jamest wrote:Thommo wrote:SafeAsMilk wrote:It's difficult to forget the most direct direct example of how intellectually bankrupt jamest's position is. He said he'd not return to the forum until he'd written it, folks even allowed him to get away with just a pamphlet's length to summarize his philosophy (and to be honest, I've seen no indication that he's thought it out enough to need more than a pamphlet). He was away for a little while, then crept back in with empty hands. Not a big problem, people fuck up sometimes (and I doubt anyone believed he'd manage it anyway). But then coming back around and pretending you're in a position to lecture anyone about anything? That sort of gall deserves all the scorn it gets, and then some.
Happy days indeed:-
jamest wrote:The only reason I have done this overview is to regain access to the forum. I’ve done it, so I’m back. Tough shit.
Even James thought so little of his best ever attempt at summarising his philosophy.
Give me a break. The precise reason why I've more-or-less lost interest in doing what I did here is because none of you really took me seriously.
And nor do you. That was literally your best ever most serious attempt, and you half arsed it and even bothered to point out to everyone that you'd half arsed it.
This was your own voluntary response to your own self-imposed challenge:
jamest wrote:There had to come a point where I put it all together, or not to bother anymore. Since I've gradually been approaching the "not to bother anymore" stage for quite some time, I've finally realised that it's now or never.
Therefore, one of two things will happen:
a) Fuck all.
b) I will get my shit together and deliver a serious overview of my philosophy.
I would suggest that if I can't be arsed to deliver the second option within the next two months, that I should completely give-up the ghost and not bother anyone else here ever again.
Please bear in mind as well that this isn't "not taking it seriously" in the context of doing philosophy (which is conducted by peer discussion and review as the primary crucible), this is "not taking it seriously" in the context of trash talking on a small and irrelevant internet chat forum.
jamest wrote:And we're talking years here, so the effects have progressively affected my outlook. Hence why would I take longer to do anything but the bare minimum of time for such a task for people who really don't give a shit?
You claimed you were doing it for yourself. But yeah, it gave the appearance that you don't give a shit.
For the record, you can search your own post history here (and indeed have a look on the old Dawkins database that some people secured if you really wanted to) and see that in fact you never made more effort.
jamest wrote:If you want the best from me, then give me your best. If you treat people like shit, then don't be surprised when they sometimes act like shit.
Spare me the martyr act. This isn't tit for tat, you went off the deep end at me to the nth degree and got yourself a warning just days before I gave you this far, far, far more nuanced and reasonable reply.
It's a poor workman who blames his tools, but I do agree with you that the attempt at "philosophy" offered here was shit.
jamest wrote:For the record, I've not lost any faith in my abilities nor in my beliefs derived thereof.
Perhaps you should have. Constantly making yourself the target of praise is ridiculous. Constantly making yourself the topic of discussion as a derail is doubly ridiculous. You call yourself a genius and invite comment on that claim, then throw your toys out the pram when people point out the obvious.
Don't make yourself the topic of conversation and you won't be. Ideas are not people and we can easily discuss the many, many failings of the topic without making it personal.
jamest wrote:I've just lost interest in communicating with the likes of you and your ever-present scornful attitude.
Great! Then please don't reply to me. Problem solved.
jamest wrote:Multiply that hundreds [if not thousands] of times over the years to be indicative of the level of disinterest in communicating my ideas that I have now reached. And yes, I can come across as an arrogant arsehole sometimes but when you're alone in a corner and the mob are all dangling ropes, you have two choices: either fuck off with your tail between your legs or else give the mob the finger.
No, those aren't the only choices you have. You can present a clear and cogent argument, you can be patient, understanding and clear. You can make at least an effort to answer the strong and non personal arguments that are made and expand on the chain of reasoning you're claiming you used.
Dragging the conversation down into the gutter and making things personal, whether through the "I'm smarter than Einstein!" card or "You're all dickheads!" card never helps.
jamest wrote:For the record, I will NEVER fuck off with my tail between my legs. You muppets will NEVER bully me out of this place, so expect the finger on EVERY occasion you try to wind me up. And if you don't like that attitude, then stick it up your arse. I will NEVER sell either myself out, nor my reasoned beliefs, just because the mob don't like either my attitude and/or my reasoned beliefs.
You don't have reasoned beliefs. You have already sold yourself out by treating your own challenge to yourself and your own "philosophy" with such utter contempt and pathetic treatment.
That's the problem.
jamest wrote:If you coconuts want rid of me then just do what you did with all the other theists and give me a trumped-up ban for trolling, whilst ignoring your own trolling sins. But "I swear by God and sonny Jesus" [to quote warden Hadley,
Shawshank Redemption], this place will be infinitely more shallow than it's now become once I have gone.
I want the personalisation, personal attacks and ridiculous provocation of the martyr act to stop. I can't say I care how that's accomplished.
FYI The purpose of the moderation system and warnings is to allow users themselves to change and adapt their harmful behaviours for their own interests and everyone else's.
jamest wrote:I now represent the last vestige of reasonable challenge to all of your views.
Haha. No.
jamest wrote:The popular/acceptable mob here has sowed nothing but nasty weed-killer on every single challenge to their own mindset. You can witness that scorn in every single challenge ever presented to them, not just my own. It usually leads to the challenger being banned as a troll. And yet they have the gall to call themselves
rationalists. That would be funny, if it weren't so fucking damaging to the progression of rationalist thinking and [hence] the development of 'our' future. We are all here privy to The Inquisition, 21st century style. In years to come history will tarnish all of you with the same brush. We just don't torture members here because the FUA forbids it. But some of you would, if you could.
Double Haha. Double no.
---------
Anyway, as so often happens with these threads I see nothing has moved forwards, we've regressed from the topic to JamesT's opinion of himself and others. How about instead you develop this alleged "reasonable challenge" with some, err, reason?
Here's a couple of the glaring outstanding issues from the OP that have been studiously ignored for the entire length of the thread:
1) There's no reason to think that "we" humans aspire to know everything. Counterexamples of things people don't want to know have been provided, but left unaddressed, such as the knowledge of experiences deemed unpleasant or facts that are deemed uninteresting (who was the 3rd runner up in the Iowa state 1964 junior beauty pageant? What is the smell of the six trillionth and forty-second furthest object from the sun?).
2) Of the things that humans do want to know, there's no reason to suppose humans want to know them "absolutely" indeed everyone who has addressed this issue has disagreed directly. Further it's not clear that "absolute knowledge" is a meaningful or well-defined concept.
3) As far as the ordinary desire to learn goes there is a perfectly rational and well developed area of study that accounts for it without multiplication of entities - the theory of evolution. No challenge has been made to this. No actual obstacle for curiosity as an evolved trait has been suggested, let alone substantiated.