logics' path, like many philosophers, you will hits many brick walls. There are many different modes of 'thought', have a look at most Eastern culture and philosophy, Zen 'paradoxical Logic' for instance, Quantum theory also generally turns logic on its head.
Have you ever heard of 'Zenos paradox'?, it is a prime example of logics main flaw, in my opinion. Anyway, that's my
yes logic has flaws but a mix of logic and intuition is necessary where as too much of either can be unhealthy
zenos paradox is like fractal logic...very interesting
same with science
zeno is bad logic
at least im trying not to, instead of just buying into everything i see.alien pimp wrote:there's some big logical fallacies in the OP to start with
and it's funny people still judge videos by the hosting site not by the content
that's what im sayin yo!fuagofire wrote:go on prove what you just said!hurlingdervish wrote:
If you make any claim
YOU have to prove it.
The listener doesn't have to prove anything because they didn't make a claim!
what are you talking about man? its called BURDEN OF PROOF. its been around for a long time.J-sh wrote:that's what im sayin yo!fuagofire wrote:go on prove what you just said!hurlingdervish wrote:
If you make any claim
YOU have to prove it.
The listener doesn't have to prove anything because they didn't make a claim!
What hurlingdervish is putting forward as some sort of revelation is called logical positivism and it stems from the vienna circle, it fails by its own criteria and is basically just masked christianity as it is the worship of knowledge (as logos or plato's forms) and is a vain attempt to overcome the ineptitude of human knowledge.
yeah, i see where your exigence comes from, exigence is exigencehurlingdervish wrote: a credible source is a credible source and an internet video is not a credible source for anything unless its a cop tasering someone or something
 
 jokessssalien pimp wrote:yeah, i see where your exigence comes from, exigence is exigencehurlingdervish wrote: a credible source is a credible source and an internet video is not a credible source for anything unless its a cop tasering someone or something
i'd just like to underline the term content

Thanks for telling me about this guy. Hadn't heard of him nor his model. Very interesting. Have you read any of his books? Sorry for going a bit off-topic here.Parson wrote:wouldn't it be more interesting to talk about something like Robert Anton Wilson and an 8 circuit model of intelligence than to try to mold everybody into a tiny little corner of consensus?
RAW would literally call you hopeless and dogmatic and insane with this lawyer-speak.
life is not a court of law. hiding lies gets real easy when people are as quick to dismiss as they are being trained.
this is all you found?hurlingdervish wrote:jokessssalien pimp wrote:yeah, i see where your exigence comes from, exigence is exigencehurlingdervish wrote: a credible source is a credible source and an internet video is not a credible source for anything unless its a cop tasering someone or something
i'd just like to underline the term content
content like:
jews are going to take over the world
ob@ma is evul
fooking your mom was an inside job
haha i was taking the pisshurlingdervish wrote:what are you talking about man? its called BURDEN OF PROOF. its been around for a long time.J-sh wrote:that's what im sayin yo!fuagofire wrote:go on prove what you just said!hurlingdervish wrote:
If you make any claim
YOU have to prove it.
The listener doesn't have to prove anything because they didn't make a claim!
What hurlingdervish is putting forward as some sort of revelation is called logical positivism and it stems from the vienna circle, it fails by its own criteria and is basically just masked christianity as it is the worship of knowledge (as logos or plato's forms) and is a vain attempt to overcome the ineptitude of human knowledge.
why should an agnostic have to prove that god exists when theres no proof that god does exist?
the burden of proof is on christianity because they are the ones making the claim.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests