Ship of Fools: Justinian dishes it out can't take it

Thread: Justinian dishes it out can't take it Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028039

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

From this thread.

Justinian is complaining that I'm 'misrepresenting' him. Well, to some extent no doubt I am, because I'm a human being and I'm fallible. And I'd willingly explore where I've been wrong if I thought for a moment he'd be willing to meet me half way. But we've been here before, and I have tried apologising, and both times he's reacted by launching an ad hominem, so I'm really not inclined to do that again.

(For the record, not that anyone cares - the structure of my argument is intended to be:
You say A. A implies B (IMHO). You don't believe B. Therefore, you ought to reject A (IMHO).
To which Justinian complains that I'm claiming he believes B. The argument relies on recognising that he doesn't.)

Bottom line:
Justinian is quite happy to tell anyone (in the above thread, Dark Knight) he's arguing with what's really going on in their arguments, ignoring or dismissing any attempts to clarify.
But if he thinks (rightly or wrongly) that there's a whiff of anybody doing the same to him he complains self-righteously that it's completely unacceptable.

So, yes, Justinian. If you don't like it don't do it yourself. And then you'd have a leg to stand on.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

When I see a spat between two shipmates who have been here for over ten years, and who signed up within a few weeks of one another, I can't help but see it as a bit of a domestic.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
From this thread.

Justinian is complaining that I'm 'misrepresenting' him. Well, to some extent no doubt I am, because I'm a human being and I'm fallible. And I'd willingly explore where I've been wrong if I thought for a moment he'd be willing to meet me half way. But we've been here before, and I have tried apologising, and both times he's reacted by launching an ad hominem, so I'm really not inclined to do that again.

(For the record, not that anyone cares - the structure of my argument is intended to be:
You say A. A implies B (IMHO). You don't believe B. Therefore, you ought to reject A (IMHO).
To which Justinian complains that I'm claiming he believes B. The argument relies on recognising that he doesn't.)

Bottom line:
Justinian is quite happy to tell anyone (in the above thread, Dark Knight) he's arguing with what's really going on in their arguments, ignoring or dismissing any attempts to clarify.
But if he thinks (rightly or wrongly) that there's a whiff of anybody doing the same to him he complains self-righteously that it's completely unacceptable.

So, yes, Justinian. If you don't like it don't do it yourself. And then you'd have a leg to stand on.

We have indeed been here before. With you posting vapid and erudite fallacies last time as I remember.

I kept my tone in response to you as Purgatorial as possible given that you were lying about what I actually said. And you made the stupid mistake of linking the post where I demonstrated that.

Shipmates can check that you have quite literally attributed SusanDoris's words to me and then decided that there was only one possible reason to critique Ingo's metaphor.

At the very best your claim that "A implies B" is blown up because A, as I demonstrated, implies that B is absolutely false and has no place anywhere. It's only when you reject A that you can possibly have B. Your logic as normal fails you. After I pointed this out you doubled down.

And you accuse me of rudeness. You, who have spent most of the thread defending a term that was invented as a snarl word.

And as expected, you haven't demonstrated a damn thing. You are merely throwing mud at me. First the mud of "Scientismist" at the thread and now a set of misrepresentations that you have doubled down on after I have pointed out how all of them are misrepresentations. And are now tripling down on here in hell. Slurs and misrepresentations combined with failed logic seem to be absolutely your speed on that thread. Which I find utterly unsurprising and it's why I seldom reply to you.

As for Dark Knight, it's very obvious he'd be out of his depth in a paddling pool, let alone this thread. He uses very basic words he doesn't understand. Like "Fundamentalist"

In fact he goes back on what he claims his position is. The obvious part is that:

First: he claims It's like claiming to be a fundamentalist. Only someone who doesn't understand what it is would own it.

Then he doubles down, claiming This is the etymological fallacy, supported very poorly by personal anecdotes. The latter I can easily counter by saying I've never met anyone who understood the term [fundamentalism] who owned it. This is, of course, his normal standard of logic very clearly laid out. A counter to "They exist" is not "Well I've never met one.

His claim, of course, turns out to be untrue: I was teaching NT Intro a few years ago at a little community college, and one of my students told me he was a "fundamentalist." I think he meant it to imply he applied a common sense, literalist approach to the Bible. I'm not sure he understood from my expression that he could not have appalled me more if he'd said "You know, last weekend I spent some time drowning puppies!"

Of course he doubles down claiming that he's never heard anyone using the term fundamentalist - right after posting that he's met one and looked horrified.

His standard of argument is laughable. His idea of a riposte is "Der. The existence of scientism? The subject of this thread?" (He later accuses me of quote-mining for presenting his words in full context)

(He also commits the etymological fallacy he accuses others of).

And that's just two pages of going through Dark Knight's ignorant and self-contradictory crap. I've argued with Young Earth Creationists who were simulataneously more knowledgeable, more honest, and more consistent than he is.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

There always have been threads on the Ship where people don't understand eachother's arguments. But this seems to happen to the n'th power on that thread.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
[QB][/QB]

Summary version:
it's always other people who are in the wrong.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Summary version:
it's always other people who are in the wrong.

Good to see you have nothing but misrepresentation and insinuation.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Eight fucking links, none of which are from the caller. [Disappointed]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I kept my tone in response to you as Purgatorial as possible given that you were lying about what I actually said. And you made the stupid mistake of linking the post where I demonstrated that.

You've opted for the interpretation of my posting that imputes the maximum amount of bad faith. And then when you come across evidence that is inconsistent with that interpretation, you dismiss it as me making 'a stupid mistake'.

At this point there's not really any evidence of my good intentions that you couldn't dismiss in that way is there?

It's not really a constructive hermeneutic strategy, is it? Could you perhaps please rethink it?

[ 15. October 2014, 18:50: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Eight fucking links, none of which are from the caller.

Yes, but they were very important. Otherwise, there's a risk that some people might not take Justinian seriously ... [Eek!]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I kept my tone in response to you as Purgatorial as possible given that you were lying about what I actually said. And you made the stupid mistake of linking the post where I demonstrated that.
You've opted for the interpretation of my posting that imputes the maximum amount of bad faith. And then when you come across evidence that is inconsistent with that interpretation, you dismiss it as me making 'a stupid mistake'.

With all due respect, how the fuck was I meant to interpret "Annoying, isn't it? Perhaps the next time Dark Knight or I or anyone complains that you're putting words in our mouths you might consider listening?" Which you wrote before I said you were doing anything other than misrepresenting me and getting things wrong and in the middle of doubling down on your misrepresentation.

quote:
At this point there's not really any evidence of my good intentions that you couldn't dismiss in that way is there?

A full apology would be a start.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
With all due respect, how the fuck was I meant to interpret "Annoying, isn't it? Perhaps the next time Dark Knight or I or anyone complains that you're putting words in our mouths you might consider listening?"

You might try taking it at face value. The first sentence appeals to a shared experience of frustration at being unintentionally misinterpreted. The second sentence is an application of the Golden Rule to that particular shared experience.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
At this point there's not really any evidence of my good intentions that you couldn't dismiss in that way is there?
A full apology would be a start.

There's a problem here, which is that you've accused me of lying. And I didn't lie, so I'm not going to apologise for that.
And you complain about me 'doubling down' on misrepresenting you when you've been brazenly unapologetic about misrepresenting me and Dark Knight in this very thread. That's what - heptupling down? octupling down? I've lost count. So for you to ask for an apology without first retracting all your accusations of bad faith is really a bit much.
And yes, the last couple of times I tried apologising to you you 'doubled down' on your personal attacks on me in response.

So, you know what? Until you retract all your accusations of lying or intentional misrepresentation, until you acknowledge that there is at least a possibly that you've misunderstood us, and are therefore misrepresenting us, until you acknowledge that maybe I don't need to apologise for everything you're accusing me of, and that maybe you might need to do some apologising too, until then I'm not going to bother considering it.
Been there, done that, got a personal attack for my troubles.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

Wait, Justinian got called to head and it wasn't for making himself the resident expert on America's race relations?

Huh.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As for Dark Knight, it's very obvious he'd be out of his depth in a paddling pool, let alone this thread. He uses very basic words he doesn't understand.

All those links to a thread I quit reading because you can only bang your head against a wall so many times before you pass out.

You're trying to get me to like Dark Knight, aren't you? I mean, I don't dislike him, it's just that we're hardly ever in the same place at the same time after a spat we had a few years ago.

That's sweet of you.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
With all due respect, how the fuck was I meant to interpret "Annoying, isn't it? Perhaps the next time Dark Knight or I or anyone complains that you're putting words in our mouths you might consider listening?"
You might try taking it at face value. The first sentence appeals to a shared experience of frustration at being unintentionally misinterpreted. The second sentence is an application of the Golden Rule to that particular shared experience.

To sum up your claims during that particular exchange.

1: You misrepresent me.
2: I say you've misrepresented me.
3: You repeat most of the same misrepresentations. And then ask me if I like it.
4: You now claim that that was an entirely innocent statement expressing fellow feeling. Despite the fact you were busy continuing to misrepresent me at the time.

O... K...

quote:
There's a problem here, which is that you've accused me of lying. And I didn't lie, so I'm not going to apologise for that.

OK. I have demonstrated that you have misrepresented me. I will accept that you don't lie. You are far too subtle for that in my experience. It's slurs and smears (like "scientism"), blatant misrepresentation (as I have demonstrated), and barbs with a shred of deniability (as you have just demonstrated).

quote:
And you complain about me 'doubling down' on misrepresenting you when you've been brazenly unapologetic about misrepresenting me and Dark Knight in this very thread.

Ah yes. The mudslinging. Dark Knight has said exactly what I claimed he said in this thread. Yet you claim I am brazenly unapologetic about misrepresenting him. This is why I provided the links - because I knew you'd try that one.

quote:
So, you know what? Until you retract all your accusations of lying or intentional misrepresentation, until you acknowledge that there is at least a possibly that you've misunderstood us, and are therefore misrepresenting us,

There is a possibility I'm misrepresenting Dark Knight. He's been torturing his position routinely. I am very sure I am not misrepresenting his position on the links I posted but may be later in the thread.

You? Let's look at two of your posts. You claimed "You just said that the people trying to model the study of politics and economics on the hard sciences are using all reliable methods already.
If you didn't mean to liken people who think economics and politics oughtn't to be modelled on the hard sciences to crystal ball gazers you chose a funny way of not doing so."

In your very next post in the thread when I asked you what on earth gave you that impression you quoted an exchange between SusanDoris and Le Roc - and then had the nerve to say that because I joined a tangent of that exchange a few posts later I must automatically agree with SusanDoris on the entire argument.

In short you first made a mistake, putting SusanDoris' words into my mouth. Perfectly understandable. It was a long and contentious thread. But then, when I pointed out that I had not actually said something you claimed I had, instead of apologising your "defence" was that SusanDoris had said it. And that because I found IngoB's analogy badly flawed and pointed that out, I might not have said what SusanDoris did but must agree with it.

You quite literally and knowingly first accused me of holding beliefs and then when I asked where I'd said it, you quoted someone else. You knew the person you were quoting wasn't me. Yet you did it anyway.

I find it hard to imagine a more clear cut case of knowingly misrepresenting someone than quoting the words of someone else, complete with the correct attribution straight after you said I'd said them and I said I hadn't and disagreed that that was what I thought.

quote:
until you acknowledge that maybe I don't need to apologise for everything you're accusing me of, and that maybe you might need to do some apologising too, until then I'm not going to bother considering it.
Been there, done that, got a personal attack for my troubles.

If that was your idea of an apology, I'm amazed. It wasn't an apology in any way, shape, or form. It didn't even reach the level of notpology. It might have been intended to be an expression of regret, but certainly read like a taunt.

I don't believe this can go any further. I certainly have no intention of engaging further with you - and for the first time ever in my time on the ship I'm checking whether the Ignore List works. Congratulations.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Wait, Justinian got called to head and it wasn't for making himself the resident expert on America's race relations?

Huh.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As for Dark Knight, it's very obvious he'd be out of his depth in a paddling pool, let alone this thread. He uses very basic words he doesn't understand.
All those links to a thread I quit reading because you can only bang your head against a wall so many times before you pass out.

You're trying to get me to like Dark Knight, aren't you? I mean, I don't dislike him, it's just that we're hardly ever in the same place at the same time after a spat we had a few years ago.

That's sweet of you.

Yeah, Dark Knight played the game and kept arguing in good faith with Croesus and Justinian for pages.

Bless his heart.

Bless Dafyd's heart too if he ever seriously apologized to Justinian.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Jussy, Jussy, Jussy. How are you a fuckwit? Let me count the ways ...
I did indeed screw up the fundamentalist comparison. My point, which remains undisputed, is that scientismists never claim to be such.
I also said I never met a fundamentalist who understood the label who claimed it, and then, in reply to Croesus, indicated that my student did not understand it.
So much for my mistakes on that thread. The rest is all you, Jussy.
Almost immediately, Justinian makes the basic category error that he/she sticks to, doggedly, in the face of logic and reason, for the rest of the thread.
When challenged, one of Jussy's standard tactics is to claim victory in the teeth of defeat.
Something like:
"Jussy, you don't understand what is going on here."
"I don't know what's going on here? You don't get what's going on here! Ner!"
Jussy also doesn't understand some things, like reductionism, or axioms. Or, apparently, how analogies work.
And, finally, once again - make defeat look like victory.
But my favourite piece of dishonesty would have to be this: claiming others are arguing in bad faith. And having the gall to demand an apology! [Killing me]

"Don't make me" say you won't be getting an apology from me, you fucking tool.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
"Don't make me" say you won't be getting an apology from me, you fucking tool.

Actually I apologise for that. Given your version of events I can now see where you were coming from. You were trying to engage - but are just incredibly far out of your depth.

Your problem is that you have a little learning - but only just enough to head off down a false pathway. You know a little about logic - enough to be able to use the term axiom properly. What you apparently have absolutely no understanding of is the limits to pure logic - which, ironically, is almost exactly what you accuse so-called Scientismists of doing.

Logic on its own creates interesting artefacts and edifices but can tell you absolutely nothing on its own. You can take literally anything as a premise whether or not it is true (mathematicians do frequently - including at least one entire branch of maths starting with the idea that 1+1=1). It is only when you have worked out which of the infinite possibilities for axioms to choose that you have anything other than one choice out of infinite possible wrong ones. That is why unless your intent is to do something for intellectual exercise with no connection to anything you need to validate your axioms. Otherwise you have merely chosen one set - and there are an infinite possibility of wrong ones that lead you to misleading conclusions. Without epistemology anything at all you can come up with is meaningless because it is simply one single possibility amongst infinite, most of which are simply wrong. That is why any attempt to start with ontology will end up as no more than a parlour game unless you make the assumption that you personally are right.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Oh for fuck's sake, Justinian. It took 5 seconds to work out that you'd completely distorted the purpose of Ingo's "ships" analogy on that thread, and after that I just stopped caring because I knew you'd be arguing about it with people for days.

I abandoned the thread soon after on the grounds that I have enough masochism in my life already.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Yep, there's that "if I keep talking, maybe people will think I'm actually right, even though I'm completely wrong" approach.
Jussy, it's you who is out of your depth. And the only one you are fooling is yourself.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian (to Dark Knight):
You know a little about logic <snip>

Well, that's one of you.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You can take literally anything as a premise whether or not it is true (mathematicians do frequently - including at least one entire branch of maths starting with the idea that 1+1=1).

Truth in mathematics just is to be in accord with the chosen axioms. That is technically different from truth in most other contexts, which is judged according to reality, i.e., by the correspondence of the concept to the world as we actually find it. In this sense, mathematics is closer to writing fiction than to say physics.

Consequently, an axiom in mathematics can only be incompatible / incoherent with other chosen axioms (so that a contradictions arises between them, possibly after many intermediate derivations). Whereas an axiom in most other contexts can be just plain old false by and in itself, namely as not corresponding to reality. You cannot take literally anything as a premise, if you want to have a shot at saying true things about the world. (And you cannot take literally anything as a premise in mathematics either - practicality speaking - unless you want to say "well, that clearly doesn't work out" a lot...)

Also, pray tell what branch of mathematics starts with 1+1=1?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Eight fucking links, none of which are from the caller.

Well, ain't it your fucking day?

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You can take literally anything as a premise whether or not it is true (mathematicians do frequently - including at least one entire branch of maths starting with the idea that 1+1=1).
Truth in mathematics just is to be in accord with the chosen axioms. That is technically different from truth in most other contexts, which is judged according to reality, i.e., by the correspondence of the concept to the world as we actually find it. In this sense, mathematics is closer to writing fiction than to say physics. Consequently, an axiom in mathematics can only be incompatible / incoherent with other chosen axioms (so that a contradictions arises between them, possibly after many intermediate derivations). Whereas an axiom in most other contexts can be just plain old false by and in itself, namely as not corresponding to reality. You cannot take literally anything as a premise, if you want to have a shot at saying true things about the world. (And you cannot take literally anything as a premise in mathematics either - practicality speaking - unless you want to say "well, that clearly doesn't work out" a lot...)

All absolutely on the nail.

quote:
Also, pray tell what branch of mathematics starts with 1+1=1?

It ends up as congruent with transfinite arithmetic.

Aleph X + Aleph X = Aleph X
Aleph X * Aleph X = Aleph X
Aleph X - Aleph X = ?????

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

Talking of belief - I find it hard to believe that the mathematics of supra-infinite sets is of any use whatsoever. Even infinite sets are only of use in that they remove the necessity for a "real" outer boundary condition. But then - my interest in (and knowledge of) maths is very applied.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of starting with ontology or starting with epistemology and whether or not there's a difference........

So many ologies, so little time.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just stopped caring because I knew you'd be arguing about it with people for days.

I really should have known better, shouldn't I?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Yes.

These sorts of discussions are useful up to a point, but after that point, it is an exercise in futility and simply becomes masochism.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I think I gave up when Justinian didn't answer my question about why the existence of God was a false premise.

Then SusanDories joined in and I knew the thread was a lost cause.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It ends up as congruent with transfinite arithmetic.

You cannot just make "1" stand for "Aleph_1", because "1" is the standard notation for the multiplicative identity. And the multiplicative identity of cardinal arithmetic is the "normal" number 1. Hence 1+1=2, as per usual, and Aleph_1+Aleph_1=Aleph_1.

(Or so vague memory suggests, it has been close to two decades since I last had to construct mathematical proofs about arithmetics...)

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Then SusanDories joined in and I knew the thread was a lost cause.

SusanDoris is obviously a long-term project by some smart aleck Christian to prove practically that atheism is a faith position. I think eventually we will end up with this scenario:

quote:

Atheist: Atheism is not a belief, it is just an absence of belief.

Believer: SusanDoris.

Atheist: But, but, ... OK, you win.

I think whoever is SusanDoris, be it one or many, is doing a fine job. And I suspect they do this at rather high operating costs: all those botox injections just to keep a straight face...

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

@Evensong, replying to you has very seldom gone anywhere useful.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It ends up as congruent with transfinite arithmetic.
You cannot just make "1" stand for "Aleph_1", because "1" is the standard notation for the multiplicative identity. And the multiplicative identity of cardinal arithmetic is the "normal" number 1. Hence 1+1=2, as per usual, and Aleph_1+Aleph_1=Aleph_1.

(Or so vague memory suggests, it has been close to two decades since I last had to construct mathematical proofs about arithmetics...)

OK. Time to derail this thread with mathematics.

1 is the standard notation for the multiplicative identity.

0 is the standard notation for the additive identity.

1+1=1 is another way of saying that the additive identity is the multiplicative identity. Which, of course, leads to weird results. If you apply it to Ring Theory you get the zero ring. Which ... isn't terribly interesting.

If you define Aleph Null as the number of integers then it is both its own additive and multiplicative identity - and you can't use it in ordinary arithmetic for very well known reasons. (And Integer 0 times Aleph Null is of course undefined). Which means that everything you discovered from defining 1+1=1 can immediately be brought into transfinite mathematics.

Transfinite mathematics on the other hand is slightly more interesting than The Zero Ring because we have extra rules we can bring in from the mapping to regular arithmetic. We can prove that there is more than one entity in the set of transfinite numbers through one of Cantor's Diagonal Proofs. But only slightly. If X+X=X and X*X=X then there really isn't a hell of a lot we can do with X - hence the Zero Ring. We can demonstrate that 2^X > X. And therefore the set contains more than one element (unlike The Zero Ring). We also have X+Y=Y+X and if X>Y X+Y=X (and corresponding multiplicative results).

The Zero Ring is a dead end. Transfinite mathematics using The Zero Ring also turns out to be a dead end so far as anyone has discovered, although it's a slightly more interesting one - although mostly conceptually rather than practically.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Talking of dead ends .....

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: Oh for fuck's sake, Justinian. It took 5 seconds to work out that you'd completely distorted the purpose of Ingo's "ships" analogy on that thread, and after that I just stopped caring because I knew you'd be arguing about it with people for days.

I abandoned the thread soon after on the grounds that I have enough masochism in my life already.

He seriously fucked up the penis cake argument too. And he just goes on and on ...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I learnt about rings in National Maths Summer School over 20 years ago. I enjoyed National Maths Summer School. It had great lecturers. The last thing I need is some pathetic rambler ruining my fond memories of National Maths Summer School by associating himself in my mind with rings.

If you start discussing the square root of -1 I will have to kill you.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Yep, there's that "if I keep talking, maybe people will think I'm actually right, even though I'm completely wrong" approach.

Now supplemented with the subtly different "If I start talking about other stuff, maybe people will forget how wrong I was in the first place" approach.
Admittedly, it could be the "If I keep talking, perhaps people will start to agree with me, or do anything I want, in order to get me to shut the fuck up" approach.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Yep, there's that "if I keep talking, maybe people will think I'm actually right, even though I'm completely wrong" approach.
Now supplemented with the subtly different "If I start talking about other stuff, maybe people will forget how wrong I was in the first place" approach.

I've demonstrated exactly how badly you fail at understanding what you are trying to claim. I've demonstrated Dafyd's mendacity. I've finally understood the well of misunderstanding that your attempts to claim victory by contemplating your own navel were coming from.

But feel free to invent your own reality the way you have your own logic. I know on this thread I'm boring dilettantes rigid. And apologise to the Hell Hosts for having to read what must be one of the most tedious hell threads ever given its length.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you start discussing the square root of -1 I will have to kill you.

Wow! Imagine that.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you start discussing the square root of -1 I will have to kill you.
Wow! Imagine that.

You beat me to it. I had just come here to ask if he was for real.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Math geek outrage is sexy as hell.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you start discussing the square root of -1 I will have to kill you.
Wow! Imagine that.
You beat me to it. I had just come here to ask if he was for real.

I suspect the answer to that is rather complex.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Ah yes, but rational.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

Where's a certain Circus host when we need him?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Who you calling 'him' ?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I've demonstrated exactly how badly you fail at understanding what you are trying to claim. I've demonstrated Dafyd's mendacity.

To how many people, would you estimate?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Holy fuck, you are never going convince me Dafyd is mendacious. I really don't give a damn if he is right or wrong, but boy, is that off the mark.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I've demonstrated exactly how badly you fail at understanding what you are trying to claim. I've demonstrated Dafyd's mendacity.
To how many people, would you estimate?

Just the one. Jussy, of course.
Jussy is delusional. He/she still thinks he/she is misunderstood. No matter how many other people assure Jussy otherwise.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

I am starting to wonder what "demonstrate" means to Jussy. To me, it usually means something along the lines of supporting or proving a statement through reasoning or evidence.
For Jussy, perhaps it means talking on and on until everyone else reading or listening wishes they were dead.
No doubt, Jussy will be along soon with a link to a definition of "demonstrate," followed by an incomprehensible explanation of how the way Jussy is using it is actually totally correct, contrary to everyone else reading along.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I've demonstrated exactly how badly you fail at understanding what you are trying to claim. I've demonstrated Dafyd's mendacity.
To how many people, would you estimate?

To an imaginary number, obviously!

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I've demonstrated exactly how badly you fail at understanding what you are trying to claim. I've demonstrated Dafyd's mendacity.
To how many people, would you estimate?

Oh, it's easily proven.

Dafyd is intelligent.
Intelligent people agree with Justinian.
Therefore Dafyd must secretly agree with Justinian, and be pretending not to for some nefarious purpose of his own.

Posted by Figbash (# 9048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

The Zero Ring is a dead end. Transfinite mathematics using The Zero Ring also turns out to be a dead end so far as anyone has discovered, although it's a slightly more interesting one - although mostly conceptually rather than practically.

Briefly, but I hope not too painfully for those cursed with amathematica, the significant error you are making is this. You assume that the arithmetic of transfinite cardinals obeys the ring axioms. It does not: additive inverses are never defined, so the additive sector is a semigroup. Therefore there is no ring. Therefore your analogy with ring theory is false.

A more elementary argument is: clearly 0 is a cardinal, and so, if cardinals did form a ring as you describe, 0 would be the unique additive identity. Therefore, as \aleph_0 is not equal to zero (due to being transfinite) it cannot act as an additive identity. Contradiction.

I am somewhat stunned that you are seriously making such an obviously nonsensical argument.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Holy fuck, you are never going convince me Dafyd is mendacious. I really don't give a damn if he is right or wrong, but boy, is that off the mark.

Dafyd claimed I believed something I don't. When I pointed out I don't he decided to claim that because SusanDoris had said something I must believe it and have said it. This has been linked. It wasn't quite a lie - he actually attributed SusanDoris' post to her and yet somehow decided I believed it.

Even his opening post is bullshit - and he's far too smart to not know the difference between "To which Justinian complains that I'm claiming he believes B. " and my actual position that A is the reason we can utterly reject B out of hand.

He's erudite and he's subtle. It's only when he's arguing with atheists I see mendacity from him - but this isn't the first time. Whether it's arguing with me or in the past misrepresenting Dawkins (of which there is admittedly a cottage industry among Christians).

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian;

He's erudite and he's subtle. It's only when he's arguing with atheists I see mendacity from him

Probably because on most other matters (e.g. The shortcomings of right-wing politics) you either agree with him or haven't strongly identified yourself with a stance.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Dafyd claimed I believed something I don't.

There is a figure of speech called irony. It is not the same as lying.
Croesos does it all the time. Of course, Croesos is as annoying as a wasp in a portaloo and half the time Croesos does actually cross over into straw mannery. So you may have something of a point. But right now I'm not disposed to give myself anything other than the benefit of the doubt.

quote:
When I pointed out I don't he decided to claim that because SusanDoris had said something I must believe it and have said it.

This is a complete and perverse misreading. Saying the same thing as SusanDoris (or LeRoc or IngoB) is not the same as talking about the same thing as talking about the same thing as SusanDoris and LeRoc and IngoB.

quote:
It's only when he's arguing with atheists I see mendacity from him

You're really not able to listen to yourself, are you?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Since this is Hell, I can observe that Justinian comes off like he is backed into a corner and chucking tomatoes at whoever comes too close.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

... but has really bad aim?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Talking of belief - I find it hard to believe that the mathematics of supra-infinite sets is of any use whatsoever.

That's what they said about imaginary numbers, until physicists found a use for them in describing electromagnetic fields. I would be very careful about writing off some part of mathematics as useless. It's the sort of ignorant judgment that has a way of coming back to bite you in the arse.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Holy fuck, you are never going convince me Dafyd is mendacious. I really don't give a damn if he is right or wrong, but boy, is that off the mark.

Thank you. This saves me the trouble of trying to think up a way to say this.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Wow. I knew I was right to bail from that thread.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

To be honest though, the moment the guy went "Show me an empirical way to demonstrate God" I knew the thread was a wash.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
To be honest though, the moment the guy went "Show me an empirical way to demonstrate God" I knew the thread was a wash.

You could as easily ask for 'an empirical way to demonstrate love', but fewer would oppose the existence of love.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
To be honest though, the moment the guy went "Show me an empirical way to demonstrate God" I knew the thread was a wash.
You could as easily ask for 'an empirical way to demonstrate love', but fewer would oppose the existence of love.

Gotta be honest, it's not even that. It's just that that's one of those statements that signifies the beginning of an Endless Circular Argument With No Conclusion, Resolution or Understanding Ever and OH FUCK ABANDON ALL HOPE ABORT ABORT

[ 20. October 2014, 11:05: Message edited by: Wood ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
To be honest though, the moment the guy went "Show me an empirical way to demonstrate God" I knew the thread was a wash.

Was that Justinian? I thought it was lilbuddha. I thought Justinian had more nous when it comes to arguing the existence of God. He just disregards the premise on false grounds which he can't provide the evidence for.

But you're quite right nevertheless.

As for Dafyd, I had to google mendacity. I hate having to google words. Offends my sense of verbal superiority.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
To be honest though, the moment the guy went "Show me an empirical way to demonstrate God" I knew the thread was a wash.
Was that Justinian? I thought it was lilbuddha. I thought Justinian had more nous when it comes to arguing the existence of God.

It was lilbuddha, yeah. Doesn't matter. Thread was a wash.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Just for future reference, I think he is a she. [Big Grin]

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Just for future reference, I think he is a she.

Noted.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Ring theory. Sounds impenetrable.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Ring theory. Sounds impenetrable.

On the contrary. There's a hole in the middle you could drive a truck through.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Ring theory. Sounds impenetrable.
On the contrary. There's a hole in the middle you could drive a truck through.

Well played.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Hole in one!

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

The joke that keeps on giving.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I miss rings, even if I only dealt with them for 4 weeks of my life in total. It was fun knowing that 3 x 4 = 5 and that 3 and 4 are both square roots of 2.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0