Ecmandu's No Fool

Actually, you’re wrong James. Scientific induction isn’t the same as logical induction (which is generalizing specifics). Scientific induction is making general conclusions from particular examples.
Science doesn’t claim deductive certainty, nor do you have to be deductively certain in causal relationships to notice them and point them out.

But yea, I agree that’s very un-moderator-like behavior by Uccisore, though I assume it was after being frustrated with Ecmandu, still, that’s not much of an excuse. Then again, I personally don’t care about such trivial insults.

Oh, I was just trying to be in the spirit of the Rant House where the conversation happened. Did James not mention that part?  He stepped into an Ecmandu thread that he apparently hadn't read very attentively (and who can blame him) to say I was wrong about a bunch of stuff. We had a couple exchanges, sort of like yours above where you explain to him what induction is, and instead of him disagreeing with me like a normal person and maybe citing something, he starts calling me - literally- a liar and a moron. So I told him to fuck off as quoted above.  He followed me around for a little while, posting trash in threads I was active in, then he seemed to get tired of it. Figured that was that.

“Scientific induction” doesn’t have anything to do with anything. Couldn’t you find something real to dispute?

The argument was about whether there could exist any sound DEDUCTIVE argument concerning “concrete” objects.

And there you go lying again.
What the hell is the matter with you, son.

Pointing out a lie and explaining why it is a lie, is NOT “calling someone a liar”. Is that too much for your intellectual capacity to handle … making me wonder if I should have really called you a moron.

You certainly seem to have fallen into inventing excuses for your poor behavior.

I suspect you argued with PK for too long. Academic debating is very different than political debating.
… and it is a bit disturbing that you are looking for a relationship. :confused:

lol

But I am any suggestions?

But having said all of this, I still stand by the highest priority issue when it comes to moderating. With one minor caveat, Uccisore does NOT abuse his authority, regardless of what else he might do. That caveat being that Uccisore does not weigh into his choices and manners of speech the inherent fear of abuse from strangers. Being a moderator automatically limits what can be freely said, either by self-restraint or by causing the audience to leave and/or get indignant and misunderstanding

Well… I have this to say…

Why I didn’t lose the debate with Uccisore…

…and was banned for no reason other than Uccisore’s ego.

I soundly made the point that I had no original (worthwhile) ideas and was a fool, arguing effectively, that the worthwhile is the new, and in doing so, judged us all as fools. Uccisore debated the negative that I was making a contribution to philosophy as an example of what not to do, but he did not debate that I was a fool. When, however suggesting I made no worthwhile contributions to philosophy, arguing the negative, he failed to appreciate that my lack of originality must be original in order for his debate to stick (a self contradiction). And he ran into a paradox by calling me a fool who contributed to philosophy by being a fool, and rendered himself incapable of judging his own debate (and Carleas for that matter). If I contributed to philosophy as a fool, then I am no longer a fool, because of my contribution to philosophy. So, at a minimum, it was a draw, which is what I was trying to force because of the innate paradox of the debate.

I was also banned for no reason:

The exchange of my banning went like this:

Ecmandu wrote:

If I argue I’m a fool (and by definition a hopeless troll), I’m no 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.

Uccisore wrote: "Appropriate that your last post is another non-answer.

Someone who admits they are a fool is still a fool. They’re just an honest one.

Goodbye."

I respond: "Someone who is a fool cannot know whether they are or are not a fool by definition, if they call themselves a fool, they are no longer a fool, and he completely ignored the paradox. You have an asshole for a moderator, or someone with severe mental disturbance, look at his subsequent exchange with James (where he decided to “play the role of rant” in the rant house, even though most people int he rant house don’t actually rant, which says more about Uccisore’s personality than other posters on this board). I submit that my ban be undone, and I think it was cowardly of you to not take the paradox into account in your judgement. On that merit, I outdebated Uccisore into a draw.

Also =) Per the conditions of the debate, Uccisore set it up so that I had to argue that I was an absolute fool, because he never used the term in a relative sense, which means I wasn’t allowed to debate at all, which would show me to not be an absolute fool, but if I did debate, in order to be an absolute fool, I cannot win the debate without losing the debate. The only possible way this could be argued is the way I argued it, was that we are all absolute fools in some ways and not others… from which we can judge foolishness. Otherwise, in order for me to be an absolute fool, everyone reading the debate has to also be an absolute fool and incapable of judging the debate… so by judging the debate, you showed yourselves to be absolute fools, and by banning me, you showed yourselves to be absolute fools, if you didn’t judge the debate, you’d still be absolute fools. Which means, that I was correct, that we are all fools in one way or another, perhaps in an absolute sense, without the capacity for insight to pull ourselves out of it, contrary to what Uccisore said about the “honest fool that admits they’re a fool”, a contradiction in terms. I was banned on a contradiction. The debate was absurd, and we all demonstrated that banning me was foolish… given the absurdity of the debate. The judges (you and Uccisore) would not have been fools by saying the debate was too absurd to be judged, and you’d still have your ego’s intact to this regard. As it stands, you both revealed yourselves to be fools, and you made me look like the only non-fool in the debate, which means that you conceded the debate to me, even though I argued I was a fool, you both admitted that you were fools incapable of judging and that I was a fool or non-fool capable of judging even though I said i was incapable of it.

I remember the post… the question is whether I lost the debate… the debate was set up so that if I won or lost I’d be banned, so I had to show that it was incapable of being judged to not be banned, but before doing this, I wanted to show that I could win the debate… There was no point for me to go after Uccisore’s weak points because he only argued contribution to philosophy, and he argued “fool” (not non-fool), in the context of lack of contribution to philosophy (my contribution to philosophy)… this was the entire structure of his debate. I even said in the debate that I could prove it couldn’t be judged if Uccisore took it in that direction… well, after the debate ended, and you made your ruling, Uccisore took it in that direction by asking if I had any further defense, and instead of acknowledging the paradox, IRRATIONALLY banned me. I made both arguments he only made one, I won the debate.

One thing Uccisore likes to do is to move threads to rant so he can abuse posters and if he thinks the thread might embarrass him, saying he “only plays the role of rant”, but most people in rant aren’t actually ranting, so this speaks more to Uccisores personality than the board at large.

I’m looking at debating Carleas about a topic that could be of interest.

Oh no, no. Carleas will be even more belligerent than Ussi.

I thought one of the primary requirements of debating is to keep a cool head. Once You bring emotion and ego into it the rationales get skewed.

That hasn’t been my impression of Carleas so far… I e-mailed him to undo the ban and he’s been perfectly polite. He thinks that while the topics of debate may be interesting (he suggested it), there’s not enough room in debate forum to actually sink our teeth into these topics. He wanted to debate me on the phrase I have in my signature about conspicuous consumption, and then I offered to raise the stakes by including that debate within the larger debate that I’m the first person who earned the right to live on earth =) Either way, he thinks it might take too much space for us to barely touch upon these topics in the context of the debate chamber.

Everyone knows that women are money grubbers who get wet at the sight of green paper and conspicuous consumption. That’s not the debate. The debate that its childish to believe that you can get the entire worlds male population to change their sexual behavoirs. You said through brainwashing them on TV? Good luck with that, the modern agenda is brainwashing them in opposite direction, I believe it’s called female empowerment (empowerment of women to rob men blind and not feel bad about it.) Also this current agenda seems to want to reduce the amount of male flirting (which is part of your plan) but theres a catch, they also want to turn women into asexual man-fearing lesbians (not part of your plan.) My guess is that this is a damage control for getting stupid people to stop reproducing, however said methods of brainwashing actually are not comprehended by the lower end of the populace, which continue to reproduce like rabbits. Essentially their methods castrate the middle class and do nothing to curb the population rates of the stupid people.

Also your second argument defeats itself. You said men not getting laid enough is the cause of the world’s problems. Then you said the 1% get laid all the time. But the 1% are also the cause of most of the world’s problems.

Your argument defeats itself.

I don’t know why you’re trying to debate this with me here… but sexual stratification causes problems, and the distribution of motivational systems in particular ways causes problems… none of which this “argument defeats itself” addressed. Anyways, we’ll see what Carleas has to say… we may be able to find a narrow enough topic to debate if he’s still interested, he did offer after all.

I’ve found him extremely congenial in my exchange with him while I was banned, and also pretty sharp.

I didn’t say that he isn’t polite and corgial, on the contrary. I said that you will never, ever be allowed to “win” any debate, regardless of topic, with him. I know from years of experience wherein I had to give up being nice and just nail him without mercy … and even then, he merely went away, never admitting defeat (banned by emotion).

Don’t get me wrong. I like Carleas for other reasons. I support his efforts. But “debate him” - “WTFF?”

Yeah… he did mention that he never loses debates with a bit of a smirk in his writing.

I seem to recall you owing me a response on the Blue Eye Problem… :-"

Memory of convenience on your part. =;

The resultant issue was that I asked you a simple critical question at least twenty times. And in every case, you just dodged, refusing to answer it. We went to private so as to not make everyone else have to watch us bantering back and forth with the exact same question over and over. At one point, I had even listed the number of times I had already asked it. In private that number doubled. #-o

You were very guilty of contempt of court.
Fortunately for you there was no court judge involved.

Of course it causes problems, that’s common knowledge. Your argument was that it was the source of all problems, and fixing it would save the world. A ridiculous assertion, seen as how fixing it would not change the attitudes of the 1 percent, the retards who run things.

You’re really going to argue that if you change motivational systems it won’t fix all our problems? You are neither great nor wise. Oh, and you didn’t create this species either, and to quote you in the other thread… you’re the internet scourge, not me.