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

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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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?

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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?

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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.

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.

Citizen Sound-Off Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who's got your vote in the Tennessee Senate rac... (Oct '14) 3 min Stray- Dog 80,863
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia i... (Oct '10) 4 min dixie 80,691
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Concerned 228,515
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in West Virg... (Oct '10) 6 hr Mgtn Res 90,383
Election OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Questio... (Oct '10) 20 hr WarForOil 83,868
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Kentucky (... (Oct '10) Sat HOMEEE 644
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Idaho (Dis... (Oct '10) Jun 24 spoon 10
More from around the web