Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
GOP a OCEAN of STUPID

Saint Louis, MO

#76964 Feb 20, 2013
TripleNegative wrote:
***your entire premise
0 = your whole life

TripleNegative

“Byte Me — Doofus”

Since: Oct 12

Here.

#76965 Feb 20, 2013
TheJokster wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you are lost. I made the post of "I would rather live my live believing he exist and die finding out he doesn't rather than living my life believing he doesn't exist and die finding out he does."
Yellowdawg said it is known as "Pascal's Wager."
Then you chime in with "That was hardly Pascal's Gamble."
So yes it was "Pascal's Wager" or "Pascal's Gamble" I was speaking of in that comment. Yellowdawg was correct and you Triple are,,,,, still very lost.
I respond to 'responses'. I typed 'That was hardly Pascal's Gamble'—and I was correct.

Then you insulted me because you had no clue it was the same as Pascal's Wager—wager and gamble are the same term, and regions decide which is used.

So tell me, what is your argument precisely, besides proving that you 'have no real clue'? This is why ad hominem is used, but it's hardly tenable in such an argument. You chose it. Deal within your limitations.

Now please, respond as if you know what in the hell you're responding to, and not just a knee-jerk reaction to your blatant nonsensical equivocations.

So, insult me poorly if you will, but just because you cannot keep up is hardly a valid reason. So what is your difficulty with my assertion: "This is hardly Pascal's Gamble"—again? Or do you have one?

I was succinct and correct. Try being both.
GOP a OCEAN of STUPID

Saint Louis, MO

#76966 Feb 20, 2013
TripleNegative wrote:
<quoted text>
I already told you 'I know Pascal's Wager/aka Pascal's Gamble'. I have taught the principle, and all so-called 'logical arguments' have a foundation in 'old maxims, old beliefs, old parables, or just old sayings'. So does Pascal's.
Having 'an error in any fundamental assumption' does not qualify as an argument for 'Pascal's Gamble'. That's why I corrected you entire premise. You chose to attack my choice of moniker's for the very same argument. There's a psychological term for that, as well. Look at 'avoidance'.
You cited Pascal's Wager/aka Gamble, I did not. I merely corrected your false premise. And now I have corrected you again. Study and stop bastardizing terms. I am not paid to be your 'phrase-keeper', but I will correct your obvious absurdities—no matter the topic.
Is all philosophical argument this damned elastic in your area of limited expertise, or did you just bastardize this premise for no damned good reason?
Please keep the hell up.
?????
What the Hell is this old woman saying????

Total gibberish ...Is she speaking in tonges?
Hmmm ...maybe then Norton can interpret what she is saying

TripleNegative

“Byte Me — Doofus”

Since: Oct 12

Here.

#76967 Feb 20, 2013
GOP a OCEAN of STUPID wrote:
<quoted text>
?????
What the Hell is this old woman saying????
Total gibberish ...Is she speaking in tonges?
Hmmm ...maybe then Norton can interpret what she is saying
Of course you have no clue about what I am speaking. I've had nose-hairs smarter than you. I clipped those, too.

You keep 'hmmmm'ing', you dullard. Your limitations are obvious to anyone who sees you crawling out of a pile of dung. Even Old Yeller knows you're a blathering idiot.

TripleNegative

“Byte Me — Doofus”

Since: Oct 12

Here.

#76969 Feb 20, 2013
GOP a OCEAN of STUPID wrote:
<quoted text>
?????
What the Hell is this old woman saying????
Total gibberish ...Is she speaking in tonges?
Hmmm ...maybe then Norton can interpret what she is saying
And dude: If you are going to use wit in a moniker, it's 'GOP an Ocean of Stupid'. That's called 'irony'. Now swim away quietly.

TripleNegative

“Byte Me — Doofus”

Since: Oct 12

Here.

#76970 Feb 20, 2013
Yellow Dawg Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
I always enjoy watching two clueless, uninformed "Christians" saying, "MY Christ is better than YOUR Christ!"
A difference in opinion doesn't require fifty Christs, now go back to bastardizing philosophy. You have far too many weaknesses to stick them all in the religious portion of discussions. Just continue fooking up philosophical argument. It's cute.

Have you ever considered going to college?

TripleNegative

“Byte Me — Doofus”

Since: Oct 12

Here.

#76971 Feb 20, 2013
Yellow Dawg Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever considered writing short stories for your local weekly newspaper?
Have you ever considered submitting your posts to Penthouse Forum? Both have constant and impotent wanking, and nothing of any real substance—much like everything you post here.

TripleNegative

“Byte Me — Doofus”

Since: Oct 12

Here.

#76972 Feb 20, 2013
Hay Hugh Dumas wrote:
Hay Yellow Dawg! Just checking in and saying hello!
I see you are riding tall and herding cats like a boss. Keep on keeping on.
Kind regards,
HHD
Ah, so you're blind too? Feed the dog. Otherwise, you'll fall off the 'ends of the earth' where Old Yeller resides in his trailer.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#76975 Feb 20, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Dan, how are you , hope all is well in your world.
Hello Barney. I am doing just fine. Good to see you again. How have you been?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#76976 Feb 20, 2013
TripleNegative wrote:
<quoted text>
This is rich if you enjoy a bipolar response to a schizoid difficulty—you insult me poorly like a a really childlike Paul Reuben skit, and then when you get your proverbial clock cleaned, you begin a rather Mr. Rogers-esque version of condescending backpedaling in the mode of the pantywaist whining of a Valley Girl in the fifteenth trimester of pregnancy.
You have posted nothing of value in response to me, and frankly, I stopped reading your blathering nonsense about three paragraphs into the 'belly of the kindergarten beast' from the 'self-professed king of an atheist monarchy'.
You have typed nothing worthy of a thoughtful response, and to date, you have only been awarded that which you deserve—credit for your SpongeBob SquarePants ad hominem. Luckily, I do not do 'childish', so I simply gave you an example of why you should never attack anyone who is clearly your superior in any scholastic endeavor or venue—science, history, theology, governance and civics, literature, or anything beyond the scope of your obvious limitations.
So if you have the means to browbeat me into submission with your inferior intellect and obese ego, prove it. Otherwise, you can return to insulting Norton badly, and when you attack me in the guise of offending Norton, I'll return and rip you the new asshole you deserve.
It never ceases to amaze me when people insult me poorly, and then find themselves cowering in the corner, beaten senseless into within an inch of their intellectual life, and then they profess their innocence while bastardizing every rule of civil discourse known to humankind, all in a vain effort to save themselves from obvious ridicule, albeit expected and well-deserved.
So let me put this in the nonsensical rap terms you might be able to comprehend within the framework of your obvious Linus' Security Blanket personae.'You ain't no gangsta, Charlie Brown.'
Is there anything else you would like to add, or are you just going to sit their with your flaccid penis in one hand, and your Nero's fiddle playing in the other? I did not burn your Rome—you set it on fire while attempting to sharpen your baby-teeth of intellect on my shin, and all the while you're complaining about the smoke coming out of your arse and garret.
You're operating a wit without a license or a clue. Awaken me when you reach remotely funny. Then I'll chuckle, pat you on the head, and let you return to your delusional world where you reign supreme—with your ilk of liberal idiots and socialist reach-around buddies at your side while you hang upon your cross of blatant foolishness and they hang upon your every word for intellectual sustenance. That explains why they're emaciated.
Your vocabulary lacks more than anyone could teach you in three generations, your grammar is relatively 'ordinary'—acceptable for a 'forum comprehension', and your personae would fit in rather nicely with the fifteen other voices buzzing around just inside the foil hat you wear so neatly.
Yet I must admit I did grin a little when you mentioned your 'philosophical superiority'. Methinks the gangsta rap has infested your mind with delusions of punctilious-yet-trite grandeur.
Edited for space. See TN
I never wrote any of this, but whoever did has surely felt the sting of my incredible intellect. You can tell by the length of a rant like this. A person would concoct such nonsense to show everyone how much better they are than me if I had just pounded them into the sand.

If you are going to fake a quote, you better learn how to use Topix.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#76977 Feb 20, 2013
Yellow Dawg Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism may not be "growing by leaps and bounds," but nevertheless it is growing, worldwide and in the United States.
According to a WIN-Gallup International poll reported August 2012, religiosity worldwide is declining while more people say they are atheists. In the United States, a growing number consider themselves non-believers.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/20...
(I will point out that "atheism" is not monolithic. There are various levels of non-belief. For example: agnostics,'weak' atheists, and 'strong' atheists. Simplistically, those levels correspond to "not sure there is a god," "possibly there is a god," and "no way is there a god.")
Thanks for the info Dawg. I need to update my knowledge of the trends in religion and belief.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#76978 Feb 20, 2013
TripleNegative wrote:
<quoted text>
That was hardly Pascal's Gamble.
It is more commonly known as Pascal's Wager as many have pointed out and you are as usual wrong. The Jokster is making Pascal's Wager.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#76979 Feb 20, 2013
TheJokster wrote:
TRIPLE let me spell it out for you.
The Jokster wrote "As far as God goes, I would rather live my live believing he exist and die finding out he doesn't rather than living my life believing he doesn't exist and die finding out he does."
Yellowdawg wrote "the sentence is known as Pascal's Wager." (which is correct)
TripleNegative wrote "That was hardly Pascal's Gamble." (which shows you have no clue they were the same)
TheJokster wrote "Actually Triple, it is Pascal'a Wager. Which is "belief in God is rational whether or not God exists, since falsely believing that God exists leads to no harm whereas falsely believing that God does not exist may lead to eternal damnation."
TripleNegative wrote Actually it's called both 'Pascal's Wager' and 'Pascal's Gamble', depending on your region of origin. And I am familiar with the concept.(if you were familure with it as you say then you would have never said "That was hardly Pascal's Gamble"
Now after reading all that together you can see how ignorant you look.
From what I read, TN is just getting warmed up.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#76980 Feb 20, 2013
TripleNegative wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not disagree with the term—I disagreed with your premise that the post you mentioned was in fact an instance of Pascal's Gamble. Please read more carefully.
You have a Martyr's Complex, or truthfully, a Messianic Complex—as if you're actually that important. You made a poor observation. I corrected you. You should be quite used to that by now.
I never agreed with you. I corrected your poorly thought-out observation—again.
Carry on.
Double talk and nonsense. You blew on something which you obviously had only an inkling of and got busted. Poor widdle feller. Himz pwaying wit da bib boyz and himz gotz hurtz. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#76981 Feb 20, 2013
Yellow Dawg Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct. You deserve to be insulted in a far better manner.
Whoever is "next," do try to insult "TN" in the manner he so richly deserves.
You know Dawg, it never ceases to amaze me how much you can get a guy to type when you have kicked his ass.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#76982 Feb 20, 2013
TripleNegative wrote:
<quoted text>
That was hardly Pascal's Gamble.
A permanent record of how smart you actually are.

TripleNegative

“Byte Me — Doofus”

Since: Oct 12

Here.

#76983 Feb 20, 2013
TheJokster wrote:
TRIPLE let me spell it out for you.
The Jokster wrote "As far as God goes, I would rather live my live believing he exist and die finding out he doesn't rather than living my life believing he doesn't exist and die finding out he does."
Yellowdawg wrote "the sentence is known as Pascal's Wager." (which is correct)
TripleNegative wrote "That was hardly Pascal's Gamble." (which shows you have no clue they were the same)
TheJokster wrote "Actually Triple, it is Pascal'a Wager. Which is "belief in God is rational whether or not God exists, since falsely believing that God exists leads to no harm whereas falsely believing that God does not exist may lead to eternal damnation."
TripleNegative wrote Actually it's called both 'Pascal's Wager' and 'Pascal's Gamble', depending on your region of origin. And I am familiar with the concept.(if you were familure with it as you say then you would have never said "That was hardly Pascal's Gamble"
Now after reading all that together you can see how ignorant you look.
Yet you forgot one thing—you did not attack my idea that 'This hardly qualifies'. You attacked ONLY that I used "Pascal's Gamble" as opposed to 'Pascal's Wager'. So tell me, why are you here precisely—and this time, stick to your posts, not anyone else's.

Yet, as to the argument between 'He and I', and not 'you and I'—the latter of which to be 'totally correct with regard to balatnt ad hominem—then he should have cut and pasted the portion he considered to be Pascal's Gamble. I read the portion he posted, at least as much as possible without going numb, and responded. Yet if this was his statement, then why are you doing his work for him? Is he not capable of defending himself?

The answer is simple—you did not care about the argument. You were searching poorly for philosophical errors in the TITLE. For a supposed philosopher, you certainly did abuse ad hominem.

I respond very quickly to 'that which I have access to'. I cannot respond to fifty-five posts ago that I did not write or that I did not cite poorly. If you're going to attack a single portion of anything, then use it within the citation. Making blank statements causes such difficulties.

Anything further? Just leg-humping? I deal in specifics. Try it. And this time,'use your own specifics', not someone else's. Can you remind me what you said about my so-called misuse of 'Pascal's Gamble'? It was so damned 'cute'.

TripleNegative

“Byte Me — Doofus”

Since: Oct 12

Here.

#76984 Feb 20, 2013
****blatant

TripleNegative

“Byte Me — Doofus”

Since: Oct 12

Here.

#76985 Feb 20, 2013
And by the way, your entire argument "TN did not know about Pascal's Wager because he instead used "Pascal's Gamble'." is an absence of anti-psychotics, not just an abuse of logic.

I have forgotten more about this topic than you will learn in fifty years of Undergraduate studies at Waverly University. That's hardly Ivy League, now is it?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#76986 Feb 20, 2013
TripleNegative wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it's called both 'Pascal's Wager' and 'Pascal's Gamble', depending on your region of origin. And I am familiar with the concept—I have taught it. It is called many other things in regional colloquialisms, and it's a concept that predates both of our prior monikers. In better words,'it's a rather old maxim' that was boiled down for 'comfort'.
Yes, I believe you and your neighbors in Dumbshitville do refer to it as Pascal's Gamble and the most of the rest of the world call it Pascal's Wager.

Tell us O mystic Carnac, what are these "regional colloquialisms" you speak of. Some examples to your bs would be an excellent touch. Since it was developed in the 17th Century it not only predates your previous moniker (whatever that means) but pretty much your entire existence. It isn't a maxim as Dawg has pointed out.

ROFLMFAO that you have to go through this obvious BS to cover your stupidity. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Imperial Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Stratford inn in fenton homeless/hookers/heroin Thu Anyone notice 1
Is making your 4 year old son wear girls underw... Nov 15 Wondering 4
Neighbors Fighting At Bottom of Hill on Carter (Oct '16) Nov 14 Thats Perverted 92
Red Saturn in house springs Nov 13 Rob 5
War Against Memorial On Heads Creek (Apr '17) Nov 12 James 99
Poll The Big Pevely Flea Market is (Oct '10) Nov 11 Den 9124 8
What happened to Kimmswick? (Jan '06) Nov 9 Observer 813

Imperial Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Imperial Mortgages