I really love this Teleo/whatever-his-name is guy. He always ignores me, that’s one reason I love him, because me having an argument with him would drive me batty.
For one, he expects everyone to be a philosophy major. His own interest gets projected onto everyone, and everything, even the universe. Moreso, he expects philosophy to act as a counter to solid evidence we can observe in our physical reality. It’s like were here arguing about reality, and he’s here to argue about theoretical world views. In doing this he tries to shift the burden of proof from provable to disprovable (see above post). We all know disprovable is the hardest, and allows the biggest amount of pure fantasy. (Russel’s teapot, invisible pink unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, etc are well within his realm) I can also build some fancy theoretical conceptions about reality in my head. You can’t disprove them, but I’ve found they never seem to change reality, nor bring closure on any level for me, because they are by nature untestable (just the kind of subject matter he adores).
He ascribes some philosophy to someone, then asks them to defend/rebuke it, nice baiting technique you have there… Almost always this seems to be a diversionary tactic, baiting the audience into a fruitless discussion, rather than trying to come up with any valuable input. His modus-operandi seems to be to sow chaos wherever he goes, because that’s easier than making a contribution.
Err Boogie, feel free to make a contribution towards a topic that you want to discuss with me. As is, these horrible misrepresentations and straw men of yours don’t really interest me. Pick a topic that you find interesting and see if you can discuss it in a civil manner (or any manner you seem fit, heck you can use the skeptic.za.org way and we can all have lots of fun) without dishing out your oh so boring usual misrepresentations of others whom you clearly have no hope of even trying to understand.
I think you know enough about me (or maybe not, what do you know?) to at least answer that question for yourself. If you need help, the answer is a negative, however I do not agree or disagree with everything (that would be impossible for all people unless they are willful contrarians).
As is, these horrible misrepresentations and straw men of yours don't really interest me...... dishing out your oh so boring usual misrepresentations of others whom you clearly have no hope of even trying to understand.
… while perpetuating by implication the myth that he himself actually knows something less-than-superficial about philosophy. I suspect that he’s such a thoroughly well practised baloney merchant because he’s usually surrounded by people who habitually indulge his delusions of profundity because they can’t or don’t confront them.
Shame, it must get really lonely being so piercingly smart that few can ever follow what you’re saying. Then again, linguistic ability is an important dimension in intelligence testing.
BoogieM, I failed to give you a plus one karma for that great post because I have already given you one for the previous one pointed out by mefiante as a great post and it would seem I can only hit you once in 24 hours.
Ah muffy, one can always count on you to conjour up these delsusions about other people. And the other people here just love that from you, I mean it is so wonderfully constructive and rational not?
Please do try again some time to show how you love to think reason is on your side, I love a good chuckle now and again.
Goodness me it must be sad little world that you are living with all those delusions about other people and talking to yourself? Shame man, get some help, get out a little, go jog, take the dog for a stroll, relax.
BoogieMonster, don’t be fooled. He posts quote-mined screeds, sometimes without attribution, in an apparent attempt to fool others into thinking he has some understanding of said screeds, but, when questioned or asked to explain, all he can do is be rude and evasive.
