No, I asked what am I going to say next. I didn't want more proof that Minerva Phoenix is Jesus incarnate.
No, I asked what am I going to say next. I didn't want more proof that Minerva Phoenix is Jesus incarnate.
Unfortunately this isn't a sentence.Quote:
Your entire response was expected because when you act arrogant and know it all.
Could you please reply to post 60.
you're asking me what you are going to say next....
I did reply to post 60, just read what is written already.
It is made of tiny skyscrapers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
that has to be the most funny thing you have ever said. I love you.Quote:
It is made of tiny skyscrapers.
There is nothing in post 62 pertaining to post 60 considering that post 62 originally came before post 60 anyway. Just respond to the second point if you want, that's what I'm most interested in.
ok fine I will more or less repeat myself.
Spod is made up of the letters s p o d. It does exist.Quote:
Ok, I've invented a new object, called a spod. A spod is a flying purple teapot. Just because there is a word for spod, it doesn't mean that spods exist.
Both is true. Both can't be truth. That's not a paradox. You just can't understand how it's possible. That makes it a paradox for you not me.Quote:
There is a spod on your desk in this time and this space.
There is not a spod on your desk in this time and this space.
Paradox. These things can both be expressed, but they cannot both be true.
I am wrong. You are right. I already told you that is part of my philosophy whatever you believe. The reason I win. Is because you disagree with me. Not because I disagree with you.
that doesn't mean subjective truth is non existent. I am living proof.Quote:
Meaningless words. Does nothing at all to adress the infallable non-existence of subjective truth.
Troll.
Yeah, troll. Stuff this.
Brilliant argumentation. "Troll." Now let's further examine this.
The first qualification [1] is posting irrelevant or off-topic messages. This is Minervas Phoenix' topic about Minervas Philosophy. So therefore, it is impossible for Minervas Phoenix to go off-topic, or post off-topic messages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
The second qualification [2] would be having the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response. But how can you be tricked into an emotional response, if at the start of the topic, you already have been warned it's impossible to beat Minervas Philosophy. If you do insist on trying to beat it, and you end up being emotionally hurt, this is not her fault, because she has warned you, this is entirely your own decision. If you didn't want to get emotionally hurt, you shouldn't have entered an argument in the first place. You were warned. "Minvervas Philosophy is your worst nightmare and you can't beat."
The third qualification [3] is disrupting on-topic discussion. This is Minervas Philosophy topic, so it is impossible for Minervas Phoenix to say anything at all that would not belong to Minervas Philosophy.
Now, let's assume all my arguments are false.
Let's assume Minervas Phoenix is a troll. How exactly does that make Minervas Phoenix' arguments go away?
Does posting off-topic messages make an argument invalid?
Does trying to bait a user into an emotional responce make an argument invalid?
Does disrupting on-topc discussion make an argument invalid?
Furthermore, by claiming Minervas Phoenix is a troll, you meet qualification [1] posting irrelevant off-topic messages. You also meet qualification [2] trying to bait Minervas Phoenix into an emotional respone, and you also meet qualification [3] disrupting on-topic discussion. Therefore, according to the definition, you are being the troll.
Your odd sentence structure, lack of consistent grammar and abundance of spelling mistakes makes me think of what Leo Volont would have been if he had no eloquence whatsoever. And I'm even less inclined to read your posts than I was inclined to read his (sorry, His).
In order to get a point across, you at least need to know how to successfully render it in language, in this case the English language, without sounding like a semi-literate berk.
So who are you talking to anyway?
And whats the relation between spelling/grammar and philosophy? How does incorrect spelling make an argument invalid? Please do enlighten me.
Identity X I don't know why you are picking on Chayba's grammer maybe that is all you can do rather than think rationally about it. Your just like the others that feel a need to insult rather than think.
Oh so he's talking to me? Well, english is only my third language... ofcourse I make spelling mistakes and gramatical errors. Even you do. You're a native english speaker and you made a spelling mistake in your post.. lol.
Leo Volont claimed he was male. So it's His. And I was picking on your grammar, not Chayba's.
No I didn't. You made me doubt myself so I've passed it through aspell with no difficulty (it doesn't like Volont and berk, for good reason).Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
Isn't it a bit silly to comment on someones spelling, when in the same post you also make a spelling mistake? How is this even relevant to the topic?
edit: ok if you claim you do not make any spelling mistakes or grammatical errors, why do you edit your posts? busted. =P
Just ignore it. It's off topic
Read the post above. There was no such mistake. It is relevant because Minerva is proposing an argument he claims is infallible, and with a claim like that she should do her best to render it in clear, confident and efficient manner, and structure her replies in the same way. As she hasn't, it has damaged my perception of her argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
I removed a segment that was perfectly well written, but which I did not feel added to the argument. For the latter posts, I've added more quotes, like the one above, as I see them in order to meet the need to reply them without double posting. "Busted", indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
Anyway, I am not the one making an "unbeatable" argument, so I needn't so be careful with my language as Minerva needs to be.
Wow, have a freaking medal. You've disrailed my argument away from it's initial point: Minerva should communicate more clearly in order for her argument to be successful, not that I should have perfect use of pronouns. Anyway, just so happens that "he" is gender neutral, so... :P (but even I can't argue that it is suitable in this case)Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
Bla bla bla. I just skimmed through that but it was all nonsense and wrong. It becomes pretty obvious that a person is a troll when they start making ridiculous arguments likeQuote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
Nobody, not even an insane person, could say something so phenomenally stupid. This person is clearly just posting to piss people off.Quote:
Spod is made up of the letters s p o d. It does exist.
Constantly saying that people are idiots and come nowhere close to their intellect is another thing. Stuff like this,
is not serious. Get with it.Quote:
This was very easy for me because I am a hardcore philosopher.
"It's wrong" is not an argument, try again. Neither is "bla bla bla" btw.
Haha, so you're actually saying you wanted me to argue back with you when you accused me of being a troll, instead of ignoring you? Have you completely lost the plot?
Seriously, way to dig yourself into deep hole of hypocrisy, Chayba. No, I'm not going to get into an immature little bitch fight about trolling with you, no matter how much you want it, sorry.
His point is, you are not your nose, you are all of your parts, not only your nose. Actually that last sentence DISPROVES your stance, because if your nose was you, it could operate on its own, because its you. Without the rest of you, the nose would decay and die...however you can continue to live without a nose, albeit less happily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
But I digress, back to reality having no cause, it is possible if our universe is in truth the kind that continually expands and contracts and gravity eventually overcomes the acceleration we see now. If this is so, then it could be doing that infinitely.
What about Ringo Starr?Quote:
His point is, you are not your nose, you are all of your parts, not only your nose.
You just did. lol. =O And no, I was only saying you do never bring any arguments into the arguing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei