Is there a God? - Page 26

flouran · 2009-12-07, 00:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

You, on the other hand, have twice dodged answering my request that you show me how to determine your dividing line between "fundamental" and "off-topic", which is directly relevant to my "objective" discussion, because you declared that "this stuff" is "off-topic", but you have not yet defined what you mean by "this stuff".

Perhaps you should infer what Z-F is saying. Common sense is rather helpful when you are able to use it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I haven't dodged. You have. Stop it.

No, both of you STOP IT. Continue this pointless discussion in a private setting. Not on a public thread.

Zeta-Flux · 2009-12-07, 00:57

flouran,

Quote:

No, both of you STOP IT. Continue this pointless discussion in a private setting. Not on a public thread.

Why is it inappropriate to continue the discussion here, even if it is, as you say, pointless? This thread was dead for a long time, so why is it wrong to continue discussion here?

flouran · 2009-12-07, 01:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

flouran,

Why is it inappropriate to continue the discussion here, even if it is, as you say, pointless? This thread was dead for a long time, so why is it wrong to continue discussion here?

Good question.

Since most other members (excluding yourself and cheesehead of course) are either not participating in your discussion and/or simply could care less, it seems as though your discussion is wholly involving just the two of you and not anyone else. Hence, I suggest you continue the discussion in a private setting. Right now, and other members can support me on this if they want, I am noticing an increasing trend towards defining terminology accurately (more on cheesehead's end though to be honest) rather than debating in a substantive manner.

cheesehead · 2009-12-07, 01:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by flouran

Perhaps you should infer what Z-F is saying.

When I try that, there's more than one reasonable inference -- so I ask Z-F. Stay out if you can't make a more intelligent comment.

flouran · 2009-12-07, 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

When I try that, there's more than one reasonable inference -- so I ask Z-F. Stay out if you can't make a more intelligent comment.

Don't be a moron. If you want me to stay out of your discussion with Z-F, then please don't debate with Z-F on a public thread. Leave, and I will stop bothering you.

cheesehead · 2009-12-07, 01:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by flouran

Right now, and other members can support me on this if they want, I am noticing an increasing trend towards defining terminology accurately (more on cheesehead's end though to be honest) rather than debating in a substantive manner.

How much experience do you have with debating in a substantive manner when the two sides don't agree on the definition of an important term used in the debate?

cheesehead · 2009-12-07, 01:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by flouran

Don't be a moron. If you want me to stay out of your discussion with Z-F, then please don't debate with Z-F on a public thread. Leave, and I will stop bothering you.

Care to point out a forum where no one debates anyone else on a public thread?

__HRB__ · 2009-12-07, 01:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by flouran

Good question.

Since most other members (excluding yourself and cheesehead of course) are either not participating in your discussion and/or simply could care less, then I suggest you continue the discussion in a private setting. Right now, and other members can support me on this if they want, I am noticing an increasing trend towards defining terminology accurately (more on cheesehead's end though to be honest) rather than debating in a substantive manner.

Can you please clarify what is wrong by "defining terminology accurately"? "Debating in a substantive manner" requires the participants to be able to form the same abstractions of substantiationability, otherwise making a connected series of statements to establish a non-trivial proposition is an absurd enterprise.

flouran · 2009-12-07, 01:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Care to point out a forum where no one debates anyone else on a public thread?

I have nothing against debate. However, I do have a problem with a debate that goes on and on and on and on...

Most people on forums with decent capacities for intelligence know when to stop their debate if it gets too lengthy.

cheesehead · 2009-12-07, 01:23

Poor flouran.

Wants everyone to use his definitions of "on and on and on and on", "lengthy", "intelligence", and so on ... but can't get anyone else to agree, so shows frustration.

Wow.

garo · 2009-12-07, 01:42

Now really! Stop wasting time folks. 24 hour lock on the thread.

2009-12-07, 01:23	#285
cheesehead "Richard B. Woods" Aug 2002 Wisconsin USA 2²·3·641 Posts	Poor flouran. Wants everyone to use his definitions of "on and on and on and on", "lengthy", "intelligence", and so on ... but can't get anyone else to agree, so shows frustration. Wow.

2009-12-07, 01:42	#286
garo Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 2²·691 Posts	Now really! Stop wasting time folks. 24 hour lock on the thread.