[Jejef Thgaron]

Jejef: First of all, it's absurd to say "Prove me wrong." and sit back and laugh at people who try. The burden of proof lies with the one postulating the theory, not with everyone else. I can just as easily ask you to prove that an invisible pink unicorn doesn't live in the Amazon jungle following the same logic.

Slade: First of all, it's absurd to come to the same conclusion on a post as someone else has, BEFORE reading their post. This is what Spoon said - "My own reasoning brings me to the same conclusion his does, BEFORE EVEN READING HIS POST" - referring to civ_2's post. How can you agree with someone if you haven't read their post yet? It leads me to believe the only reason she agrees is because she likes civ_2. In no way, did I 'twist' Spoon's words around. I quoted her.

The reason I laugh at people who try to prove me wrong on this topic is because THEY CAN'T! There is no factual evidence to prove the statement right, or wrong. So, why can't I believe what I believe, and call it good, instead of having EVERYONE ELSE try to prove my belief wrong by trying to cram a bunch of elitist high-brow idealism down my throat?

Secondly, just because someone can put forth a better, more coherent, more relevent argument than you, and that people agree with what he said because they found themselves drawing the same conclusions in different words does not make them "silly monkeys," and thanking that person for being more articulate in explaining those points in an efficient manner does not count as "ass-kissing." I'm more than a little miffed at your constant harassment of everyone who disagrees with you, and I'll ask you kindly, once more, to stop. If you feel the need to mock and belittle everyone who disagrees with you, and if we're all a bunch of ass-kissing silly monkies, you should just leave instead of staying here and insulting us. Let us live in our happy fun land where sad clouds make the sky blue.

Secondly, because civ_2 can put forth a argument that calls my beliefs "Dada", people should agree with him, and laugh, and point, and sling insults wrapped in cleverness at me? His point about 'There is a Wizard in EarthSea', while coherent, was not a more relevant argument. I feel the need to 'harass' those that 'harass' me. I am not 'harassing' everyone for disagreeing with me. I am defending my beliefs from being mocked. Yes, I have insulted people, and my excuse being simply because they insulted me, beforehand. I have no problem letting you all live in your happy fun land where sad clouds make the sky blue... but don't tell me I'm wrong, or FALSE for having a different belief, or point of view. Please don't take this as: "Jejef's just trying to insult, and belittle everyone here". I'm not. I was actually having a decent debate with everyone, until civ_2 said I was FALSE in my grammatically correct breakdown of the statement. Isn't it a little absurd to call someone FALSE, then proceed to flush proper English syntax down the drain? You really need to read that particular post by civ. The one where he accuses me of using nonsense, or "Dada", over, and over again.

The whole 'silly monkey' thing is intended as a metaphor to describe the logic that has been presented to me in the form of 'monkey turds' being thrown at me. I KNOW, without a shadow of a doubt, that EVERYONE on this forum, is SMARTER than a bunch of silly monkeys. I don't have to prove it, either. I offer a truce. Everyone here keeps from harassing me for my beliefs, and I keep from harassing, or insulting theirs.

From now on, if I am told that I am wrong, or FALSE, I will expect more than a misinterpretation of my point, or an irrelevant rambling about a Wizard in EarthSea. I want logical reasoning as to WHY I am wrong. I don't want to read another reply that says I'm wrong, unless it explains WHY. I realize why Spoon replied with her post. I understand why she agrees with civ. I understand civ's argument. What I don't understand is this: If she didn't want to make an effort to argue with me, why did she bother making me the FOCUS of her last 3 posts? It's obvious she has better things to do... so? Why bother wasting time on me? Go do your school work, and hang out with your friends, Spoon. Quit wasting time on me.

[Spoon Poetic]

Because you directly insulted me, that's why. Also, because the posts I did post were tons shorter and took a lot less time than the post I didn't post, also, at that time, I had stuff to do, whereas today is my day off. My God, you are a prick.

I came to the same conclusion as Civ without reading his post the same way that if I give you and someone else the same math problem, say, 5+5, you'd both come up with the same conclusion, "5+5=10" BEFORE you read his post that says "10." Idiot. I read your post as well as all previous posts, and through reasoning of my own, came up with all the same basic ideas that Civ articulated in his post, after I had already thought them. Does that make it clearer for you? Or are you still hell-bent on proving your stupidity?

I feel sorry for whatever girl puts up with you. Or maybe your definition of "someone" also includes imaginary girlfriends?

Edit: I thought about pre-modding this, but fuck it.

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 30 April 2006 - 10:46 PM

[Slade]

No, there's no truce. We don't insult you, you don't insult us. There are no conditions to not insulting people. Just don't do it. Nobody insulted you until you started being mocking and condescending to everyone who didn't agree with you, and I told everybody to stop.

And as for an example of two people drawing the same conclusion from the same data without talking to one another, well, we can put that under the category of scientific experiment replication, or reason, or logic, or at the very least coincidence. As an experiment, lets say...

A -> B
B -> C

How can we simplify this into one statement? Everybody PM Jejef with the answer without talking amongst yourselves. No, actually, don't do that. I'll cut the experiment short and say that given those two statements, A - > C. I could spend a lot of time writing up truth tables and showing the tautology, but I'm assuming most people are going to understand that.

You also do a wonderful job twisting words. Spoon said "I came to the same conclusion that Civ did." Not "I agreed with Civ before I read the post," as you continue to claim and then attempt to complain about.

You've also completely missed my point on how no one has to prove you wrong, you need to prove that you're right. And you continue to smugly and futily argue "Prove me wrong!" I want to know exactly what proposition you are currently trying to claim is right, and then hear a logical argument that backs that up, and then keep that claim consistent, and then show me how it relates to the other points argued.

[Jejef Thgaron]

Because you directly insulted me, that's why. Also, because the posts I did post were tons shorter and took a lot less time than the post I didn't post, also, at that time, I had stuff to do, whereas today is my day off. My God, you are a prick.

I came to the same conclusion as Civ without reading his post the same way that if I give you and someone else the same math problem, say, 5+5, you'd both come up with the same conclusion, "5+5=10" BEFORE you read his post that says "10." Idiot. I read your post as well as all previous posts, and through reasoning of my own, came up with all the same basic ideas that Civ articulated in his post, after I had already thought them. Does that make it clearer for you? Or are you still hell-bent on proving your stupidity?
Edit: I thought about pre-modding this, but fuck it.

You insulted me. My reply wasn't intended to be a cold-hearted, direct insult. Besides, I just stated in the last post, that I was only using the 'silly monkey' thing as a metaphor. You could have just agreed with civ, and left it at that. Instead, you proceeded to show how 'idiotic' my argument was, you ridiculed me for my beliefs, and you are now BLATANTLY insulting me, by flat out calling me an 'idiot', a 'prick', and asking me if I'm hell-bent on proving my 'stupidity'. I admit, I may have insulted you, but I was only trying to be funny about it. If you still think I'm trying to insult you, you need to read the last post again - the part where I said I think EVERYONE is smarter than a bunch of monkeys - this includes you. I am not insulting you. Slade has asked me to stop harassing people. I'm done harassing people. I am asking you to do the same. Please stop harassing me.

[civilian_number_two]

To make an honest living, you have to work for it. Bill Gates' son asked him for money. Bill Gates told him to get a job. He's absolutely correct.

When did this happen? I ask because Bill Gates's son was born in 1999 and it would be odd for Bill to insist that. I put it to you that most of the things you know about public figures, eg Bill Gates, are made up. When hearing things about public figures it is always best to scrutinize the statement and to apply the bullshit meter. Like, you know that broken-down car story told about Bill Gates that Donald Trump claimed was actually true of himself? That story is total bullshit, of both Gates and Trump. Hooray for Gates that he never tried to claim it was true.

Jejef, this is not a popularity contest. It is disheartening that the folks who agree with me are called lemmings. You might want to read the thread where I openly belittled Sailor Abbey's religious beliefs. I dare say when she says she agrees with me, it has nothing to do with liking me (although I am sure I could get her if I wanted to*). I think you'll find that apart from Jen, not a lot of folks here made any claim to like me at all. And Jen and I have disagreed a number of times. So there.

You seem to take a lot as well from my comparison to the sentence "There is a Wizard in Earthsea." I won't bother to repeat why I used that analogy, but it seems like in repeating it over and over you are hoping to shout down other efforts to show why you cannot always break down a sentence syntactically (which is something you tried to do). I showed also that the sentence could literally mean that any person could be replaced, and also that it might mean that for ALL people there was one an only ONE person, though the sentence doesn't say what for. In this regard I suggested the someone could be Jesus, but it could be Mohammed or Thor as well. Take your pick. Since the sentence has no obvious literal meaning, it must be taken to mean something metaphorically. Which, as it happens, everyone but you believes, and coincidentally we all had the same idea of what it meant, despite living in different countries and being different ages and such. We must all be lemmings, is that right?

Literally, the sentence is not precise in its meaning, not in the way that "there is a dollar for the donut" might be. Another simple analogy would be "There is someTHING for everyone." You will allow that this sentence is generally used in advertising, to claim that a place has interest to all? You don't think when a theme park says "there is something for everyone" they're making any claim of specific things in mind for specific people, or even a catch-all claim to refer to the fact that the park has lots of things, like hot dogs and such, and everyone who comes is free to buy one? I mean, you will allow that THAT sentence is just a hopeful claim to make the park sound nice, right? Not actually pinning itself down to any literal meaning, just something nice to say? I am not claiming that it is identical in message or use, but I hope you can see that it is similar to the phrase we're discussing in the sense that it shouldn't be analysed word for word. I only changed the subject in that case, and only a little, and you have to agree that the sentence is not meant to be literal. Its meaning is in its use.

You make a big deal about how "fish in the sea" is a metaphor. I agree. I didn't claim that you didn't understand this. I question only how you can make the claim that when some sentences are meant to be literal and others are metaphors, you personally get to decide which is which. I'm surprised you didn't follow this.

You went on for a while there about philosophy being better than poetry, the argument from authority, to show that therefore Aristophanes is scientifically right and Wilfred Owen is wrong. I notice you didn't mention that at all in the last few pages. Can we agree that that statement is nonsense, in the light of my comparison oif Berkely's Empiricism and Aristohanes's four-armed people? It seems after all that you have dropped the stance in favour of random cracks about Michael Jackson, South Park references, and recent claims that if anyone who disagrees with you, you're smarter and correct, and it's just all personal. I would like to advise you that the recent strategy is not better than the former one.

You argue as though you have the backing of science, saying that the world was designed so that fpr every person there is a person designed to be there for them, though the sentences does not say in what regard they would be there. Literally in fact, the sentence says nothing of romance, yet even you apply it in that way. Can you actually not in this sense at least see that you are weighing in the pop culture use of the expresion even as you try to change its common meaning? Do you still make the claim that you are looking at the sentence from behind the veil of ignorance, as though you had never heard it before, and discerning its meaning only from its component words?

Since you use science, please remember that a negative cannot be proven. "Prove to me that there is NOT someone for everyone" is about as empty a rhetorical stance as "Prove to me that there is no God." A positive statement can be preoven false, and I dare say Barend's stillborn baby analogy handled that. There was no one for that baby. Case closed. But back to the general point, you can't make a claim (such as "THere is a God") and then say that you are right because no one has proven you wrong. You are the claimant; the onus of proof is on you. If you hold that there literally is someone for everyone, then please list all of the people in the world and show who is designed to be for whom, to show that the saying has some factual basis. Until you can do so, I and the rest of the world will continue to take it to be a proverb.

And no, I don't believe in God.

PS: Slade, you are 100% right on. I was more lucid and mentally alert at 19 than I will ever be. That was an inane crack, and I thank you for calling me on it.

* I don't know who I am trying to piss off more there, Abbey or Jejef. Let's see what happens.

Oh yeah, one more thing: Hey Jen! Long time no rant! PM me sometime!

[Jejef Thgaron]

No, there's no truce. We don't insult you, you don't insult us. There are no conditions to not insulting people. Just don't do it. Nobody insulted you until you started being mocking and condescending to everyone who didn't agree with you, and I told everybody to stop.

Is it not mocking, or condescending to call someone FALSE, right off the bat? I take that word as a slap in the face, ESPECIALLY when I was attempting to show the correct syntax of a sentence. For example:

There = pronoun/used as subject of a clause when the 'real' subject comes after the verb.
Is = verb
Someone = noun/the 'real' subject

This is the gist of what civ posted in response to this portion of my post:

FALSE. The subject of the sentence does not have to be real, in order to construct a sentence. For example: "There is a Wizard in EarthSea". Note that Wizard is not a real person, but one of fantasy. Also, EarthSea isn't real, it is a place that exists in fantasy. So, you can see the subject doesn't have to be real to make a real sentence.

This response had NOTHING to do with the syntax of the English language, which is what I was referring to. In fact, it was VERY condescending to me. The 'real' subject refers to the NOUN, which comes after the VERB. I was astonished at civ's response. If I am being incoherent, then civ is a college English professor, which I'm not buying. I am not the one who is trying to be condescending. I also don't see how I was being any less 'coherent', than civ.

You also do a wonderful job twisting words. Spoon said "I came to the same conclusion that Civ did." Not "I agreed with Civ before I read the post," as you continue to claim and then attempt to complain about.

If she came to the same conclusion that civ did, then they are both telling me I am FALSE in my argument, and that ANYTHING I say is nonsense. So, since civ corrected my understanding of proper sentence construction, it means Spoon also corrected me. Civ said EVERYTHING Spoon would have said, had she taken the effort to do so. SHE SAID SO, HERSELF. If Spoon agrees with civ's entire post, then you can chalk that up as 2 separate insults from 2 different people. I don't need to "twist" other people's words around to receive a slap in the face. I got 2 of them, thank you.

I'm not even going to mention Spoon trying to prove my belief in the Bible wrong, for her sake. I just want to add that it isn't cool to make a mockery of other peoples' religious beliefs. I don't do it to other people, and I surely don't expect them to do it to me.

You've also completely missed my point on how no one has to prove you wrong, you need to prove that you're right. And you continue to smugly and futily argue "Prove me wrong!" I want to know exactly what proposition you are currently trying to claim is right, and then hear a logical argument that backs that up, and then keep that claim consistent, and then show me how it relates to the other points argued.

The problem with proving my point: There is someone for everyone - is that it is a concept, which is nothing more than an idea, or a philisophical notion. It can't be proven right, or wrong. I believe there is someone for everyone. I've already admitted this is something I believe in. It doesn't matter if I'm right, or wrong. A belief is something you are sure of, without having actual proof. Who are you to tell me there isn't someone for everyone? Who are you to step on my beliefs? Is it not a mockery to tell someone their beliefs are "Dada"? My 'smug' comment: "Prove me wrong" was directed at those people who were attempting to prove a philisophical concept incorrect. I'm not the only one insulting, or harassing, or mocking... so why am I the only one being asked to stop? Why can there be no truce? I have stopped insulting, harassing, and mocking, and yet, I am still being ridiculed by others. If there are no conditions, i.e.: They don't insult you, you don't insult them. Just don't do it. Why does this only apply to me?

[Spoon Poetic]

First of all: You brought up the fact about me agreeing with Civ to demonstrate that I was "following the leader." Not that I was being insulting. You originally accused me of agreeing because I liked him. Now you have completely changed your reasons behind pointing out my agreeing with Civ.

Second of all: I am a Christian, myself. I was pointing out that you can't use a religious text to prove a point, ANY point. Your using Ecclesiastes to prove your point is the same as me using the Book of Shadows to prove a point. Will not be taken seriously. Cannot work. If you had read my post and not twisted my words (again) you would know that's what I meant.

Thirdly: You have been condescending to people on these forums for far longer than this particular thread has even existed. You brought it on yourself.

Fourthly: I have yet to see where you stop being condescending and insulting.

How pathetic is it that a 31-year old would try this hard to piss off a 19-year old girl?

[Slade]

Is it not mocking, or condescending to call someone FALSE, right off the bat? I take that word as a slap in the face, ESPECIALLY when I was attempting to show the correct syntax of a sentence.

No one can help it if you get upset because someone disagrees with you. You shouldn't be so sensitive and feel so persecuted over it. I wouldn't be offended if I walked up to someone and said all grass is blue, and someone said "No it's not."

Concerning the Spoon, you're arguing semantics. It's rather dull at this point, and doesn't really serve your argument, since no one else is assuming that someone agreed literally with every word the other person was saying. Language is embedded with context, and you do it a disservice to pull it out and claim that it still retains the original meaning.

Edit: And if you're bringing up a point that you admit can't be proven, why do you ask people to prove it, and why do you bother to debate it at all?

This post has been edited by Slade: 01 May 2006 - 12:35 AM

[barend]

christ this has gotten out of hand....

quite frankly i'm dissapointed in all of us. The world is too fucked up a place where too many bad things happen to good people and too many good things happen to bad people, to hoenestly believe that everything works out okay for everyone.

updating an outdated saying to include a night passed, is more dangerous than not believing it at all...

hey remember that handjob under the bleachers during that soccer riot when you were 22... well that was you're 'someone'... enjoy watching the clock out.

success in love, work, life in general boils down to an equasion;
success=effort+opportunity

i won't deny there are people out there who lack the balls to make the effort in the face of opportunity, but there are alot of people out there who don't get the opportunity... there alot of people out there who constantly put in the hard yards and achieve nothing because life itself has no interest in that persons well being....

ultimatley, this whole thing started because a silly notion was put forward, and dissagreed with...

jejef, if you won't listen to reason, there's little that can be don, because the word PROVE has no place here. this is all about ideology verses common sense. some things should just seem obvious.

there are no statistics, or charts... just a bunch of desperatley lonley people dying alone after a life of misery that you feel fit to mock because things worked out for you.




any serious debate from this point onward is a waste of time.

there isn't someone for everyone, and that's the way it is, i've already spent too much time trying to hammer the obvious home, but no ones there...

[Jejef Thgaron]

No one can help it if you get upset because someone disagrees with you. You shouldn't be so sensitive and feel so persecuted over it. I wouldn't be offended if I walked up to someone and said all grass is blue, and someone said "No it's not."

You are absolutely correct, Slade. No one can help it if I get upset because someone DISAGREES with me. I don't get upset about simple disagreements. When someone disagrees with me on a certain belief, I don't get upset, unless that person implies ignorance on my behalf. That's where I draw the line. I don't make crass remarks on others' race, sexual orientation, or beliefs (religious, or otherwise). I'm not offended by someone explaining that a philisophical idea is untrue. However, when I am told that my logical reasoning for believing in said idea is "Dada", I take offense. It's the same as delivering a racial slur, or a homophobic remark, it's just a little more cleverly masked.

Concerning the Spoon, you're arguing semantics. It's rather dull at this point, and doesn't really serve your argument, since no one else is assuming that someone agreed literally with every word the other person was saying. Language is embedded with context, and you do it a disservice to pull it out and claim that it still retains the original meaning.

I do it a disservice? If you say you agree with someone's post, you are saying you agree with everything that person has said in that entire post. However, if you say you agree with that person's post, but you're not too sure of one particular part, then you don't agree with that person's entire post, just part of it. Just because nobody else assumed that someone agreed literally with every word the other person was saying, it doesn't mean they didn't. If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody's around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Yes. It isn't about assumption, it's about logical reasoning. Spoon agreed with civ's post. She didn't say "I agree with part of civ's post". She said she agreed. Period. I'm not arguing semantics, here. She either agreed with all of it, or she agreed with part of it, and she isn't saying what part she was in agreement with. Logic dictates that she agreed with all of it, since she didn't specify otherwise.

Edit: And if you're bringing up a point that you admit can't be proven, why do you ask people to prove it, and why do you bother to debate it at all?

That, my friend, is an excellent question. This entire thread is based upon a generic statement I had previously made in the SW forum. I ask people to prove it, simply because it is a lesson in futility to debate a philosophical concept. I debate it because it is more than a lesson in futility, though. It is a great way to stimulate the mind. It is a great way to allow everybody to think logically about a philosophical idea. It's also based on Socratic method, in which you learn by teaching yourself to learn.

[Jordan]

WTF does being a Christian have to do with anything? But to make a point out of it........

Didn't Paul say that if you can control your lust, that you should remain chaste and devoted to God, therefore not finding a significant other on earth?

So if that follower decided that nobody on earth could compare to living a life soley devouted to Jesus, then in that persons mind there is NOBODY on earth worthy enough to get in bed with him, kiss, marry, or have a summer time fling with.

SO there really is nobody for that one person, thus not everyone has a someone one.

You could argue that Jesus is that someone, but now you're crossing into supernatural relationships and you're stretching the definiton of 'someone' way too far.

Someone for everyone means = having a long lasting relationship with a living human being.

[civilian_number_two]

Thank you, Jejef, for admitting that the exp​ression "there is someone for everyone" is not a statement of fact, something you argued rather aggressively before. Thank you for acknowledging that it is a maxim, and not something that can be proven. Like Slade said, this admision pretty much negates your insistence that its opposite need be proven. It is a maxim, and like "hard will always pays off," it can't be proven, and some will agree with it while others won't. For instance: hard work does not always pay off. Sometimes effort is redundant because the task was impossible. You may disagree, but you won't be able to back that up with proof, since it's not a statement referencing the real world. It is a maxim, and like you say (finally), it can't be proven.

You still misunderstand the use of "You are a Dada manifesto." You are taking it to mean I think your conclusions are false, or that you are "a retard." Not at all; I was saying that when we're talking about one thing, you spntaneously bring up another. If Aristophanes, then you mention Jacko. You go from Isaac Newton, to Jim Morrisson in a breath, in threads entirely devoted to condescension and avoidance of the actual topic. This thread is a surreal masterpiece. Anyway, you need to get over it. You needn't bother trying to prove to everyone that you are put upon or that this thread has been full of anger and condescension. No one cares. Folks disagree with you because it is in their heart to disagree, and there is nothing personal about it. I don't care how ugly you are; you start saying THE PHANTOM MENACE was a lousy movie, and you'll find folks agree with you, ugly and all.

Conclusion: you believe that "There is someone for everyone" means that all hard workers need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and even they too can be happy. Some here disagree. You also believe that Bill Gates told his 8-year-old son to get a job (assuming this story took place today and not a few years ago when you first heard it). This is factually incorrect, but not a big deal. You have changed your argument, and now we all agree that we are discussing an idiom, rather than a statement of alleged fact that can be proven or disproven. You disagree with everyone here about the scope of the maxim, and you also disagree about its validity. There are folks here think it refers to serious partnerships, and not to one-night stands, and there are folks here think it is optimistic and incorrect. They are skeptics, I suppose, but there's no need to take it personally. No need also to randomly bring in Buddhism, Lewis Carrol, Michael Jackson, The Doors, monkeys, McDonald's, myths about billionaires, the Bible, vegetarianism, child discipline, South Park, John Lennon, whether you like pizza, etc. These are not the things we're talking about. If the only way you feel you can make a point about something is to argue by analogy to something else, then you don't have an argument. The argument by analogy is a form of the Straw Man argument, or the "Chewbacca Defense" to quote Parker and Stone. I am not trying to prove that you like pizza, etc.

Anyway, thanks for coming clean and agreeing that the phrase isn't a literal statement of facts, comparable to Newton's Laws of Motion. Agreeing and disagreeing has therefore nothing to do with analysis of the facts, and is only a matter of faith. Some here appear not to have the same faith you do. This may however have something to do with the fact that all here take the exp​ression to mean something different than you do. I guess we're done here now. If you'd like to start up another thread abouth why you are a Christian and yet you claim to "respect" people who don't believe in God, I have to say I'm really curious to see how you want to justify that. I'm frankly also curious to know how it can be equated with the lyrics to "The Girl is Mine."

[Sailor Abbey]

why is it ok for civ to keep crapping on someone else's beliefs?

Because this is the debate club. Trust me, I feel your pain.

Deal with it.

((note: I agree about spanking kids... it is better a child recieve a spanking for dissobedience about playing on the road, than being being run over by someone who thought it was a good idea to own a 4WD in an urban area))

[Sailor Abbey]

* I don't know who I am trying to piss off more there, Abbey or Jejef. Let's see what happens.

Uh oh. I guess I missed the part where you pissed me off. Oh well. Better luck next time.

[Sailor Abbey]

A belief is something you are sure of, without having actual proof. Who are you to tell me there isn't someone for everyone? Who are you to step on my beliefs?

Jejef, allow me to pass on my some of my awesome worldly experience. I’m sure you’ll appreciate it.

If you don’t want your beliefs stepped on, don’t bring them up in the Debate Club. And if you still feel the need, which I entirely understand, be prepared to have them trampled. It sucks balls when people tell you you’re crazy, but you have to understand that some peoples ‘beliefs’ really do seem crazy.