Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

“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.

TripleNegative

“Byte Me — Doofus”

Since: Oct 12

Here.

#76987 Feb 20, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>A permanent record of how smart you actually are.
A permanent record of how damned pathologically slow you truly are. Keep the hell up. How long did it take you and MS Word to compose that 'thesis'? Keep posting. I'll let you know when you become profound. Then I'll notify the Vatican for miracle status.

Smile, lightweight.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#76988 Feb 20, 2013
TripleNegative wrote:
<quoted text>
A permanent record of how damned pathologically slow you truly are. Keep the hell up. How long did it take you and MS Word to compose that 'thesis'? Keep posting. I'll let you know when you become profound. Then I'll notify the Vatican for miracle status.
Smile, lightweight.
You know you screwed up. Now you are trying to backfill by attacking me. Textbook.

“KC's Son got a Meal Ticket!”

Since: Sep 09

Now the basement is clean!

#76989 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 "Jokster" said was essentially what is commonly called "Pascal's Wager." It is also called "Pascal's Gamble." You then said "Jokster"'s comment was NOT "Pascal's Gamble." Even "Jokster" agrees that it is.

Then you start blathering mumbo-jumbo in an effort to escape the fact that you do not know what you are talking about. You were wrong, and no amount of your obvious bloviation is going to change that fact.

And, one more time, all logical arguments are NOT derived from "maxims" (which I note you have expanded to include old beliefs, old parables, or just old sayings.) "All that glisters is not gold" is NOT a logical argument. "A penny saved is a penny earned" is NOT a logical argument. You are out of your league, "logically" speaking.

Perhaps you are tired. Perhaps you have had a busy day, or perhaps you are sick. We understand. But in any case, as often you are -- you are incorrect.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#76990 Feb 20, 2013
Oh, I am smiling. You can be sure of that.

“KC's Son got a Meal Ticket!”

Since: Sep 09

Now the basement is clean!

#76992 Feb 20, 2013
TripleNegative wrote:
How in the hell do you think Pascal's came to be? By divine intervention? Nope. It was Pascal. He came to his ideas the same was as you—through the study of old ideals, old maxims, old premises, and old philosophical arguments—and Pascal's Wager is a VERY weak argument.
No. "Pascal's Wager" is false, not weak.

TripleNegative

“Byte Me — Doofus”

Since: Oct 12

Here.

#76993 Feb 20, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Wrong, as usual.

"Pascal's Wager (also known as Pascal's Gamble) is an argument in apologetic philosophy which was devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher ... "

See?

TripleNegative

“Byte Me — Doofus”

Since: Oct 12

Here.

#76994 Feb 20, 2013
Sheesh, you're a simpleton. Keep up little man—keep up.

“KC's Son got a Meal Ticket!”

Since: Sep 09

Now the basement is clean!

#76995 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
Hey, "Hay." Yes, these "fast guns" keep coming around, attempting to take away my title of "King of the Thread." Many have tried. None have been successful!_8-)

Drop by whenever you get the chance!

TripleNegative

“Byte Me — Doofus”

Since: Oct 12

Here.

#76996 Feb 20, 2013
Maxims predate the 17th Century. Anything of substance?
Norton

Kansas City, MO

#76997 Feb 20, 2013
TripleNegative wrote:
<quoted text>
You obfuscate for simple reasons—there are no verses supporting your claim of a 'tribulation', or for an 'eternal fire of damnation where sinners burn in perpetuity'.
So you 'strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel'. Your conflict is with yourself, not with those who contest your rather strict and nonsensical beliefs.
The King James version of the Bible is not 'protected by anyone', and certainly not protected by the divinity of God. You are speaking of the concepts put forth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Torah. They are verbatim. The NT and the remainder of the Bible are not. They have been altered, manipulated, and boiled into nonexistence. It is a nice myth, however.
They selected the books, not by author, but by topic. Revelation was written by an outsider, but until that point, the Bible had no ending. So they need an ending, and Revelation was a nicely written construct of a Biblical Epilogue. You stopped following Christ and began following an often poorly written book.
Human beings screw up everything we touch, including the scriptures—and the concept of love, compassion, and the Christ.
You are the new version of the Pharisees, against whom Christ railed. How does it feel to misdirect souls? To reduce the spirits of so-called 'failed Christians' to the ashes of a nonexistent fire?
To spend eternity without the Father is the horror that Christ related, and he compared the absence of the 'soul' to spend all eternity—not in a burning everlasting hell-fire, but in all eternity without God—without a spirit or without a soul, without awareness, and without any further existence. Life ends after you lose your soul, your spirit, and you are no more.
He used the Fires of the Landfills around Jerusalem as an example of something that would be worse than spending eternity without an awareness, without a soul, without his Father.
And someone along the line turned that into Hell, and made it a place for all eternity. All Christ was attempting to do—by using a parable as he always did—was not to scare people needlessly with a place called Hell, but to scare them away from the proposition of never existing again, and to be without God for an eternity.
You do a great disservice to Christ. You place words into his mouth that were never even uttered. And you do so with the belief that you are doing his will. That is sad.
Blind Guides.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =27VbFALHsjgXX
Me thinks you are clear off your rocker!!!!!!!!!!
Are you for real or even of this planet? I never heard such nonsense!


CHEERS!

“KC's Son got a Meal Ticket!”

Since: Sep 09

Now the basement is clean!

#76998 Feb 20, 2013
TripleNegative wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
I have gone to 5 colleges / universities. Have you recently considered taking remedial grammar and remedial logic? That might help get your thinking straightened out.

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.

St. Louis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
His Wife Has Boyfriends All Over Metro 6 hr Back Again 6
Kellogg's Boycott - Donated Millions to BLM 6 hr Back Again 4
LMAO! Facebook Caught in More Lies. 12 hr Dunno 1
Blk Thugs Shooting White again on MetroLink 15 hr Back Again 7
Coalburner at Adams elementary Thu BLMNOT 4
Is the phrase "once you go black you never go b... (Jan '11) Thu BLMNOT 294
Is downtown area safe for a single girl to visit Thu Really 18

St. Louis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

St. Louis Mortgages