Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

as mentioned, there simply ARE no further rationalizations at this point against my argument of objective/subjective. I submit as clear evidence the simple inability for anyone to maintain a rational tit for tat on the matter as proof.

This discussion is apparently coming to it's close, with the exception of Wayne, all rebuttals have been addressed, refutted, and my arguments have continued, are still present, and are much more refined having gone through this process. I am refreshed and able to maintain my arguments consistantly inside of tit for tat, and my exhausted opponents seem unable to find the rationalizations in thier arguments for them to continue.

 

[WWHP]

and as a final overture to Jimbob and Taffer, Zaay and Yaffle, and in accordance with all standard rules and regulations, I have overflapped, and thus do declare

Mornington Crescent

 

[jimbob]

They can be subjective or objective.

There are four options : (the initials are obvious)


TO, FO
TS, FS

agreed, and then there are the statements whose distinction you cannot tell, which gives you actually five options from a ternary framework

If you agree eiith this then you accept that there is True-Subjective and False-Objective.

What is your point and what are wou gaining by attempting to confuse those with any values in your system?

Where does TS fit in?

What about FO*?

*Many people I can think of, if asked what they think about BS123 would answer "FO".

Lets try it.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

and as a final overture to Jimbob and Taffer, Zaay and Yaffle, and in accordance with all standard rules and regulations, I have overflapped, and thus do declare

Mornington Crescent

Mornington Crescent? From Bank? On a saturday without the Sherrin clause having been invoked exactly 3 moves previously?

Now we know for sure you are delusional!

 

[Professor Yaffle]

as mentioned, there simply ARE no further rationalizations at this point against my argument of objective/subjective. I submit as clear evidence the simple inability for anyone to maintain a rational tit for tat on the matter as proof.

This discussion is apparently coming to it's close, with the exception of Wayne, all rebuttals have been addressed, refutted, and my arguments have continued, are still present, and are much more refined having gone through this process. I am refreshed and able to maintain my arguments consistantly inside of tit for tat, and my exhausted opponents seem unable to find the rationalizations in thier arguments for them to continue.

I find it interesting you are choosing to leave this discussion just when, blah, blah, blah.... obviously this is because yawn, yawn.... I therefore declare Mornington Crescent to be the master meme!

PS don't you just love refutting those arguements?

 

[Mojo]

No, he's now claiming that it is both objective and subjective.

That has always been my claim

This implies, of couse, that a statement about beauty can be true for all viewpoints but not true for some viewpoints, and bingo, Rome has produced yet another contradiction.

Hardly, it means that beauty is not only a subjective experience, as when my eyes gaze on AJ's beauty and wonder, but also relates to something external and existing independent of my wonder, which is symmetry of features. When I gaze at a truly beautiful woman, there is a harmony of objective and subjective occuring in unison.

No, it's a contradiction. "Objective" means the same from all viewpoints, "subjective" means not the same from all viewpoints. If you claim that something can be both objective and subjective then you are claiming that subjective = not subjective.

That is a contradiction: the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[Mojo]

I find it interesting you are choosing to leave this discussion just when, blah, blah, blah.... obviously this is because yawn, yawn.... I therefore declare Mornington Crescent to be the master meme!

I must say that on the basis of the evidence presented in this thread, MC 123 seems to be far more logical, consistent and useful than OS 012.

 

[sinnikal]

Making the move from Bank to Mornington Crescent without regard to any invocation of the Sherrin clause, reveals that there has been some more serious wiki magpie-ing going on. Particularly as you missed the hidden Rushton.
Bubb Sir, you are undone!
As on so many occasions in the past.

 

[WWHP]

If you agree eiith this then you accept that there is True-Subjective and False-Objective.

Yes, I agree with that, and you spelled with as 'eiith'. Isnt that the sloppy writing/thinking issue you addressed earlier?

What is your point and what are wou gaining by attempting to confuse those with any values in your system?

This question makes absolutly no sense to me, please resubmit.

Where does TS fit in?

Angelina Jolie friggin rocks my boat, that's where it comes in.

What about FO*?

Angelina Jolie is Kensington Palace

*Many people I can think of, if asked what they think about BS123 would answer "FO".

BS123 probably is "FO". OS 012, however, is "OT"

 

[WWHP]

Mornington Crescent? From Bank? On a saturday without the Sherrin clause having been invoked exactly 3 moves previously?

Now we know for sure you are delusional!

You apparently havent heard of the Brakster Decision, which is considered final by all Master Players. There is, however, a dissenting opinion from grunt players, but this is hardly considered worth any game value, for the grunt players have still not allowed for the Rockington strategy, and thus have formed a small school all of thier own.

 

[WWHP]

No, it's a contradiction. "Objective" means the same from all viewpoints, "subjective" means not the same from all viewpoints. If you claim that something can be both objective and subjective then you are claiming that subjective = not subjective.

That is a contradiction: the two are mutually exclusive.

They are mutually distinctive, they are not mutually exclusive, you cannot have one of them without the other.

Angelina Jolie looks like Angelina Jolie to all points of view. All points of view can agree she has what can be considered beautiful and symmetrical features. Each point of view has a subjective reaction to those features, and that is the subjective working inside of the objective.

They are only contradictory to the confused mind that misplaces them where they do not belong.

 

[WWHP]

Making the move from Bank to Mornington Crescent without regard to any invocation of the Sherrin clause, reveals that there has been some more serious wiki magpie-ing going on. Particularly as you missed the hidden Rushton.
Bubb Sir, you are undone!
As on so many occasions in the past.

Yes, I agree, you have attempted to 'undo' this using the same imaginary rules all along.

This discussion is virtually closed, Sinnikal. The bad science crowd could not keep a competing truth value in continued reciprocal discussion. Thus, you only contribution from this point on is purely for the sake of entertainment and frivolous commentary.

If I am somehow mistaken, then you can simply address the critical argument you 'feel' that I have missed, and we can tit for tat from there.

 

[WWHP]

And the number one Mystical Argument against objective beauty goes to, Zaay!

For example, if no one is present to observe a sunrise, the sunrise simply cannot be beautiful, since it was unobserved.

If no one is present to observe 'sunrise', then there is no 'sunrise', there is only mystery, which is beautiful. Even sunrise itself as a term is highly subjective, as it means that the sun is rising! What poor objective analysis is that? The sun does not rise, or set, or do anything at all, except what suns do. If there is a point of view observing sun on earth, then the objective statement would be that there would be, upon rotation of the earth, either sun light seeing or sun light eclipsing.

If there is no point of view to observe such celestial illusions, there there is no sunset, for 'sunset' is only an observation a point of view could make, and a subjective one at that!

I think Zaay needs to study the advancements in Astronomy since Copernicus, and read a crash course on objectivism from Ayn Rand or any of the objectivists schools.

So we can see what a high order zaay places on mystical realities, right? is he not suggesting that mystical realities exist when we don't?

 

[jimbob]

OK

My point was that you have been posting that true=objective, and false=subjective, so where does TS and FO fit in there.

If I post the following suggestion
"Lets use Bubblefish's system is solving some particular problems"

I imagine that many people here might just post the reply "FO" to this or similar suggestions.

Anyone care to support me on this?

Edit I'll start in my next post

 

[Z]

Mornington Crescent? From Bank? On a saturday without the Sherrin clause having been invoked exactly 3 moves previously?

Now we know for sure you are delusional!

LOL!

What a maroon.

Alas, I must take Dollis Hill yet again.

(BTW - to the mods - don't close this thread just yet. YES, we've refuted everything Rome has to say. YES, we've proven his lack of capabilities in English, philosophy, logic, and reason. But I want to see how this current quad of M.C. goes - and we're not even halfway done.)

 

[jimbob]

B F:

F O

 

[pv+]

Hi PV, can you explain what issue you are confused on and what issue has not been supported by argument? Thanks

BF

Not a single issue you have raised has been supported by evidence, and "argument", insofar as your attempts at it are concerned, has been merely argumentative and devoid of meaningful content. Otherwise there is no issue here to confuse me or anyone else. Only you are confused. Sweet of you to ask, however.

 

[pv+]

LOL!

What a maroon.

Alas, I must take Dollis Hill yet again.

(BTW - to the mods - don't close this thread just yet. YES, we've refuted everything Rome has to say. YES, we've proven his lack of capabilities in English, philosophy, logic, and reason. But I want to see how this current quad of M.C. goes - and we're not even halfway done.)

I'm invoking the 1862 Nizhni Novgorod accord which, in the event of repeated loops, clearly allows me to initiate a tour of the Parks.


Northwick Park

 

[Taffer]

I hate to say it, but bubblefish has, in fact, made a legal move. What we are forgetting, is that I was in Spoon, and Knip was wild. Also, if we review the board, we'll see that the South-Western Line was blocked, allowing for a diagonal movement (legal after the infamouse 1975 South London game, in which David Thorne made the now termed 'Thorne Gambit', invoking the loophole of Rule 355 and Rule 39. A official ruling was made, and eventually the Rule 39 was amended, and a special clause was added under South-Western Line Clause 3-b to allow the diagonal movement), which allows bub to make Mornington Crescent.

I'm invoking the 1862 Nizhni Novgorod accord which, in the event of repeated loops, clearly allows me to initiate a tour of the Parks.

Northwick Park

I shall open with:

Bond Street

 

[WWHP]

OK

My point was that you have been posting that true=objective, and false=subjective, so where does TS and FO fit in there.

Jimbob, keep in mind this is a ternary system, not a bivalent system. All three truth values are always operating and always found. Once you identify one, then you identify it's natural coupling by default. I dont say this to confuse you further, just highlight the various couplings available when you have a ternary system.

So if we can infer T from Ob (objective), and from T(Ob) we can also infer something mutual to all points of view, and from all points of view we can infer various subjective variations of T(Ob), and from each subjective variation of T(0b) we can distinguish what is T from the point of view
t(S)[subjective], and what is T(0b).

Note that t(S) is a natural coupling of F(Ob) or Mystery. Let unknown be M=(O/S)

In layman's terms. An Objectively False Statement can be coupled with a Subjectively True Statement or an Objecvely Unknown Statement. The point of view that is easiest to distinguish is the dominant end of the coupling, and the subtle end of the coupling can be determined when considering another point of view.

Let 'statement' be identifiable as an idea expressed in text, so as statement, I mean content and form, not just form, which would be tautological.

What this means practically is that a subjectively true statement can be understood from the point of view of an objective false statement or unknown, and from that set of distinctions, an objectively true idea can be further distinguished from the subjective true statement.

OS 012 does work in a series of natural couplings, which I find very interesting. Unfortunatly, these are not yet formalized in the academic sense yet, that is being worked on now, so I can understand how it can appear blurry.

If I post the following suggestion
"Lets use Bubblefish's system is solving some particular problems"

I imagine that many people here might just post the reply "FO" to this or similar suggestions.

I am using OS 012 in this discussion to sift through our problems we are having in communication. Why dont you try using OS 012 to solve our problem and disagreement?

Why not give it an honest test and see for yourself?

BF