Ecmandu's No Fool

Actually that’s not true Uccisore… the conditions were “if I lost the debate I’d be banned” Calling myself a moron and not worthy of posting here is LOSING THE DEBATE… that’s bannable, because I’d be admitting I was a hopeless troll and will continue to be so. If I win the debate, I prove I have something worthwhile to contribute to philosophy and still get banned. EVERYONE in the discussions forums knew this Uccisore. I PM’ed some of them, and even Carleas HIMSELF said it was a paradox. I had to be a billion times smarter than you to win this debate. That was your handicap, and whether you realized it or not, were intelligent enough or not to realize that was my ACTUAL handicap, it was my ACTUAL handicap, and all the people in discussion know it too. So you can play dumb or not. Either way, I had to outdebate you on a level so much higher than you can possibly muster that it’s absurd.

Huh. Wow, your mind is twisted up like a pretzel. Oh well, we’ll see how things go.

Read the thread for discussions Uccisore… Carleas himself called it a paradox. Read it and weep. The amount of intelligence it took to outdebate you is not a level of intelligence you possess Uccisore. And I could do it by even calling myself a fool who had nothing to contribute worthwhile to philosophy. If the paradox went over your head, it just demonstrates that EVERYONE in the discussion forums is a better philosopher than you… and without contradiction, they can all be fools.

Worst debate ever

Kropotkin

Care to elaborate?

The problem here, is the debate was about proving You were a fool. Now proving character(istics) brings in the paradox point blank. Is the proof about whether The fool is of semantics or syntax? Was the argument about whether You are, or simply acting in accordance how a fool should act. Once the

connotation serves an image of the later, You have not proved it. I am afraid that the only fool proof
way to argue that position is to make foolishness non
differentiable from a fool. Was it differentiable to the extent, as not to raise doubts as to whether You were on or the other , then the conclusion would have won
in Your favor.

Uccisore never took the debate that far… though he could have. I could have argued that the judges couldn’t judge the debate as my last card, and forced a draw. As it stands, Uccisore is against the argument that we are all fools in one way or another, and thus we are all fools. But we have specializations in the context of all being fools, and my specialization is being a better philosopher, debater and thinker than Uccisore, even though I am still a fool, by his definition, and also my later definition.

Once a fool, always a fool?

What is wisdom but the recognition of its opposite; foolishness?

If wisdom is recognition of foolishness then what better way to achieve wisdom then to recognize what is foolish?

I would argue that someone who has demonstrated wisdom has had to pass through foolishness somewhere along the way in order to recognize it. Perhaps I am limited in my sensibility by I don’t sense another way along the path to a destination of wisdom.

If the journey to wisdom must pass through foolishness; else it could not be recognized as such, is it debatable that anyone who demonstrates wisdom has not also been a fool as requirement?

The real fool is one who can not admit their path to any wisdom they might claim.
Let those without transgression be the judge. IOW: It’s a work in progress and we seen bound to a nature of making mistakes.

Yet it is not our propensity for mistake making that is the sole determination or our humanity but also our capacity to learn from them.

It seems we are quite capable of the demonstration of both concurrently, there is the old axiom that warns of being penny wise and pound foolish.

This was the other paradox, if I argued effectively that i was a fool on Uccisores terms, I’d no longer be a fool, and be banned. So I had to argue that we’re all fools with different specializations to force a draw or a win, without running into the paradox.

Edited, I wanted to make sure the whole thing was read.

Also… Carleas could just call it a draw because it is paradox.

Let me be more articulate on this… the problem of the debate may be the solution to the debate. I showed that I am both a moron and a better debater than uccisore… this means that I am not a moron… but because I proved I am not a moron, I have proven that I am also a moron. It’s the regressive form of the paradox, the context being that I didn’t want to get banned, so by proving I’m not a moron, makes me a moron as well. Thus Carleas cannot decide who won or lost, and has to call a draw. If I were the judge, knowing all the paradoxes involved, that’s how I’d judge it.

You have to know you held all the cards Ucccisore. So if this even comes to a draw, I have humiliated you, like you have humiliated so many posters on this board without warrant. You need a personality check… and the ability to be logical check. Think about it… you held every card in the deck… if i am saved, even on a draw, you are humiliated. You chose the debate, you chose the conditions… you went for the least honorable debate you could have picked, which means even if I pull a draw, you look like the asshole you deserve to look like with respect to posters on this board. And there’s ALOT of them. Maybe your just not as smart as you think you are.

One more… look at my posting history. Have I ever berated a poster as much as uccisore. NO. And the reason is not only because of uccisore’s obsession with stalking me and berating me, but his tendency to do this to other posters as well… without merit. So I took a risk, and this opportunity, to humiliate Uccisore on even terms to show him how much he’s actually stupid for doing this to us all. Think about how the other Mods show respect for their posters. And then think about Uccisore. Even if I get banned you will lose uccisore… and that’s my final revenge, everyone will know you are a sham of a Mod, and maybe you’ll act differently towards your fellow posters. That’s called a genius of game theory, of which you are not uccisore, but maybe an old dog can learn new tricks… so I leave it at that.

Entertainment value : Priceless

 You could have just used the truth instead of making up a new definition of 'fool' in an attempt to strategize your way out of honesty.   I mean, since the judge is still deliberating it's a little odd to admit that you violated the terms of the debate subject now.  If I were you, I would have waited until [i]after[/i] the decision to announce "Yeah guize, I totally ignored the definition of 'fool' stipulated for the debate in an attempt to avoid the subject and force a draw".

Carleas gave it to you… which means I’m banned. if he had given it to me, I would have been banned. I get to laugh all the way to my grave as you two ban me.

As it should be. Thanks, Carleas, I don’t disagree with much of anything you said.

 So Ecmandu, I said once before that I'm not going to ban anybody just because they lost a debate.  You never had to fear that.   But ultimately the choice is yours- you lost the debate fair and square, now, will you accept a ban as we agreed, or give me some excuse as to why it doesn't 'really count'?  If you make an excuse or ask me not to, I won't ban you- but you have to welsh out of our deal right here in front of everybody, I won't be reading any private messages.

My only argument was already submitted, it was a paradox, therefor a decision cannot be made, unless you are smarter than the paradox.

The paradox is simple:

If I argue I’m a fool (and by definition a hopeless troll), I’m not longer a fool, if you argue I’m a fool I am a fool (and by definition a hopeless troll).

If you can outsmart that paradox, you can ban me.