« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Questions

  • 132 Replies
  • 25505 Views
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Questions
« Reply #120 on: November 24, 2009, 07:25:01 AM »
Quote from: markjo on November 24, 2009, 06:27:12 AM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 24, 2009, 01:41:59 AM
I've used telescopes. I just don't believe that I can come to any any definite conclusions based on what I see through them.
Then why bother?  ???


*gasp* You're right. I'm never watching another film that isn't 100% truthful in nature. Because the senses serve no other purpose than to make definite conclusions about the world we live in.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45091
  • +87/-122
Re: Questions
« Reply #121 on: November 24, 2009, 07:56:55 AM »
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 24, 2009, 07:25:01 AM
Quote from: markjo on November 24, 2009, 06:27:12 AM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 24, 2009, 01:41:59 AM
I've used telescopes. I just don't believe that I can come to any any definite conclusions based on what I see through them.
Then why bother?  ???
*gasp* You're right. I'm never watching another film that isn't 100% truthful in nature. Because the senses serve no other purpose than to make definite conclusions about the world we live in.
As I recall, one of the great mantras of FET was that a telescope of sufficient power could restore the hull of a partially "sunken" boat.  Are you saying that we shouldn't trust this as evidence of the earth being flat?
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
?

Crustinator

  • 7783
  • +0/-0
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Questions
« Reply #122 on: November 24, 2009, 08:42:45 AM »
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 24, 2009, 01:41:59 AM
I've used telescopes. I just don't believe that I can come to any any definite conclusions based on what I see through them.

A philosophy and technique based on indefinite conclusions is not one that should be promoted.
Logged
?

contract_feral

  • 56
  • +0/-0
  • FIGHT ME
Re: Questions
« Reply #123 on: November 24, 2009, 11:47:47 PM »
how can my question be off topic, when my question is the topic, especially when philosophy has its own dedicated forum. if you believe that my first question was answered,  then please quote the answer, if you can. as for the other numerous times i have asked slight variations of the question, none of them have been answered yet. my questions/queries are not more important than those of others, in reality they seem a lil less important due to fat that they have not been payed attention in the same way as your philosophical telescope argument, by the way, that is not progression it is derailment off the topic. if you are worried about how important your queries etc are then go to the correct forum dedicated to your cause. if you cant answer the question then don't reply, its very simple.     
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Questions
« Reply #124 on: November 25, 2009, 01:49:01 AM »
Quote from: markjo on November 24, 2009, 07:56:55 AM
As I recall, one of the great mantras of FET was that a telescope of sufficient power could restore the hull of a partially "sunken" boat.  Are you saying that we shouldn't trust this as evidence of the earth being flat?


I've said on several occasions that I am a supporter of EAT/AET.


Quote from: Crustinator on November 24, 2009, 08:42:45 AM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 24, 2009, 01:41:59 AM
I've used telescopes. I just don't believe that I can come to any any definite conclusions based on what I see through them.

A philosophy and technique based on indefinite conclusions is not one that should be promoted.


Not really sure what you're saying here. How can a philosophy be based on its own conclusions? ???
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
?

Crustinator

  • 7783
  • +0/-0
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Questions
« Reply #125 on: November 25, 2009, 10:26:48 AM »
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 25, 2009, 01:49:01 AM
Not really sure what you're saying here. How can a philosophy be based on its own conclusions? ???

Where did I say it was based on its own conclusions?
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Questions
« Reply #126 on: November 26, 2009, 04:19:01 AM »
Quote from: Crustinator on November 25, 2009, 10:26:48 AM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 25, 2009, 01:49:01 AM
Not really sure what you're saying here. How can a philosophy be based on its own conclusions? ???

Where did I say it was based on its own conclusions?


Quote from: Crustinator on November 24, 2009, 08:42:45 AM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 24, 2009, 01:41:59 AM
I've used telescopes. I just don't believe that I can come to any any definite conclusions based on what I see through them.

A philosophy and technique based on indefinite conclusions is not one that should be promoted.


My philosophy is not based on those conclusions. The conclusions are based on the philosophy.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
?

Crustinator

  • 7783
  • +0/-0
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Questions
« Reply #127 on: November 26, 2009, 07:47:46 AM »
No. I didn't say your philosophy is based on it's own conclusions (as your quotes show) I said a philosophy and technique based on indefinite conclusions is not one that should be promoted.

What use is a philosophy that reaches indefinite conclusions?
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Questions
« Reply #128 on: November 26, 2009, 01:23:41 PM »
What indefinite conclusions is that 'philosophy' based on?
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
?

Crustinator

  • 7783
  • +0/-0
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Questions
« Reply #129 on: November 26, 2009, 03:39:06 PM »
Quote from: Crustinator on November 24, 2009, 08:42:45 AM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 24, 2009, 01:41:59 AM
I've used telescopes. I just don't believe that I can come to any any definite conclusions based on what I see through them.

A philosophy and technique based on indefinite conclusions is not one that should be promoted.
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Questions
« Reply #130 on: November 27, 2009, 02:07:44 AM »
That is a conclusion which I derive from the philosophical argument I outlined at the beginning. That conclusion is reached through the argument, not the other way round.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
?

Crustinator

  • 7783
  • +0/-0
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Questions
« Reply #131 on: November 27, 2009, 08:23:37 AM »
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 27, 2009, 02:07:44 AM
That is a conclusion which I derive from the philosophical argument I outlined at the beginning. That conclusion is reached through the argument, not the other way round.

It is an indefinite conclusion.

Your philosophy produces them. Therefore it is neither use nor ornament.
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Questions
« Reply #132 on: November 28, 2009, 05:57:59 AM »
Quote from: Crustinator on November 27, 2009, 08:23:37 AM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 27, 2009, 02:07:44 AM
That is a conclusion which I derive from the philosophical argument I outlined at the beginning. That conclusion is reached through the argument, not the other way round.

It is an indefinite conclusion.

Your philosophy produces them. Therefore it is neither use nor ornament.


Quote from: Crustinator on November 24, 2009, 08:42:45 AM
A philosophy and technique based on indefinite conclusions is not one that should be promoted.


If my philosophy produces those conclusions, it can't be based on them, can it? Furthermore, the conclusion is in no way "indefinite".
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up
« previous next »