Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Yes please.

Then just continue.

Ok, I will. Just let me know when I can expect to be HUMILIATED. I'm sure there are interested observers who will be amused to see it and even more pleased to see you make good on one of your grandiose claims!

There are some human beings who are so full of themselves that they are unable to grasp when this has actually already taken place... As in your previous encounters with me.

Got any links? It would be useful for myself and anyone else following to see the evidence for this alleged humiliation.

Edit: I notice you're skirting dangerously with the FUA now, I know that backseat moderating is frowned upon, but I'd like to politely suggest you rein it in a bit, I'd hate for moderator intervention to spoil this wonderful exchange of ideas before we get to this nice juicy evidence. I can't help wondering though whether this outburst is perhaps slightly emotional, given that you have allegedly considered the possibility you're engaging in wishful thinking rather than rigorous logic, this did seem like a tad of an overreaction to being informed of my certainty that your posts display wishful thinking. If it would help I can explain why at greater length.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:No. If one makes a statement, and the conclusion follows from that statement: THEN IT IS VALID!!!

You just made a statement, there was no following conclusion or anything of the kind. Look:-

Destroyer wrote:

Fallible wrote:Who said it can never cease to be what it is if it is real?

Logic does. If One's nature is real 'existence' then how can One cease to really exist?

That's the full post, in context. There is no argument, just bald assertion and a question.

Logic does not in fact say (or show, or any equivalent thing) that "a real thing can never cease to be what it is".

Not even if existence is eternal? Which is obviously what I am implying, since that is my whole argument.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
Then just continue.

Ok, I will. Just let me know when I can expect to be HUMILIATED. I'm sure there are interested observers who will be amused to see it and even more pleased to see you make good on one of your grandiose claims!

There are some human beings who are so full of themselves that they are unable to grasp when this has actually already taken place... As in your previous encounters with me.

Got any links? It would be useful for myself and anyone else following to see the evidence for this alleged humiliation.

There are plenty for anyone so interested. Just read any of my posts over the last year or so that includes you.

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:No. If one makes a statement, and the conclusion follows from that statement: THEN IT IS VALID!!!

You just made a statement, there was no following conclusion or anything of the kind. Look:-

Destroyer wrote:

Fallible wrote:Who said it can never cease to be what it is if it is real?

Logic does. If One's nature is real 'existence' then how can One cease to really exist?

That's the full post, in context. There is no argument, just bald assertion and a question.

Logic does not in fact say (or show, or any equivalent thing) that "a real thing can never cease to be what it is".

Not even if existence is eternal? Which is obviously what I am implying, since that is my whole argument.

No, because logic does not show that existence is eternal. See that's the thing with logic, it only shows the things that logic shows.

The best you might be able to do is formalise the statement "existence is eternal" into some logical theory and then find it's tautological consequences, and if one of those were a formalisation of "a real thing can never cease to be what it is" then you could say that logic shows the latter is a logical consequence of the former, but since you haven't done this and that would not be a case of logic showing the conclusion anyway I don't really think it's that relevant.

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Ok, I will. Just let me know when I can expect to be HUMILIATED. I'm sure there are interested observers who will be amused to see it and even more pleased to see you make good on one of your grandiose claims!

There are some human beings who are so full of themselves that they are unable to grasp when this has actually already taken place... As in your previous encounters with me.

Got any links? It would be useful for myself and anyone else following to see the evidence for this alleged humiliation.

There are plenty for anyone so interested. Just read any of my posts over the last year or so that includes you.

I don't recall reading any posts from you in the last year or so. I'm starting to suspect that you're just making shit up again. Oh well, too bad, evidence would have been nice but I guess that people will just have to take your totally unbiased word for it instead of seeing some demonstration of your amazing powers to HUMILIATE people with your articulate argumentation.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
Then just continue.

Ok, I will. Just let me know when I can expect to be HUMILIATED. I'm sure there are interested observers who will be amused to see it and even more pleased to see you make good on one of your grandiose claims!

There are some human beings who are so full of themselves that they are unable to grasp when this has actually already taken place... As in your previous encounters with me.

Got any links? It would be useful for myself and anyone else following to see the evidence for this alleged humiliation.

Edit: I notice you're skirting dangerously with the FUA now, I know that backseat moderating is frowned upon, but I'd like to politely suggest you rein it in a bit, I'd hate for moderator intervention to spoil this wonderful exchange of ideas before we get to this nice juicy evidence. I can't help wondering though whether this outburst is perhaps slightly emotional, given that you have allegedly considered the possibility you're engaging in wishful thinking rather than rigorous logic, this did seem like a tad of an overreaction to being informed of my certainty that your posts display wishful thinking. If it would help I can explain why at greater length.

No. This is all to do with my previous encounters with you. Wishful thinking? if only you knew: is indeed the entire nature of this universe.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
There are some human beings who are so full of themselves that they are unable to grasp when this has actually already taken place... As in your previous encounters with me.

Got any links? It would be useful for myself and anyone else following to see the evidence for this alleged humiliation.

There are plenty for anyone so interested. Just read any of my posts over the last year or so that includes you.

I don't recall reading any posts from you in the last year or so. I'm starting to suspect that you're just making shit up again. Oh well, too bad, evidence would have been nice but I guess that people will just have to take your totally unbiased word for it instead of seeing some demonstration of your amazing powers to HUMILIATE people with your articulate argumentation.

If I considered you to be someone of integrity, then I would be happy with whatever you posted - whether there happened to be a genuine mistake there or not - but, unfortunately, I have no such opinion of you; even though I regard your mathematical know-how.

not any existence is eternal only existence of infinity is eternal, existence is always through confirming the value of something else

in truth, not any true superiority, so any positive source exist, only right superiority do, rights only will confirm true existence realities and recognize infinite values rights to exist too

positive is freedom not an objective sense, freedom is the positive conception which exist objectively as a reality sources

objective is to facts it cant be a sense

objective is to superiority of absolute clarity not to positive relations, in truth

existence seem to be a lot about wrong and inequity, identifying the sources and showing it objectively
which confirm my point, positive life is about relative same willing means so never about true existence
because true positive objective is freedom, then when existence is obviously not free, true superior sources would mean freedom rights negative fact, reasons and ways to destroy

but the op is not quiet right

when life is based on the common positive sense free wills might get, and when those free wills are not free in truth, but they are positive effects of another superior objective source, then individuality can be conceived before it exists, before conscious of being present become constant sense

positive is what everyone wants especially when conditions of individuals existence is always negative, everyone die by getting killed for instance, wether by nature or another

then it becomes possible to conceive living individuals regarding the positive they would be forced to need

Destroyer wrote:If I considered you to be someone of integrity

Ooooh. You said 'integrity'. Let's cycle through all the No True Scotsman words, Destroyer. Legitimate. Authentic. Genuine. Real.

Destroyer wrote:
Not even if existence is eternal? Which is obviously what I am implying, since that is my whole argument.

Eternal? Genuine and authentic, too! But saying that existence is eternal isn't saying much more than saying it's genuine or real.

See the problem with your limited vocabulary?

Destroyer wrote:Wishful thinking? if only you knew: is indeed the entire nature of this universe.

Ah, OK. 'Entire'. And the nature of 'nature'. Or the essence of 'essence'. That means, 'the whole thing'. All of it. Got any more big words? The universe is the whole thing. Great.

Destroyer wrote:whether there happened to be a genuine mistake there or not

Ooh. Genuine. Not a fake mistake, then, eh?

Double post.

Destroyer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer wrote:If I considered you to be someone of integrity

Ooooh. You said 'integrity'. Let's cycle through all the No True Scotsman words, Destroyer. Legitimate. Authentic. Genuine. Real.

Destroyer wrote:
Not even if existence is eternal? Which is obviously what I am implying, since that is my whole argument.

Eternal? Genuine and authentic, too! But saying that existence is eternal isn't saying much more than saying it's genuine or real.

See the problem with your limited vocabulary?

Destroyer wrote:Wishful thinking? if only you knew: is indeed the entire nature of this universe.

Ah, OK. 'Entire'. And the nature of 'nature'. Or the essence of 'essence'. That means, 'the whole thing'. All of it. Got any more big words? The universe is the whole thing. Great.

Destroyer wrote:whether there happened to be a genuine mistake there or not

Ooh. Genuine. Not a fake mistake, then, eh?

If you don't actually have anything of value to contribute, then why do you persist in getting involved in threads just to waffle? Are you under the impression that your waffling somehow influences those who are intelligent enough to think for themselves?

Destroyer wrote:If you don't actually have anything of value to contribute, then why do you persist in getting involved in threads just to waffle? Are you under the impression that your waffling somehow influences those who are intelligent enough to think for themselves?

I find his posts more valuable than yours, to which these same accusations could be levelled.

Yes, sometimes Cito does explain himself.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:If you don't actually have anything of value to contribute, then why do you persist in getting involved in threads just to waffle? Are you under the impression that your waffling somehow influences those who are intelligent enough to think for themselves?

I find his posts more valuable than yours, to which these same accusations could be levelled.

The evidence for all those who actually possess discernment is right there in black and white... Or is it black and blue?

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:If you don't actually have anything of value to contribute, then why do you persist in getting involved in threads just to waffle? Are you under the impression that your waffling somehow influences those who are intelligent enough to think for themselves?

I find his posts more valuable than yours, to which these same accusations could be levelled.

The evidence for all those who actually possess discernment is right there in black and white... Or is it black and blue?

Right, where exactly?

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:If you don't actually have anything of value to contribute, then why do you persist in getting involved in threads just to waffle? Are you under the impression that your waffling somehow influences those who are intelligent enough to think for themselves?

I find his posts more valuable than yours, to which these same accusations could be levelled.

The evidence for all those who actually possess discernment is right there in black and white... Or is it black and blue?

Right, where exactly?

Every post that we have both ever submitted.

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

I find his posts more valuable than yours, to which these same accusations could be levelled.

The evidence for all those who actually possess discernment is right there in black and white... Or is it black and blue?

Right, where exactly?

Every post that we have both ever submitted.

Right, sure, I can find evidence that your posts are worthwhile in every post I've ever submitted. Sounds convincing!

Edit: I've written "I've" there for no apparent reason, when I meant "he's".

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
The evidence for all those who actually possess discernment is right there in black and white... Or is it black and blue?

Right, where exactly?

Every post that we have both ever submitted.

Right, sure, I can find evidence that your posts are worthwhile in every post I've ever submitted. Sounds convincing!

You said that you find Cito's posts to be more that just waffle; and more valuable than my own. I am saying that the evidence for what Cito and I post is available to the discerning in every post that we have both ever made. If one is familiar with someone's posting history, then it is very easy (to the intelligent) to distinguish whether waffling or serious and dignified answers are endemic to that individual.

Destroyer wrote:You said that you find Cito's posts to be more that just waffle; and more valuable than my own. I am saying that the evidence for what Cito and I post is available to the discerning in every post that we have both ever made. If one is familiar with someone's posting history, then it is very easy (to the intelligent) to distinguish whether waffling or serious and dignified answers are endemic to that individual.

Ok, and by looking at your posts and his, I find his frequently entertaining, sometimes informative and often cautionary. Yours I find to be worthless waffle, filled with grandiose claims and falling short on humour, information, evidence and humility.

Although you keep answering me by simply repeating your assertions I find it entirely non-persuasive. If by any chance you did want to persuade me or others of the value of your posts I'd advocate the following - concrete examples: Link posts of yours that you feel exemplify the best intellectual offerings, drawing attention to their basis in evidence, logical argumentation and the like. Ideally a link to the evidence for some of the grand claims would be provided. The circularity of "if I'm right then God could at some unspecified later date prove me right" wears a bit thin over time.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:You said that you find Cito's posts to be more that just waffle; and more valuable than my own. I am saying that the evidence for what Cito and I post is available to the discerning in every post that we have both ever made. If one is familiar with someone's posting history, then it is very easy (to the intelligent) to distinguish whether waffling or serious and dignified answers are endemic to that individual.

Ok, and by looking at your posts and his, I find his frequently entertaining, sometimes informative and often cautionary. Yours I find to be worthless waffle, filled with grandiose claims and falling short on humour, information, evidence and humility.

Although you keep answering me by simply repeating your assertions I find it entirely non-persuasive. If by any chance you did want to persuade me or others of the value of your posts I'd advocate the following - concrete examples: Link posts of yours that you feel exemplify the best intellectual offerings, drawing attention to their basis in evidence, logical argumentation and the like. Ideally a link to the evidence for some of the grand claims would be provided. The circularity of "if I'm right then God could at some unspecified later date prove me right" wears a bit thin over time.

Yes, you have hit the nail right on the head: I do not have the slightest interest in persuading you, or anyone else, of anything!