Kurto the Clown - Page 11

jaxmike · #**101** 05-26-2005, 02:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To the board... I think I've taken this particular as far as I can. There's really no new variations from Jax.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try as you might, you cannot prove me wrong. Give up, that's what you should do.

[ QUOTE ]
Since anyone who has studied logic can tell that Jax has no idea what its about, I can't appeal to him to debate logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you cannot deny the fact that given the definitions I use to reach my conclusions (all PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE) I have a valid point.

[ QUOTE ]
Even when one points out the problem with his logic, he says things like, "that's what reality is"... which makes us much sense, I suppose, as half the other random things that come out of his mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you live in a world of dreams, I have to try to point out reality. You refuse to see it. This isn't so much a question of logic as it is symantics.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, though I'm confident Jax has many more amusingly ignorant things to share with us, I think we'll see that in other subjects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately I must bow before you; you are by far my superior in the purveyance of idiocy and ignorance.

[ QUOTE ]
The end result of this thread was that we learned that, if you are Jax, you believe its unnatural to be a white person, to have red hair or to be lefthanded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you use improper logic, something you have demostrated a remakable talent in doing.

[ QUOTE ]
Fascinating.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, you are fascinating in an almost morbid sense.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose if we pushed long enough, eventually Jax would argue that people feed themselves through photosynthesis and that all Men really ARE from Mars and women from Venus.

[/ QUOTE ]

More unintelligible drivel from the worlds leading supplier. Ironically, I think I could argue that in essence, we do feed ourselves through photosynthesis, in a way our existence depends on it.

vulturesrow · #**102** 05-26-2005, 02:43 PM

Can you to take this drivel to PMs? I am seriously sick of seeing this thread at the top of the list all the time.

jaxmike · #**103** 05-26-2005, 02:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, Jax.. I know at least half a dozen posters here think you're borderline retarded. Is that enough for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oooh! Good come back, not. I bet you I would think the same thing about most or all of the half dozen you claim. You are clearly ignorant if you cannot understand the symantic differences in definitions. You have demonstrated as such.

jaxmike · #**104** 05-26-2005, 02:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Can you to take this drivel to PMs? I am seriously sick of seeing this thread at the top of the list all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I am sick of this discussion. It's like trying to argue quantum physics with a preschooler talking to Kurto, he just will never understand.

vulturesrow · #**105** 05-26-2005, 02:56 PM

Doesnt say much for you if you truly believe that but yet keep the ball rolling.

jaxmike · #**106** 05-26-2005, 03:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Doesnt say much for you if you truly believe that but yet keep the ball rolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably doesn't. I have been trying to stop for the last couple days, but he keeps replying, and I just can't help myself from doing the same.

kurto · #**107** 05-26-2005, 03:17 PM

MY LAST POST IN THIS THREAD-
2 things-
One, 'symantic' is not a word. So typical of you.

Two:
[ QUOTE ]
Ironically, I think I could argue that in essence, we do feed ourselves through photosynthesis, in a way our existence depends on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rest my case.

This thread is dead to me. Apologies all around.

jaxmike · #**108** 05-26-2005, 03:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
MY LAST POST IN THIS THREAD-
2 things-
One, 'symantic' is not a word. So typical of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, semantic.

[ QUOTE ]

Two:
[ QUOTE ]
Ironically, I think I could argue that in essence, we do feed ourselves through photosynthesis, in a way our existence depends on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rest my case.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have a case, and you know it. You simply cannot expand beyond the simple explanations. You are ignorant.

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is dead to me. Apologies all around.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept your apology.

bholdr · #**109** 05-26-2005, 04:20 PM

replace every instance of homosexual or homosexuality in your 'argument' (it's still not, but whatever) with 'black' and you'll see the problem with your approach. is being black unnatural? under the definition you use, it is...

besides, if you claim something is unnatural, and then pick the definition that best suits your claim, you are guilty of the definist fallacy, and your 'argument' is invalid.

you're obviously not a dumb person, i wonder why you don't get this?

whatever. sorry, jax. god help you.

jaxmike · #**110** 05-26-2005, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
replace every instance of homosexual or homosexuality in your 'argument' (it's still not, but whatever) with 'black' and you'll see the problem with your approach. is being black unnatural? under the definition you use, it is...

besides, if you claim something is unnatural, and then pick the definition that best suits your claim, you are guilty of the definist fallacy, and your 'argument' is invalid.

you're obviously not a dumb person, i wonder why you don't get this?

whatever. sorry, jax. god help you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because its not a definist fallacy really.

definist fallacy-the fallacy of attempting to define 'good' by any means." Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy

I am not using my own definition, and I am really not trying to equate it to good or bad here. I am simply trying to assert that it is legitimate that saying "homosexuality is unnatural" IS true under certain definitions (from certain points of view). At the same time "homosexuallity is natural" can be true. It depends on your definition. Either way, I am insisting that this is more a semantic discussion than a logical one.