Logical positivism?
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2014, 12:48 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 05:47 AM by Jeremy E Walker.)
Logical positivism?
I invite Monster_Riffs to defend the view that logical positivism is a tenable general epistemological position.

No videos or logical fallacies permitted.
Find all posts by this user
22-05-2014, 11:27 PM
RE: Logical positivism?
(22-05-2014 12:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ...logical lositivism....


*positivism, moron.

Or perhaps you were referring to your own "logic", LOL-itivism....

Quote:No...logical fallacies permitted.



...that leaves you with nothing left to argue with. HoboLaughat

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
[+] 5 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
23-05-2014, 02:37 AM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 02:49 AM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Logical positivism?
(22-05-2014 12:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  No videos or logical fallacies permitted.

How will you talk then?Consider


Step 1: Ask for evidence.
Step 2: Refuse to consider evidence cause it's in video form.
Step 3: Start Multiple threads utilizing videos in the OP.
Step 4: Start a thread and ban the use of videos by opposition.

The above is a recipe. What for you ask?

[Image: douchebag.jpeg]

It's a douche salad naturally! Toss it yourself.Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
23-05-2014, 05:51 AM
RE: Logical positivism?
excuses satisfy those who use them no doubt.
Find all posts by this user
23-05-2014, 06:05 AM
RE: Logical positivism?
(23-05-2014 05:51 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  excuses satisfy those who use them no doubt.

And now in English!

(22-05-2014 06:23 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I abstain from all forms of sexual acts.
Find all posts by this user
23-05-2014, 06:59 AM
RE: Logical positivism?
As I recall Jeremy, at no point did I claim to stand by logical positivism, I believe I was purely focused on the word igtheism. The concept that God can not, has not and will not be defined, is a point that stands in its own merit. The fact that you think I would wish to defend something I care very little about and know very little about, yet again shows your lack of character, ability to read or understand the very clear posts I made upon the subject of igtheism. ... In fact, that whole thread was started so I could get a more solid grounding in the subject (but I think you knew that), I have no catastrophe of the ego when I don't know something, nor am I afraid to ask for help, unlike yourself.

I have also noticed that this 'debate' challenge has not only been deliberately issued regarding a subject I openly am new to but interestingly it comes after I said yesterday that I have no interest in debating or discussing anything further with you ever again, based on my overall opinion of you. Slimey little maneuver on your part methinks. What happens now? In your head have you defeated me? Do you have me in a catch 22? What I mean is, if I accept a debate with you, do you throw my words back in my face from yesterday? If I decline to speak to you have you 'won'? AHA!!! CHECKMATE ATHEIST!

You're a very transparent person Jeremy, you lack quality and moral fibre, so no, I don't wish to discuss logical positivism with you, instead I will continue looking in to the concept of Igtheism myself, if I have any further need of assistance, I will ask people like Bucky Ball and Kim about it. They will give me comprehensive, clear and well thought out answers which relate directly to my questions, not snake oil salesman bullshit.

My reasons to debate or discuss topics in places like this are to further my own understanding of subjects I am interested in and learn about myself in the process. For me to have the remotest interest in anything that someone has to say, I must respect them, value their input, believe them to be sincere and have an inkling that they know something about the subject we're discussing. Copy pasta, word salad, shell games, slimey behaviour, hypocrisy, rape apology, logical fallacies, belligerence and general cunt like behaviour tick none of those boxes.

As a person Jeremy, I find you repellent and sinister, you make my skin crawl, there is something fundamentally off with you, so ...

If I didn't make myself crystal clear yesterday, I will be succinct now.

Fuck off you pathetic little cunt!

And have a video ...




A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
[+] 6 users Like Monster_Riffs's post
23-05-2014, 07:00 AM
RE: Logical positivism?
(23-05-2014 05:51 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  excuses satisfy those who use them no doubt.

Something with which you should be intimately familiar.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-05-2014, 07:57 AM
RE: Logical positivism?
(23-05-2014 06:59 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  The concept that God can not, has not and will not be defined, is a point that stands in its own merit.

Then I challenge you to debate me on this issue.

If your position stands on its own merits then you, an educated Englishman should have no trouble demonstrating this.

So far all you have done is made a bald assertion. Why do you get to assert something without backing it up but deny the right for a Christian to do the same?
Find all posts by this user
23-05-2014, 08:12 AM
RE: Logical positivism?
(23-05-2014 07:57 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 06:59 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  The concept that God can not, has not and will not be defined, is a point that stands in its own merit.

Then I challenge you to debate me on this issue.

If your position stands on its own merits then you, an educated Englishman should have no trouble demonstrating this.

So far all you have done is made a bald assertion. Why do you get to assert something without backing it up but deny the right for a Christian to do the same?

Do you think I will respond like this ...

I AM educated! I AM, I AM! Sadcryface2

What I did in that thread is ask questions and use common sense. I have no interest in feeding you troll.

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
23-05-2014, 09:09 AM
RE: Logical positivism?
I'm closing this thread since the challenge has been denied.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: