Young Republican Stormfronts

Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
and without qualified professors with doctorates around, it is much easier to invent your own definitions that fly in the face of logic, convention, scholarly acceptance, or reality.
Click to expand...
i believe the point has been made sufficiently.

thanks bucky.

if Galileo went to arizona state we would still belive the earth is the center of the universe, and stars and planets move around on crystal spheres driven by god's clockwork mechanisms
 
travisw

travisw

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
if Galileo went to arizona state we would still belive the earth is the center of the universe, and stars and planets move around on crystal spheres driven by god's clockwork mechanisms
Click to expand...
Are you comparing yourself to Galileo?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
i believe the point has been made sufficiently.

thanks bucky.

if Galileo went to arizona state we would still belive the earth is the center of the universe, and stars and planets move around on crystal spheres driven by god's clockwork mechanisms
Click to expand...
i recall some different course work than that at my time there.

can you rewrite the phrase "a rolling stone gathers no moss" for purposes of logic?

i forgot how, but here's how you do it: http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Logic_F03/Lessons/Relations.pdf
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
travisw said:
Are you comparing yourself to Galileo?
Click to expand...
sure, why not?

he too enjoyed learning shit, even if it offended the forces of authoritarian conformity.

isaac newton spent half his life engaged in secret occult study of alchemy, which would have gotten him excommunicated from the anglican church, and most likely would have resulted in his marginalization by those who believed he was having truck with "satan"

socrates was sentenced to death for daring to discuss matters which the athenian elders found offensive.

likewise, bucky and his ilk use their political correctness as a weapon against all who dare question the authority of their masters.

i prefer that study, thought logic and reason be unencumbered by the preconceptions and limitations of lesser minds.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i recall some different course work than that at my time there.

can you rewrite the phrase "a rolling stone gathers no moss" for purposes of logic?

i forgot how, but here's how you do it: http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Logic_F03/Lessons/Relations.pdf
Click to expand...
why would i bother re-writing an aphorism?

the inability of an object in motion to support flora is patently obvious.

moss, particularly, with it's high demand for water, and delicate structure is poorly adapted to survive on a surface which is constantly disturbed by friction and changes in orientation.

and yes, it is abundantly obvious to all, from your comments, that your aborted education failed to take root.

your mind has been destroyed by tautology and sloganeering, you cannot comprehend anything which has not been cataloged, macerated, predigested and regurgitated directly into your waiting beak by sock puppets designed to mimic a form which you can readily imprint upon.



(image provided, just in case the metaphor confuses you)
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
bucky and his ilk use their political correctness as a weapon against all who dare question the authority of their masters.
Click to expand...
buckies are "like that everywhere".

it seems that no matter where ya go, there is always some goddamn bucky around to point out how monumentally retarded it is to say that rushton is not a racist (he is endorsed by american renaissance, for fuck sake) or how walking in through the door in the light of day is not the same as crawling in through the window in the dark.

i won't even get into your supremacist beliefs about "european cultural superiority" and how multiculturalism is conspiracy talk for "a singular mindset" or hitting african baby rapists on the head with a stick.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
probably to pass a course in the foundation of logic, but i know you really have no use for logic.
Click to expand...
i perused that screed, and it had little to do with logic, it was pure fallacy.

We really want a predicate that takes two objects. This is called a dyadic predicate.

For examples:
Txy: x is taller than y

Kxy: x knows y
Bxy: x believes y
Dxy: x does y


if frank is taller than george, frank knows george, and frank believes in global warming, then george must be a rapist...

yeah, thats pure logic right there.

why am i not surprised this came from Queens New York?

if you believe converting a simple statement of fact or opinion into psuedo-algebraic phrases will help you engage in logic then this explains a lot about you.

further, with that mindnumbing formula of predicates, how could anyone learn anything? your view of "logic" requires a priori assumptions, which are often entirely wrong.

you are like a fool who opens the hood of his car and stares at the mysterious components within, and then simply makes up imagined purposes for each part, then tries to share this wisdom with others.

Protip: the big round flat thing that looks like a frying pan with a wing nut in the middle, on top of the engine is NOT the engine cylinder.

1: the ummayads came from arabia to nothern africa.
2: in northern africa they established an arab moslem colony
3: they buffaloed and bullied a shitload of north africans to join their silly religion
4: they set out to conquer more territory
5: they wound up in spain and fucked that shit up.
6: their ruling class, religion, language and social forms were all 100% pure arab.
7: even though their subjects were largely not arabs, their society was entirely arab
8: you are still an idiot, and changing the subject will not help you.
 
Pinworm

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
i perused that screed, and it had little to do with logic, it was pure fallacy.

We really want a predicate that takes two objects. This is called a dyadic predicate.

For examples:
Txy: x is taller than y

Kxy: x knows y
Bxy: x believes y
Dxy: x does y


if frank is taller than george, frank knows george, and frank believes in global warming, then george must be a rapist...

yeah, thats pure logic right there.

why am i not surprised this came from Queens New York?

if you believe converting a simple statement of fact or opinion into psuedo-algebraic phrases will help you engage in logic then this explains a lot about you.

further, with that mindnumbing formula of predicates, how could anyone learn anything? your view of "logic" requires a priori assumptions, which are often entirely wrong.

you are like a fool who opens the hood of his car and stares at the mysterious components within, and then simply makes up imagined purposes for each part, then tries to share this wisdom with others.

Protip: the big round flat thing that looks like a frying pan with a wing nut in the middle, on top of the engine is NOT the engine cylinder.

1: the ummayads came from arabia to nothern africa.
2: in northern africa they established an arab moslem colony
3: they buffaloed and bullied a shitload of north africans to join their silly religion
4: they set out to conquer more territory
5: they wound up in spain and fucked that shit up.
6: their ruling class, religion, language and social forms were all 100% pure arab.
7: even though their subjects were largely not arabs, their society was entirely arab
8: you are still an idiot, and changing the subject will not help you.
Click to expand...
He said big round. Lawls
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Buck, you could've accepted the reality Moors are Arab. Then you wouldn't have the equivalent of 1,001 posts from Doc saying what I did in one post. Dumb ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top