It does, you just don't see it.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> It's arguably hard to take someone seriously who has in the past shown
> belief in things like ghosts, deities, the supernatural, possibly in
> aliens, and who has called skeptics "theists, Science being your God",
> and who is now making several posts with nothing more than one link
> each, and with provocative titles, giving a strong vibe of a conspiracy
> theorist.

news://news.povray.org:119/54256812@news.povray.org here I explain that 
are not only theories. Aliens, can't be discarded, a lot of BS about 
them, but still many things without explanation, and there is a 
plausible number of hundreds of intelligent species to be alive right 
now in the know Universe, I admit that might be all BS and that the next 
intelligent civilization could be too far way, but again, we don't know. 
This is supported by the fact that the satellite that is charting all 
the planets in the known universe is finding more than the scientist 
anticipated, Keppler IIRC.

> It doesn't help matters when you then start insulting people and using
> swearwords, as well as using the "argumentative fallacy card" by throwing
> names of completely random fallacies in situations where they don't fit
> at all, seemingly to make yourself sound more intellectual and learned
> (but ultimately achieving the exact opposite).

That's you opinion and I think the same about you right here.

> If you want to discuss about a certain topic, don't just make a post
> with nothing but an URL. Explain your point, describe the topic, use
> the URL as a reference, not as the main content. When writing, avoid
> sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and avoid insulting people
> simply because they disagree with you or dismiss you for behaving like
> a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

As I wrote, I wanted not so much to discuss but to inform and again, 2 
of my 6 posts were links only. I have background info that supports my 
posting, not abundant but I think enough for solid probable cause and 
those articles are mostly facts what's happening in actuality and some 
documentaries are more than theories are facts as the ones I pointed out 
in that other post, so it's about analyzing and checking, but people are 
simply lazy and call BS and forget about it, because they like their 
"perfect little corner of the Wworld".

> Also be aware of the environment you are in. If you go to a forum that's
> about, let's say, knitting, and start throwing URL's to outlandish
> political videos or websites that have absolutely nothing to do with
> knitting, expect people to dismiss you. The context of the forum is
> relevant.

I am, and ready many of the posts silently over time and checked that a 
good number of them are political-related and the rest pretty random, so 
I thought mine wouldn't be the exception but rather normal but 
interesting, maybe you should check the topics before making this such 
recommendation.

Post a reply to this message

Hahaha, keep playing the fool

Post a reply to this message

On 26-9-2014 16:28, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> It does, you just don't see it.

You may not know it but you are talking to a professional on this matter.

In the whole discussion (?) these last days there is only /one/ person 
correct: you, even if you obviously do not know what you are talking about.

I am tired of this. I am quitting now. Good bye.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/14 13:28, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I already wrote I won't apologize because you deserve it, but I thought
> about it and I think 'asshole' it's too strong for your indifference to
> my message, so I apologize.
> 

... and I accept your apology

> 
> What's the purpose of the PS? 

In the context in which it was originally written it was a warning that
I had many more people on my side than the attacker had on his. It
didn't imply physical violence.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 16:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Hahaha, keep playing the fool

Saul.
You are overdoing it again.
A word to the wise ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 14:39, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> A reasonable construct will indicate the difference, if you can't tell
> the difference that's simple lack of understanding, it's not the same to
> say/write: you're saying something stupid than you're stupid.

Not in all cases.
Non stupid people can say or do stupid things at times.

To call someone stupid without qualifying it implies that they always do 
and will do stupid things.

I have known Warp on here for a long time. I may disagree with him 
sometime. But I have never known him to say anything stupid.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 17:26, schrieb Stephen:
> On 26/09/2014 16:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Hahaha, keep playing the fool
>
> Saul.
> You are overdoing it again.
> A word to the wise ;-)

He met just the right person in Warp though; somebody had me pop corn ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 15:33, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> Again you fail to analyze as you have in many of my posts:
>
> You generalize, saying/writing something stupid doesn't mean necessarily
> that you're stupid, but mistaken, natural perpetual human error, and
> this is a given and basic knowledge, you should know it and avoid such
> generalizations.

That's what /you/ think it means, but to other people it comes across 
much differently.

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 14:08, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> OK I tried, you're the one is a stubborn hot-headed one and I'm not
> going to explain again in another way so you can understand, what you
> simply don't want to.

Hot-headed? Seriously?

Paying attention to my emotions, certainly. Stubborn? Well, I can be at 
times. But hot-headed? In this conersation?

I don't know what newsgroup you're reading, but somehow I get the 
feeling it's not povray.off-topic.


Might I just remind you of who, in this conversation, was the only one 
so far to resort to swearing and cursing?

I hereby claim the right to /become/ hot-headed about this. Not that I 
am making use of this right - I'm rather amused actually.

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 17:00, schrieb Saul Luizaga:

> news://news.povray.org:119/54256812@news.povray.org here I explain that
> are not only theories. Aliens, can't be discarded, a lot of BS about
> them, but still many things without explanation,

Now /that/ is an "argument from ignorance": Jumping from the fact that 
there are still "many things without explanation" to the conclusion that 
therefore a given theory X (in this case, "there are aliens"), that 
would /happen/ to explain them, /must/ be true.

But you're right indeed: Aliens can't be discarded. Nor have they been 
confirmed to have set on this planet (or even come into its vicinity) to 
this date.

> and there is a
> plausible number of hundreds of intelligent species to be alive right
> now in the know Universe,

That is plausible indeed, some would even say almost inevitable, but 
those hundreds of intelligent species might still live the same isolated 
life as we do on our own planet.

In fact, the anthropic principle would suggest (albeit not necessarily 
imply) that if interstellar travel is feasible, we'll be the first 
species to do it. Otherwise, the dominant species on our planet 
(dominant to the extent that evidence would be everywhere) would 
probably not be humans but some extraterrestrial species already.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 17:10, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.09.2014 17:26, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 26/09/2014 16:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> Hahaha, keep playing the fool
>>
>> Saul.
>> You are overdoing it again.
>> A word to the wise ;-)
>
> He met just the right person in Warp though; somebody had me pop corn ;-)
>

I think so. :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 17:23, clipka wrote:
> Hot-headed? Seriously?

Don't listen Saul. He is well noted for it. ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 16:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Also be aware of the environment you are in. If you go to a forum that's
>> about, let's say, knitting, and start throwing URL's to outlandish
>> political videos or websites that have absolutely nothing to do with
>> knitting, expect people to dismiss you. The context of the forum is
>> relevant.
>
> I am, and ready many of the posts silently over time and checked that a
> good number of them are political-related and the rest pretty random, so
> I thought mine wouldn't be the exception but rather normal but
> interesting, maybe you should check the topics before making this such
> recommendation.

But you flooded the forum with them. That is not the best way to go 
about it.

I would post one and if there was no response. I might post another but 
after that. I would keep off the subject.
It would be obvious that it was not a topic of interest, here.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 18:48, schrieb Stephen:
> On 26/09/2014 17:23, clipka wrote:
>> Hot-headed? Seriously?
>
> Don't listen Saul. He is well noted for it. ;-)

Shhhh! :-P

(But yeah, I did manage to get into some hot-headed discussions; I guess 
Warp can attest that right now I'm /not/ in hot-headed mode... Warp? You 
reading this? Help me out, for fuck's sake :-))

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 18:03, clipka wrote:
> (But yeah, I did manage to get into some hot-headed discussions;

Oh! Tell us more.
Because I was just fishing. :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 26.09.2014 17:26, schrieb Stephen:
> > On 26/09/2014 16:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> >> Hahaha, keep playing the fool
> >
> > Saul.
> > You are overdoing it again.
> > A word to the wise ;-)

> He met just the right person in Warp though; somebody had me pop corn ;-)

I have lately grown tired of that kind if quip, so please just skip it.
I don't really care if it's humorous or not.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Hahaha, keep playing the fool

Why exactly should I, or anybody else for that matter, take you seriously
if this is the level of your discussion?

I asked you a pretty clear question, and rather than have an actual
discussion about it, you simply act like a really infantile smartass.

From your posts in the last few days you seem to want to give a very
intellectual picture of yourself, using seemingly fancy terms and
claiming to approach things in a logical and skeptical manner, yet
when someone critiques what you say, this is the level of discussion
to which you resort. That's not in any way intellectual or intelligent.
It's just childish.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 26.09.2014 17:00, schrieb Saul Luizaga:

> > news://news.povray.org:119/54256812@news.povray.org here I explain that
> > are not only theories. Aliens, can't be discarded, a lot of BS about
> > them, but still many things without explanation,

> Now /that/ is an "argument from ignorance": Jumping from the fact that 
> there are still "many things without explanation" to the conclusion that 
> therefore a given theory X (in this case, "there are aliens"), that 
> would /happen/ to explain them, /must/ be true.

I was going to point out how that is indeed a textbook example of
argument from ignorance, but you beat me to it.

I don't know what Saul thinks said term means (since he refuses to
tell), but it does indeed mean to take an unknown and take it as
supporting evidence for a claim.

One of the most typical and prevalent examples is making an argument
for the existence of God as: "Science can't explain where the Universe
came from." This kind of fallacious argumentation is surprisingly
common. Very similar arguments are very common among other woo fields
such as ufology and believers in ghosts/the supernatural (in fact,
I bet that if you made a google search for "unexplained", the vast
majority of hits will be about either of those subjects.)

"Argument from ignorance" does *not* mean something like "you are
just making that claim because you don't know enough about the
subject in question" (even though the fallacy is a bit unfortunately
named, and may give that impression).

> But you're right indeed: Aliens can't be discarded. Nor have they been 
> confirmed to have set on this planet (or even come into its vicinity) to 
> this date.

As the original discussion I was referring to in my previous post was
about the origin of life on Earth, while aliens cannot be definitively
discarded, it seems highly unlikely (and, ultimately, it just needlessly
shifts the question of the origin of life to another planet).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 19:57, schrieb Warp:

> "Argument from ignorance" does *not* mean something like "you are
> just making that claim because you don't know enough about the
> subject in question" (even though the fallacy is a bit unfortunately
> named, and may give that impression).

I suspect that the original term, like many of the fallacies' names, was 
pure latin: "argumentum ab ignorantia", literally meaning "argument from 
non-knowledge", and that it was poorly "anglicanized" later.

Alternatively, it may have been "anglicanized" at a time when the 
meaning of "ignorance" was closer to the original latin word, rather 
than the "not knowing shit" meaning it seems to be used for nowadays.

>> But you're right indeed: Aliens can't be discarded. Nor have they been
>> confirmed to have set on this planet (or even come into its vicinity) to
>> this date.
>
> As the original discussion I was referring to in my previous post was
> about the origin of life on Earth, while aliens cannot be definitively
> discarded, it seems highly unlikely (and, ultimately, it just needlessly
> shifts the question of the origin of life to another planet).

That's indeed Occam's Razor at its best.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/14 20:41, clipka wrote:
> 
> I suspect that the original term, like many of the fallacies' names, was
> pure latin: "argumentum ab ignorantia", literally meaning "argument from
> non-knowledge", and that it was poorly "anglicanized" later.
> 
> Alternatively, it may have been "anglicanized" at a time when the
> meaning of "ignorance" was closer to the original latin word, rather
> than the "not knowing shit" meaning it seems to be used for nowadays.
> 

I am inclined to agree with your analysis; it's a shame that fewer and
fewer people seem to have even a passing acquaintance with Latin these days.
BTW I'm not nit-picking, just correcting someone whose English is way
better than my German. The word you should have used was 'Anglicized'.
'Anglican' refers to the the Church of England.

> 
> That's indeed Occam's Razor at its best.
> 

That's why I love this newsgroup. We have an amazing collection of
logicians, mathematicians, computer scientists etc etc.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 22:05, schrieb Doctor John:
> On 26/09/14 20:41, clipka wrote:
>>
>> I suspect that the original term, like many of the fallacies' names, was
>> pure latin: "argumentum ab ignorantia", literally meaning "argument from
>> non-knowledge", and that it was poorly "anglicanized" later.
...
> BTW I'm not nit-picking, just correcting someone whose English is way
> better than my German. The word you should have used was 'Anglicized'.
> 'Anglican' refers to the the Church of England.

Yeah, I had a hunch something like that might be the case. Thanks.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/14 21:40, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.09.2014 22:05, schrieb Doctor John:
>> On 26/09/14 20:41, clipka wrote:
>>>
>>> I suspect that the original term, like many of the fallacies' names, was
>>> pure latin: "argumentum ab ignorantia", literally meaning "argument from
>>> non-knowledge", and that it was poorly "anglicanized" later.
> ....
>> BTW I'm not nit-picking, just correcting someone whose English is way
>> better than my German. The word you should have used was 'Anglicized'.
>> 'Anglican' refers to the the Church of England.
> 
> Yeah, I had a hunch something like that might be the case. Thanks.
> 

No problem. Have a good weekend

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 26-9-2014 19:45, Warp wrote:
> Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Hahaha, keep playing the fool
>
> Why exactly should I, or anybody else for that matter, take you seriously
> if this is the level of your discussion?
>
> I asked you a pretty clear question, and rather than have an actual
> discussion about it, you simply act like a really infantile smartass.
>
>  From your posts in the last few days you seem to want to give a very
> intellectual picture of yourself, using seemingly fancy terms and
> claiming to approach things in a logical and skeptical manner, yet
> when someone critiques what you say, this is the level of discussion
> to which you resort. That's not in any way intellectual or intelligent.
> It's just childish.
>

Thank you Warp. Exactly my opinion about this whole /discussion/.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 26/09/14 20:41, clipka wrote:
> > 
> > I suspect that the original term, like many of the fallacies' names, was
> > pure latin: "argumentum ab ignorantia", literally meaning "argument from
> > non-knowledge", and that it was poorly "anglicanized" later.
> > 
> > Alternatively, it may have been "anglicanized" at a time when the
> > meaning of "ignorance" was closer to the original latin word, rather
> > than the "not knowing shit" meaning it seems to be used for nowadays.
> > 

> I am inclined to agree with your analysis; it's a shame that fewer and
> fewer people seem to have even a passing acquaintance with Latin these days.
> BTW I'm not nit-picking, just correcting someone whose English is way
> better than my German. The word you should have used was 'Anglicized'.
> 'Anglican' refers to the the Church of England.

I bet it was poorly anglicanized as well... ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Hahaha :-)

Post a reply to this message

You do it your own way: you digress and rant and don't pay attention tot 
eh subject but the way the subject was enunciated, that's being passive 
aggressive, so yeah.

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
> In the context in which it was originally written it was a warning that
> I had many more people on my side than the attacker had on his. It
> didn't imply physical violence.

I see.  Just in case: I wasn't implying that it did.

Post a reply to this message

I don't try in anyway to appear anything but rational, I don't know why 
people say I try to look intellectual and I use fancy words, I use the 
little English I know and words that are efficient for expressing 
ideas/meaning, if they seem intellectual well it's just expected since I 
used my intellect, what's wrong with that?

"I don't think you even understand what "argument from ignorance" means.

Did you pull a random fallacy name from your behind?" You call this 
mature? for a 10 year old, yes, this is your level of discussion and so 
my answers.

Post a reply to this message

I don't care if you're the Einstein of your profession, your logic is 
invalid, because you 2 statement in that post, the first was wrong and 
the second contradicted your first post which was ironically right, but 
contradicted yourself therefore invalidating the logic that connects the 
2 of them, so your way of thinking was more wrong that right, but you OH 
PROFESSIONAL in this, didn't even notice it, let alone bother to check 
for mistakes in your way of writing, and I'm the closed minded one? 
haha, I really don't care discussing with people like you, you have 
demonstrated on your post not to have much logic, so far the worst of 
all the posters to my posts.

Post a reply to this message

Well those other people don't use logic, don't they? and acting stupid, 
and the reason many of them don't want to admit an error, because if I 
point out that you did something wrong, I'm calling out the mistake not 
that you're a complete idiot that never does anything right, that 
implies that you either are perfect and a complete idiot and never 
nobody should even criticize you or what you do, that attitude is stupid.

Post a reply to this message

You're wrong, yes in all cases if you are being reasonable, those 2 
things are different, that non-stupid people do stupid things sometimes 
doesn't invalidate the validity of that premise.

I know, that's exactly what I implied.

And what Warp has to do with this thread? and when I called him stupid?

Post a reply to this message

I'm not saying aliens exist, so it's not an argument from ignorance, 
you're the one jumping to conclusions, the link I provided was for the 
economic conspiracy theories argument not aliens, I chained 2 different 
ideas, probably I should have made another paragraph.

In deed, but we don't know.

Well I think that Anthropic Principle is presumptuous to assume that 
we'll be the first, as humans has the habit to do so, there is not a 
philosophical but a mathematical probability of alien intelligent life, 
I don't remember what was called but the idea was take the number of 
galaxies and stars and planets around them and gave a really low 
probability by process of elimination gave you a number, it's formula, 
based on astrophysics observations, but this formula is old, so won't be 
in tune with the finding of Keppler (I think ) is the name of the 
satellite dedicated to find planets.

Post a reply to this message

I made 6 topics, that is hardly a flood, you're exaggerating. Maybe too 
much too soon for someone mostly unknown here, but I thought if anything 
they were important to spread and for others in turn.

You search discussion, I search for people to see what's wrong with the 
world so we can do something about it in the measure that our particular 
situations allow us to do.

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
> That's why I love this newsgroup. We have an amazing collection of
> logicians, mathematicians, computer scientists etc etc.
>
> John

For once, we agree.

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.09.2014 16:31, schrieb Saul Luizaga:

> Well I think that Anthropic Principle is presumptuous to assume that
> we'll be the first, as humans has the habit to do so,

The anthropic principle doen't /assume/ that. The anthropic principle is 
a simple axiom on which theories can be built; and while it may 
superficially sound like a revival of the anthropocentric view of the 
world of old times, it is an entirely scientific thing, which is in no 
way presumptuous in itself.

But it is a fully valid question to ask, "Why are we the only life form 
in the galaxy to ever leave their home world that we know of for 
certain?" And, applying occam's razor (which is a method deep in the 
heart of science), we find that the most rational, scientific answers 
are: (A) Interstellar travel is not feasible, or (B) Interstellar travel 
has not been discovered yet, by /any/ species in our galaxy whatsoever.

> there is not a
> philosophical but a mathematical probability of alien intelligent life,

And I perfectly agree with you on this one. I just consider it moot for 
our life on planet Earth, because so far the evidence that they have 
come anywhere close to us is anecdotal at best.

> I don't remember what was called but the idea was take the number of
> galaxies and stars and planets around them and gave a really low
> probability by process of elimination gave you a number, it's formula,
> based on astrophysics observations, but this formula is old, so won't be
> in tune with the finding of Keppler (I think ) is the name of the
> satellite dedicated to find planets.

There is such a formula indeed, but no need to re-tune it: The formula 
delibaretly only names the coefficients to tune, not the values - 
because virtually all of them are entirely unknown. The number of 
habitable worlds is the first one we're /starting/ to get a grasp on.

(So far, we're only able to figure out to guesstimate how many planets 
lie in the habitable region of their respective system; there are plenty 
more factors to figure out - and in various cases even start to 
understand how they may or may not affect the habitability of a world - 
before we can really put a number to this coefficient: The planet's 
gravitation, presence of water, atmospheric conditions, stability of the 
orbit, axial tilt and stability thereof, presence of a magnetic field, 
et cetera.)

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.09.2014 15:16, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> Well those other people don't use logic, don't they?

 From my point of view, they seem to be using more logic than you do.

You may have used logic /before/ posting those links, and may be willing 
to apply logic in a discussion about their content. But there's little 
evidence to me that you're open to using logic on your style of 
presenting that material.


But I guess from your point of view I'm currently ranting right now. (*)

Well, as I hinted at in my post to Stephen, you presumably haven't seen 
me in ranting mode yet. (And you also don't see me behind my keyboard, 
otherwise you'd notice that I'm perfectly calm, and have been so all 
throughout this discussion, with the exception of a few seconds after 
reading one particular of your posts; dunno which one it was.)


(* Brushing against someone emotions, aren't I? And look how this does 
not get me anywhere in trying to get my point across. The adresse just 
closes down entirely to rational arguments, even though claiming to be a 
very rational person, and maybe he is. But his emotional side gets in 
his (or, rather, my) way, and unfortunately he doesn't seem to be able 
(yet) or willing to rationally examine and/or express those emotions, to 
enable us (or, rather, me) to find a way to get my message around that 
emotional barrier.)

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.09.2014 15:11, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> I don't try in anyway to appear anything but rational, I don't know why
> people say I try to look intellectual and I use fancy words, I use the
> little English I know and words that are efficient for expressing
> ideas/meaning, if they seem intellectual well it's just expected since I
> used my intellect, what's wrong with that?
>
> "I don't think you even understand what "argument from ignorance" means.
>
> Did you pull a random fallacy name from your behind?" You call this
> mature? for a 10 year old, yes, this is your level of discussion and so
> my answers.

Um... just to avoid potential confusion that might be arising out of a 
single word here: I'm pretty sure "behind" in this context is /not/ the 
euphemistic term for the lower end of the torso, but simply the back.

Then again, maybe you know that, and consider the quote to be immature 
for other reasons.

Or maybe I'm wrong; I'm no expert in Finnish use of English language ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 27/09/2014 16:38, clipka wrote:
> Am 27.09.2014 15:16, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
>> Well those other people don't use logic, don't they?
>
>  From my point of view, they seem to be using more logic than you do.
>
> You may have used logic /before/ posting those links, and may be willing
> to apply logic in a discussion about their content. But there's little
> evidence to me that you're open to using logic on your style of
> presenting that material.
>


My tuppence worth.
There is more to life than logic. Logic may say one thing but humanity 
or morals might say another.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

I do wish you would include what you are replying to. It makes it 
difficult to keep track.

On 27/09/2014 14:23, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> You're wrong, yes in all cases if you are being reasonable, those 2
> things are different, that non-stupid people do stupid things sometimes
> doesn't invalidate the validity of that premise.
>
> I know, that's exactly what I implied.
>

I am glad that you do.

> And what Warp has to do with this thread? and when I called him stupid?


No idea now. I've lost track.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 27/09/2014 15:44, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I made 6 topics, that is hardly a flood, you're exaggerating. Maybe too
> much too soon for someone mostly unknown here, but I thought if anything
> they were important to spread and for others in turn.
>
> You search discussion, I search for people to see what's wrong with the
> world so we can do something about it in the measure that our particular
> situations allow us to do.

I would say logically you have come to the wrong place.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 28/09/2014 01:19, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/09/2014 16:38, clipka wrote:
>> Am 27.09.2014 15:16, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
>>> Well those other people don't use logic, don't they?
>>
>>  From my point of view, they seem to be using more logic than you do.
>>
>> You may have used logic /before/ posting those links, and may be willing
>> to apply logic in a discussion about their content. But there's little
>> evidence to me that you're open to using logic on your style of
>> presenting that material.
>>
> 
> 
> My tuppence worth.
> There is more to life than logic. Logic may say one thing but humanity
> or morals might say another.
> 

According to logic, the possible gain in St. Petersburg lottery is such
that you should and could play all your assets.

Yet, it's probably not the wisest move in your life. So, yes, there is
more than logic.

(Even the half-Vulcan in the movies of star-treck seems to get a bit of
it... )

-- 
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Um... just to avoid potential confusion that might be arising out of a 
> single word here: I'm pretty sure "behind" in this context is /not/ the 
> euphemistic term for the lower end of the torso, but simply the back.

> Then again, maybe you know that, and consider the quote to be immature 
> for other reasons.

> Or maybe I'm wrong; I'm no expert in Finnish use of English language ;-)

Nah, it was an euphemism for what Englishmen use the fancier word "arse".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 28.09.2014 08:45, schrieb Le_Forgeron:

> According to logic, the possible gain in St. Petersburg lottery is such
> that you should and could play all your assets.

Actually, no. While there is one short-sighted train of thoughts that, 
based on logic, would come to the conclusion that this is the case, 
there are other trains of thought that lead to a different conclusion.

Still, a healthy dose of prejudice (aka common sense) does comes in 
handy to notice that there's /something/ wrong with that short-sighted 
train of thoughts, and that you should indeed examine others.

(Also, for some nitpicking, the St. Petersburg paradox isn't about how 
much you /should/ pay for a ticket, but only how much you /could/ pay 
for one. Obviously, no matter what train of thoughts you follow, the 
amount you /should/ pay is no more than whatever the lottery decides to 
offer a ticket for.)

Post a reply to this message

On 28/09/2014 07:45, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> According to logic, the possible gain in St. Petersburg lottery is such
> that you should and could play all your assets.
>

I had not heard of  that paradox.

Good job I don't gamble.

> Yet, it's probably not the wisest move in your life. So, yes, there is
> more than logic.
>

I can see people gambling their lives for those stakes. But not money.



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 01:40:29 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> I define asshole someone that in a very unconsidered way makes fast and
> stupid judgements , and that Doctor John was 1, because I had the best
> intentions when I came here to discuss, after a long while, and to
> inform you of interesting things, and I get that attitude, at the very
> least he's being stupid IMO, but yeah, is bad for the spirit of
> conversation to actually go so negative on someone I think, rather than
> just pointing out,
> and by spirit I mean the feelings and mood.

Given the minimalist content in your postings, I wonder how you think he 
was to know what your intention was at all.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:00:13 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> If it wasn't serious, for sure wasn't indicated in anyway, and your
> fault is that that you thought I would understand it somehow even when
> you probably don't know where I'm from, and for my writing you should
> have deducted I'm not from UK/USA and not taken that ambiguous joke
> ahead.

I'm confused.

You posted several posts with no context, but expected us to extract your 
intentions from the minimal information provided.

Yet Stephen made a really clear statement about *if* you had said what 
you said to Doctor John to him, yet you failed to completely understand 
his intention was not to threaten, but to simply demonstrate that what 
you said was unacceptable.

His intent was surely clearer than yours was with your first posts.

Maybe take some time to think about that for a minute.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

> But it is a fully valid question to ask, "Why are we the only life form
> in the galaxy to ever leave their home world that we know of for
> certain?" And, applying occam's razor (which is a method deep in the
> heart of science), we find that the most rational, scientific answers
> are: (A) Interstellar travel is not feasible, or (B) Interstellar travel
> has not been discovered yet, by /any/ species in our galaxy whatsoever.

Isn't there a big assumption there that we would be able to 
notice/detect any interstellar travel anywhere in the galaxy? Or are you 
assuming that any species able to do interstellar travel would, for some 
reason, visit our solar system?

Post a reply to this message

> According to logic, the possible gain in St. Petersburg lottery is such
> that you should and could play all your assets.

Only if you fail to take into account the (extremely likely) 
consequences of not winning very much in your logic.

Post a reply to this message

On 29/09/2014 08:15, scott wrote:
>> But it is a fully valid question to ask, "Why are we the only life form
>> in the galaxy to ever leave their home world that we know of for
>> certain?" And, applying occam's razor (which is a method deep in the
>> heart of science), we find that the most rational, scientific answers
>> are: (A) Interstellar travel is not feasible, or (B) Interstellar travel
>> has not been discovered yet, by /any/ species in our galaxy whatsoever.
>
> Isn't there a big assumption there that we would be able to
> notice/detect any interstellar travel anywhere in the galaxy? Or are you
> assuming that any species able to do interstellar travel would, for some
> reason, visit our solar system?
>

I think that the crux of the matter is

>>  that we know of for certain?


With that clause we are on a hiding to nothing. :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message