You know, it's funny. I take a break from this thread for a couple of weeks, then come back to find Bubba still pushing exactly the same nonsense that wasn't cutting it a couple of weeks ago. On top of that, he makes the following hugely ironic demand:
I know, simply mind-boggling isn't it? This is why I've come to the conclusion that Bubb is just a boring troll who has made up OS012 simply as a talking (trolling) point. I cannot honestly imagine that anyone could really believe everything that he writes, nobody could be that stupid. But, then again, the world is an amazing place. Perhaps in a world so diverse, people as honestly daft as Bubb will crop up every now and then. Who knows? More to the point, who cares? If Bubb want's to continue flogging his dead-horse ideas then I hope it makes him happy, his persistant idiocies are just irritating to everyone else.
Please note exhibit B, Flim, who uses rhetoric to 'frame' the environment of the discussion.
Does Flim bother to give any argument?
In response to:Your contradiction comes in here, so please pay attention. If there is a distinction, then they are not the same thing, if you argue there is no distinction, then the statement "AJ is a woman" is also an objectively false statement as well as an objective statement.
They can be the same thing but they are not necessarily the same thing, specifying a statement as objectively false, is just a more precise definition than specifying it as objective.
Yet a statement can be stated as 'objective', and true is naturally inferred in common usage, and NO adjective is neccesary. Yet in common usage, objectively false can NEVER be summed without 'objective' as an adjective.
This rediculous comment only holds if objectively false is a transient verb. Adverbs holding nouns to define the direction of the verb is very irrelevant to this discussion. Nothing removes both nouns and verbs from needing each other in statements, and transient verbs do not contradict this, rather, simply gives this relationship a new form.
You can define objective however you want, your usage is acceptable in rules of grammar in bivalent logic operations. However, that is not what this argument is about. This argument is about MY usage of objective/subjective, and I am addressing claims that my usage is NOT in step with COMMON USAGE. Since my definitions are indeed CONSISTANT with the first and second definitions of Objective given in the dictionary, and yours are consistant with the FIFTH definition given, which produce contradictions with possibly the first and definatly the second, I therefore state that any argument against my usage as 'narrow' is false, misleading, misinformed, and misguided.
OBJECTIVE
(I am in harmony with these meanings)
1.) Of or having to do with a material object.
2.)Having actual existence or reality.
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See synonyms at fair1.
3.)Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
(you are in harmony with this meaning, and are struggling with the contradictions)
5. Grammar
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
Please stop boring me with your tired argument. Transient or intransient verbs hardly build a case for you, and I dont see them mentioned in the 5 usage of objective in the dictionary.
You know, it's funny. I take a break from this thread for a couple of weeks, then come back to find Bubba still pushing exactly the same nonsense that wasn't cutting it a couple of weeks ago. On top of that, he makes the following hugely ironic demand:
One would think that his uniform inability to convince anyone that he's onto something special would say something about his OS 012 thing. Perhaps he thinks he needs to re-tool either his approach or his system.
Or perhaps he just intends to win using the old argument from inundation.
EXACTLY. That's my point. Stating "AJ is a dumptruck" holds tautologically true form, however, it's content is false.
You can define objective however you want, your usage is acceptable in rules of grammar in bivalent logic operations. However, that is not what this argument is about. This argument is about MY usage of objective/subjective, and I am addressing claims that my usage is NOT in step with COMMON USAGE. Since my definitions are indeed CONSISTANT with the first and second definitions of Objective given in the dictionary, and yours are consistant with the FIFTH definition given, which produce contradictions with possibly the first and definatly the second, I therefore state that any argument against my usage as 'narrow' is false, misleading, misinformed, and misguided.
OBJECTIVE
(I am in harmony with these meanings)
1.) Of or having to do with a material object.
2.)Having actual existence or reality.
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See synonyms at fair1.
3.)Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
(you are in harmony with this meaning, and are struggling with the contradictions)
5. Grammar
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
You know, it's funny. I take a break from this thread for a couple of weeks, then come back to find Bubba still pushing exactly the same nonsense that wasn't cutting it a couple of weeks ago. On top of that, he makes the following hugely ironic demand:
I think I got too caught up in this thread before, and I probably should've realized the style of argumentation that BF is using about ten pages before I did.
I have outlined my style of argument in the plainest of language, it's called three value dialectic, which you still fail to frame properly in your mind.
'dear readers'? more damage control ala Zaay? I enjoy how all the readers are 'gentle' and 'dear' when damage control is being introduced as a political manipulation of reality. How about ' dear comrades' next time? It adds some pop.
that BF often makes claims, retracts them, then advances them again when it is convenient to do so.
For example, he was claiming early on (and recently) that objective=true and subjective=false. When I (and others) called him on this, he claimed that false=false and subjective=objectively false (?), but somehow subjective != false. When it was pointed out that this is a contradiction... well, he seems to have ignored it.
subjective does equal or infer to false relative to it's objective coupling. I have ignored nothing, and your not being honest here.
You may also notice that BF is using a lot of weasel language. He is now bringing words like "harmonious" into the discussion in an attempt to explain how beauty is objective.
beau·ty
n., pl. -ties.
1. The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality.
2. One that is beautiful, especially a beautiful woman.
har·mo·ny
n., pl. -nies.
1. Agreement in feeling or opinion; accord: live in harmony.
2. A pleasing combination of elements in a whole: color harmony; the order and harmony of the universe. See synonyms at proportion.
har·mo·ni·ous
adj.
1. Exhibiting accord in feeling or action.
2. Having component elements pleasingly or appropriately combined: a harmonious blend of architectural styles.
sym·me·try
n., pl. -tries.
1. Exact correspondence of form and constituent configuration on opposite sides of a dividing line or plane or about a center or an axis. See synonyms at proportion.
2. A relationship of characteristic correspondence, equivalence, or identity among constituents of an entity or between different entities: the narrative symmetry of the novel.
3. Beauty as a result of balance or harmonious arrangement.
Sorry to see you have joined Zaay in manipulating and decieving others, I didnt expect that from you.
However, the introduction of such a vague, hazy word does not clarify discussion, it obfuscates it. He is equivocating the meanings of various words (especially "objective") and paving over subtleties in both language and philosophy.
gee, like you here in this post trying to belittle me? you statement is FALSE, I tease people when they ad hom. On a few occasions, such as wayne, I have overstepped my boundries, but I also apologize.
Although I can't see his posts directly, I notice from quotes that he's still claiming Z is displaying "magical thinking" for, as far as I can tell, disagreeing with him.
Incorrect, I am saying Zaay is using magical thinking because Zaay is repeating arguments over and over without arguing them, and then assumes that is what makes them true, that people say them.
According to Zaay, this community holds the same viability as a peer reviewed process in academia.
So BF isn't here to debate, discuss, or enhance his theories; he's here to preach the gospel of OS 012. The volume of responses he posts alone make it difficult to carry on a concentrated discussion.
Jonny, you are being intellectually dishonest. You LEFT TWICE our rational discussion the very second you could not further argue or rationalize your argument.
I am here to share what I understand. You are here to share what you understand. I am no more preaching than you, anyone here, or James Randi.
Remember, according to him no one understands his theories, and yet he can perfectly understand theirs.
This is not true. There are MANY people who understand this theory. there are also many here who simply DONT understand my arguments because my arguments are in three values, and you cant frame three values inside of two values consistantly, with or without Boolean.
Which is funny, coming from someone that doesn't understand the distinction between objective and subjective in philosophy and is now desperately trying to salvage that chestnut without having to admit he was wrong in the first place.
You are again being quite deceptive and misleaing. There is no contradiction to my meanings in philosophy, indeed, philosophy tends to support my meanings.
YOUR meanings, however, of objective, are NOT in accordance with philosophy, but rather GRAMMAR, and I have already argued and shown that beyond all reasonable argument.
You LEFT that discussion, and now you are trickling back in here trying to damage control, and that is very manipulative of you.
Your a disappointment here. Until this, you were the one exception to this community.
One would think that his uniform inability to convince anyone that he's onto something special would say something about his OS 012 thing. Perhaps he thinks he needs to re-tool either his approach or his system.
I'm not trying to convince you, I am trying to find if your arguments HOLD VALIDITY. If they hold validity, then they can advance through rational discussion.
They obviously CAN'T.
You want to believe your failed arguments? be my guest. I dont care what anyone here believes, i only care if what they believe holds TRUE objectivity.
Or perhaps he just intends to win using the old argument from inundation.
Notice this portion, under Symmetry in Aesthetics:
To summarize: appreciation of symmetries is subjective; therefore, beauty as defined by symmetry (since defining it as PERFECT symmetry is nonsense, unless only spheres are beautiful) is SUBJECTIVE.
This thread is a continuation of ONE discussion which began in Oct, early Nov of 06. The arguments and strategy for discussion have succesfully stayed consistant and advancing for over 130 pages of dialogue with close to 50 participants.
After 51 pages of exchange of ideas, NO ONE other than Rome accepts OS012 as valid, and Rome refuses to accept it as invalid, or make any changes.
Who cares about opinion? That doesnt makes something true, and this is magical thinking. I could go to a Christian Forum and argue for Evolution succesfully, and most likely no one would think my arguments are valid there either.
I came to a community of fundamentalist DISbelievers, and I'm not trying to alter YOUR beliefs, rather, I am trying to establish what is OBJECTIVe in them.
hardly much
After 51 pages of dialectic, Rome has refused to alter any of his comments or concepts, even after being shown innumerable times that many of his core concepts are founded on misconception, poor grasp of language, weak logic skills, etc.
This is magical thinking, deceptive, misleading. This is a flat out lie. There have been no inconsistancies stated that have been able to advance in argument, rather, there has been only statements that I am inconsistant.
There are NO facts to back up this assertion.
OS012 has failed to adapt to include the argument, and has failed to bring both sides of the discussion into agreement.
If there is disagreement here, then it can be resolved in honest tit for tat, if there is dishonest communication, then the manipulators will be unable to maintain their truth values in the discussion.
Rome has further failed to demonstrate how a system which can only deal with subjective statements is an objective system.
You have failed to define what a 'knowledge value' is outside of your wiccan belief system.
He has failed to demonstrate the mathematical validity of the 0,1,2 system, and has failed to address many related mathematical issues. He has succeded, though perhaps unintentionally, in exposing his adoration of numerology OVER mathematics.
This is magical thinking, deceptive, manipulative, simply a flat out lie. There are no mathematical arguments against OS 012 that can be presented by either Zaay (of course, he is a occultist who practices subjective mystical sciences) or Jonny.
Rome asked others not to conflate idea with person, and shortly thereafter, proceeded to do so himself, repeatedly. Rome asked others to refrain from ad-hom, insult, etc - while himself using ad-hom and insult heavily.
Rome has referred to OS012 as 'open source', but refuses to release details that might prove useful in the application of OS012 (as this thread demonstrates, the system as currently revealed is useless) on the grounds that a commercial venture of some sort is underway.
This is magical thinking, deceptive, manipulative, simply a flat out lie.
Rome has demonstrated lack of ability in reading comprehension, basic logic, reason, mathematics, politics, religion, cultural awareness, aesthetics, physics, law, research methods, and probably a few others as well.
This is magical thinking, deceptive, manipulative, simply a flat out lie.
Rome continues to make vile ad-hom attacks against me, though I have him on ignore. (If the rest of you feel he crosses the line with his insults, please feel free to report him on my behalf; since I haven't personally witnessed his childish insults, I won't make the report)
I define 'satanism' as using occult understanding to reverse reality, stating tall is short, beauty is ugly, war is peace.
And in this definition, you are practicing Satanism.
At this point, the thread is basically dead. Rome is apparently either too ignorant/delusional to realize he's been defeated, soundly, or is too stubborn to ever concede even the smallest defeat. Sound logical argument after sound logical argument fail to have any impact on him, as he either ignores them, or fails to understand them, or simply refuses to accept them.
This is magical thinking, deceptive, manipulative, simply a flat out lie.
From this point forward, any posts will either be by Rome himself, desperately and stubbornly attempting to save face and get in the last word (thereby declaring victory); by newbies who either foolishly think he can bring Rome around, or who honestly don't get it yet; by existing discussion participants who are too stubborn to let go; and by those still playing Mornington Crescent.
If anyone's interested, I started a much better thread on Beauty in the R&P section, where we've had many excellent replies relating to the subjective nature of beauty and its relation to objective qualities.
Good luck with your drivel. Better to start a seperate discussion, since your arguments here fail to advance rationally.
I hope this means that you are finally leaving? I mean, you keep saying that you are, but you still come back.
Please just stay away. Your irrational, a liar, a practicing occultist who admittadly likes to manipulate people, i.e. you have a sociopathic personality disorder, and the less I have people like you around, the better.
BF
Bubblefish, this is another call for civility. Stop personalizing the issues.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Patricio Elicer
This thread has demonstrated the failings of OS012 and the weaknesses of Rome's thinking abilities admirably.
After 51 pages of exchange of ideas, NO ONE other than Rome accepts OS012 as valid, and Rome refuses to accept it as invalid, or make any changes. After 51 pages of dialectic, Rome has refused to alter any of his comments or concepts, even after being shown innumerable times that many of his core concepts are founded on misconception, poor grasp of language, weak logic skills, etc.
To be honest I'm not so sure even he thinks it's valid. It's certainly clear that he doesn't understand most of what he writes - which has in large part been plagiarised from other sources and butchered into his posts.
Having witnessed him at Badscience and looked at his other efforts previously at Jref I can't see how anyone can conclude he's anything other than an attention seeking troll. Every thread he starts goes the same way and his insulting behaviour is so predictable.
The only thing I don't understand is why the mods on this forum are happy to tolerate his antics, which are often quite spiteful and insulting, yet they chastise anyone else for pointing them out. I suspect it's because Bubblefish doesn't actually use "rude" words, which we know is the most heinous crime one could commit. You can't call a spade a spade because the spade, or some nosey parker on the other side of the world, might be offended!
As a complete system, OS 012 cannot be defeated in rational discussion. It is, however, ALWAYS IMPERFECT, and thus pliable to update any 'wrong' thing that it contains.
Again, you fail to consider the REAL argument.
Everyone that acknowledges that "x's truth is unknown at present" is really using OS 012, etc.
Please just stay away. Your irrational, a liar, a practicing occultist who admittadly likes to manipulate people, i.e. you have a sociopathic personality disorder, and the less I have people like you around, the better.
It's funny though because the description you have written describes you to a tee. Nevertheless, I have reported you to the moderator for your persistent vile attacks on other forum members who just happen to disagree with you.
And the reason you are unable to frame my argument in your mind is because my argument is structured in three values, and you percieve things in two values. As long as you do, it is utterly impossible to percieve a three value argument, you havent a hope in the world.
Has anyone noticed how Bubblefish is rehashing everyone else's words as if they were his own, at ever more frequent intervals, and how his posts are becoming more manic?
No, you would have elephantitis, and have proportions which are ASSYMETRICAL to beauty.
Radial Symmetry, like Geometric Symmetry, is not the sole definition of 'symmetry', rather symmetry, indeed, perfect symmetry is beuaty, who hold symmetry to extend to all planes and axises relative to FORM.
Again, are you going to argue with science and math now? A computer can correctly pick a beautiful face. This is impossible if beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
