Believe in science & ethics
-
PRP is similarly as delusional.Originally posted by PRP:OK, soul_rage is not delusionary.He is very 'saint'.
Andrew is a better debater.
Only one-liners and offer not much contribution to this thread.
In fact, you are right Andrew is a better debater, than you
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:PRP is similarly as delusional.
Only one-liners and offer not much contribution to this thread.
In fact, you are right Andrew is a better debater, than you
OMG you are using another primary school kid technique, besides name calling, you are now simply repeating what people say. (see the quote above and previous page for examples). How grossly stupid.
It would appear that, apparently, you think that is smart or you would not have simply parroted what PRP said, also, besides parroting me.
You have no idea, like a primary school kid has no idea, why that is idiotic, intellectually, (not just socially).
You have no idea why that exposes your stupidity, in an intellectual sense, (not just socially).
You have no idea why (intellectually) you cannot do that, why it doesn't make sense when you do that.
It has now become, the more you say something, especially when you are parroting someone, you make yourself look more stupid.
To the youths of sgforums, learn from this example.
Sooner or later, people that are intellectually deficient will have to resort to name-calling. They cannot defend their stupidity, and when exposed, they resort to name-calling. They have no idea that resorting to name calling seals their stupidity.
They cannot defend their stupidity, and when exposed, they have to become a parrot because the things they say makes no sense. They have no idea that being a parrot makes no sense either and worse of all, and worse of all, they have no idea WHY being a parrot makes no sense.
-
This part here, the quote above, shows clearly why he resorts to name calling and being a parrot.Originally posted by soul_rage: 28 October 2007 · 09:50 PM (page 22)When he calls other delusional, its not name calling. When others call him delusional, its name calling.
He "thinks" people are "name-calling" because he has no idea WHEN it is name calling and WHEN it is not. He just cannot understand that in his head, and don't be like him or you will just look stupid.
This is why he resorts to parroting. He has no idea why it doesn't work intellectually (not just socially) when you parrot someone.
Worse of all, I suspect that just as he does not understand WHY "When he calls other delusional, its not name calling. When others call him delusional, its name calling."
He will never understand why when he parrots someone, he is just grossly stupid but it might be appropriate when someone else does it.
To the youths of sgforums, learn from this example.
You need to understand WHY people say you are delusional. You must know WHY when you call another delusional. Otherwise you will never understand WHY "When he calls other delusional, its not name calling. When others call him delusional, its name calling. "
The people that does not accept that, they, must come up with the evidence and proof, they have pwned themselves, because whatever they say, is ridiculous and nonsense, and why? It does not come with evidence and proof!
The things they say are simply delusional statements or unsupported statements at best, without evidence and proof. They have openly admitted that they do not accept, that you need proof and evidence, and yet they want to insist that what they say is not ridiculous and delusional.
They cannot see why that position is untenable. A grossly confused, delusional and stupid mind. -
hahaha... 9000 views...
-
Congrats to TS for starting a very successful thread.
-
You are soooo noisy.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:*snips off all the rubbish*
You just continue to pawn yourself each time you reply.
As I said, if someone bothers to go thru this thread, they can see how unethical and immoral you are, in your behavior and attitude
There's no need for me to keep reposting those articles, because you are behaving just like the very govt you keep criticizing about.
Selective Perception
You perceive yourself to be correct and you don't show any respect to other people's views. And when presented with the articles in which you are rude and obnoxious and devoid of ethics, you just look away and say "I can't see the proof."
*shrugs* continue. Show everyone how ridiculous you have become. In this thread, you not only destroyed your credibility. You have destroyed even your right to criticize the govt, coz you behave like them -
So your point is that I am "unethical and immoral"?Originally posted by soul_rage:You are soooo noisy.
You just continue to pawn yourself each time you reply.
As I said, if someone bothers to go thru this thread, they can see how unethical and immoral you are, in your behavior and attitude
There's no need for me to keep reposting those articles, because you are behaving just like the very govt you keep criticizing about.
Selective Perception
You perceive yourself to be correct and you don't show any respect to other people's views. And when presented with the articles in which you are rude and obnoxious and devoid of ethics, you just look away and say "I can't see the proof."
*shrugs* continue. Show everyone how ridiculous you have become. In this thread, you not only destroyed your credibility. You have destroyed even your right to criticize the govt, coz you behave like them We will come to that.
In saying, "There's no need for me to keep reposting those articles" you have changed your position and now agree that you need evidence and proof?
Good, that should send a strong signal to people in the forums that even stupid people like you that denied the need for proof and evidence will have to eat humble pie and finally admit after pages and pages that you do need proof and evidence.
As for you calling me "unethical and immoral" ... you concluded that, because I said you are stupid and delusional, for insisting that requiring proof and evidence is not needed.
Since you have eaten humble pie and changed your position, that shows that I was right all along, and your conclusion that I am "unethical and immoral" is not valid, because in eating humble pie, you have admitted that what I said was true, and you were indeed delusional and stupid.
It is not possible I am "unethical and immoral" when I am telling the truth, all along. Again, you fail to see how untenable your position is. You fail to see that you cannot place the label "unethical and immoral" on people that are simply telling the truth. -
sigh... you keep going on with your ridiculous anticsOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:*snips off all the rubbish again*
since when did I say we don't need evidence or proof? I keep reiterating my stand that, yes, Science is good, but there are many things unexplainable by Science, coz Science is VERY limited.
If I keep going back repeating what I said, it shows again that you only see what you want to see
selective perception
What is truth? Define it first before you use the word. I don't think you know what it means anyway, so you are just abusing the word Truth, just as you abused the word Science.
So far what have we learned?
You don't understand Logic Mathematics. The proof of implication.
You don't understand English. Science is not able to explain many things (Which is my stand), vs We do not need proof or evidence, are 2 different viewpoints altogether.
If you had taken the time to read, instead of jumping in and started off rude and obnoxious, you would not have gone down this path of self-destruction.
Truth... my goodness, delusional people think what they say is the whole truth.
You remind me of the Great Inquisition. People who burnt innocent women on the stakes think they are correct coz they perceive them to be witches. -
*snips* forget it.
-
I am beginning to see where your problem is. You have no idea of:Originally posted by soul_rage:sigh... you keep going on with your ridiculous antics
since when did I say we don't need evidence or proof? I keep reiterating my stand that, yes, Science is good, but there are many things unexplainable by Science, coz Science is VERY limited.
If I keep going back repeating what I said, it shows again that you only see what you want to see selective perception
What is truth? Define it first before you use the word. I don't think you know what it means anyway, so you are just abusing the word Truth, just as you abused the word Science.
So far what have we learned?
You don't understand Logic Mathematics. The proof of implication.
You don't understand English. Science is not able to explain many things (Which is my stand), vs We do not need proof or evidence, are 2 different viewpoints altogether.
If you had taken the time to read, instead of jumping in and started off rude and obnoxious, you would not have gone down this path of self-destruction.
Truth... my goodness, delusional people think what they say is the whole truth.
You remind me of the Great Inquisition. People who burnt innocent women on the stakes think they are correct coz they perceive them to be witches.Law of noncontradiction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In logic, the law of noncontradiction (also called the law of contradiction) states, in the words of Aristotle, that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time".
That is why all your statements sound so stupid. -
You cannot say that you support science and say that you do not support science at the same time. You cannot say that you do not support science and then say that you support the need for evidence and proof.
You cannot say that I am telling the truth and also say that I am immoral and unethical.
Your positions are untenable but apparently you have no idea why because you have no idea of the Law of Non-contradiction. -
Why can't?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You cannot say that you support science and say that you do not support science at the same time. You cannot say that you do not support science and then say that you support the need for evidence and proof.
You cannot say that I am telling the truth and also say that I am immoral and unethical.
Your positions are untenable but apparently you have no idea why because you have no idea of the Law of Non-contradiction.
Are you so stupid that you don't understand something called agreeing to something to a certain extent? If Science can explain things to only an extent, then you only agree to an extent.
If Science can only prove that X to a certain degree, but cannot completely explain X, of course you only agree to THAT extent.
Again you have a problem with your English. I din say you were telling the truth. I just say you have no idea what Truth means
I tell you, you are really so screwed in your extreme thoughts, thinking that you are right, that you have no credibility now in your argument. sigh... *shakes head* -
Since you want to quote something, I shall use the same thing to discredit you.
"The Law of Noncontradiction
law of noncontradiction (also called the law of contradiction) states, in the words of Aristotle, that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". In the symbolism of propositional logic, this is expressed as:
neg(P n neg P)" (I wonder if you know what this means)
It states that you cannot agree and disagree to the same thing at the same time.
It literally assumes that P is the one and the same.
In the case of your flawed use of this law.
I did not say you are telling the truth. I merely ask you, define what is TRUTH. Again, another useless jumping to conclusions in a feeble attempt to quote something.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
You cannot say that you support science and say that you do not support science at the same time. You cannot say that you do not support science and then say that you support the need for evidence and proof.[/quote]
Again you don't understand English. I DID NOT say I do not support Science. I only said that Science has its limitations. Since when was my argument on whether I support Science or not, aside from in your own delusional head?You cannot say that I am telling the truth and also say that I am immoral and unethical.
And yes you ARE immoral and unethical, based on the fact that you are rude, obnoxious and mean.
[quote]
Your positions are untenable but apparently you have no idea why because you have no idea of the Law of Non-contradiction.
If you can't even get your understanding right, I would suggest you stop quoting articles to embarrass yourself. Your initial assumption was already screwed up, of course the results of your observations are all wrong.
Again, I stick to my belief that it is a fortune to mankind you are not in research. People like you jump to conclusions too easily (thereby you were insulting yourself in your previous postings, coz you were saying people should get the observations, facts, info right before concluding), therefore, any research results from you are more prone to error than anything else. -
Andrew,
so far,
1) You have abused the noble word Science
2) You have abused the word Truth
3) You have demonstrated feeble attempts at quoting articles without truly understanding how to apply them
4) You have shown no understanding of Discrete Mathematics
Pls continue on to increase your list of obnoxious acts
By the way, I have several research papers published into international conferences in my name, which has been quoted in other papers for the relevance of my research during my research years. One of the most prominent was the comparison of various ways to improve communications between remote systems, which is what contributed to you sitting here today making a clown out of yourself.
I wonder how about you, most noble supporter of Science? What have you contributed, besides defacing Science and using it to your own selfish means to be rude, obnoxious and mean? -
Exposing your gross stupidity again.
Science is about evidence and proof. Without evidence and proof, science rejects it. So what do you mean by support to a certain extent?
You either agree with science that you you need evidence and proof or you do not. If you agree to a certain extent it means that you are willing to accept something without evidence and proof, which is rejected by science.
Law of Non Contradiction, simple as that and you fail to understand? Stupid right? -
soul_rage,
u are clever & Andrew is stupid,full stop. -
We are not interested what you say as long as it does not come with evidence and proof... only you are stupid enough to do that.
We judge you according to what you write, what you post in sgforums and so far what you write and post expose your gross stupidity, as explained in my various post showing why you are stupid. -
Originally posted by PRP:soul_rage,
u are clever & Andrew is stupid,full stop. -
You are really ridiculous. Who ever told you that Science rejects (which is a negative term)?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Exposing your gross stupidity again.
Science is about evidence and proof. Without evidence and proof, science rejects it. So what do you mean by support to a certain extent?
You either agree with science that you you need evidence and proof or you do not. If you agree to a certain extent it means that you are willing to accept something without evidence and proof, which is rejected by science.
Law of Non Contradiction, simple as that and you fail to understand? Stupid right?
In the case of astronomy, Science has proven that dark matter exists. However, whether dark matter results in an implosion at the end of our universe life is not known right now, given its limitations, and is placed as a hypothesis.
The Big Bang theory IS a hypothesis (you said so yourself). Science cannot conclude that it happened. So you reject it?
Reject? You sound more and more like an extremist
Science was never about being negative (like you). Scientists will only say "We do not have sufficient evidence to conclude", but they always leave their options open.
To act like you, is to be one where the moment a failure happens, he stops and says "this is impossible"
Face it, you are only using Science selfishly to be obnoxious, rude and mean. Can't face your inner demons I supposed... -
another one liner.Originally posted by PRP:soul_rage,
u are clever & Andrew is stupid,full stop.
Thanks for discrediting yourself again -
Andrew,
so far,
1) You have abused the noble word Science
2) You have abused the word Truth
3) You have demonstrated feeble attempts at quoting articles without truly understanding how to apply them
4) You have shown no understanding of Discrete Mathematics
5) You have shown you evade whenever you don't dare to face your own cowardly acts
Pls continue on to increase your list of obnoxious acts
You haven't answered my question below
I wonder how about you, most noble supporter of Science? What have you contributed, besides defacing Science and using it to your own selfish means to be rude, obnoxious and mean? -
More evidence of your gross stupidity: 10 October 2007 · 08:52 AMOriginally posted by soul_rage:I read transhumanism and is truly interesting. A scientific way to truly evolve to a higher being. Thanks for the link. I will be reading it in more detail.
But just a question, since the ideals of this movement is very speculative and almost sci-fi in nature (which seriously, it means there is no evidence that their ideals are attainable), then wouldn't this be something similar to paranormal research, where there are people attempting to use scientific methods to prove that the paranormal exists?
Mistaking "transhumanism " an evidence and proof based scientific movement with 'paranormalism'; a delusional, imaginary pseudo science.Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:In my opinion, it is different from 'paranormalism'.... because transhumanism is a movement that extrapolates current (and real) development in the fields of science and technology - which have already given society tangible results in fields such as nanotech, bioengineering and cybernetics. -
More evidence of your gross stupidity: 10 October 2007 · 08:52 AM (page 19, this thread)
-
Wrong understanding again.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:More evidence of your gross stupidity: 10 October 2007 · 08:52 AM
Mistaking "transhumanism " an evidence and proof based scientific movement with 'paranormalism'; a delusional, imaginary pseudo science.
Mistaking transhumanism with paranormalism means that I think transhumanism EQUALS paranormalism.
Again, your grasp of the English language is really atrocious.
List of Questions for Andrew:
- Tell us what have you contributed to Science, other than being rude and mean in this forum
- Tell us what you mean by paranormalism is a delusional imaginary pseudo science? Justify your words in calling it delusional, imaginary, pseudo
- Tell us is the Supernatural world also delusional, imaginary? -
My English atrocious? "Mistaking .... with ...." you don't understand and MY English is atrocious?