Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.

Quote from: markjo on September 01, 2010, 07:28:59 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on September 01, 2010, 03:40:00 PM

By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.

Or that gender is not as absolute as one might think.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender

Third gender or third sex refer to a gender category, of people who are considered neither completely male, nor completely female. It is a gender identity separate from 'men' and 'women,' of people considered to be the intermediate sex; in-betweens (like the androgynes) or neutrals (like the agendered).

  Who knows what you just did to PP. Maybe it was to soon to expose him to the peculiarities of the sex world and now he is shocked and damaged goods for life...

Wouldn't it be horrible if he had identity issues and found out about it here on this board? I wasn't going to mention the "third" genders in any dealings with him.

I'm really trying to educate him on the grays of life, but I think him parents need to curtail his Internet time and talk to him more. He still thinks that "I don't know" is a bad answer to a "yes" or "no" question. Did you stop beating your horse today? (I don't have a horse, and never did.) Is the Mandurian word for "house" the same as the Thai word for "bed"? (I don't speak either language and don't know.)

He still thinks that "I don't know" is a bad answer to a "yes" or "no" question.

Oh, but by all means, you have repeatedly done the same. When I pointed out your hypocrisy, you ignored it. Of course, as you have noticed, this is yet another example.

Did you stop beating your horse today? (I don't have a horse, and never did.)

No, I didn't stop beating my horse today. I never started doing so to begin with. The reason for that is that, much like yourself, I do not have a horse.
Do you think "I don't know" is the answer here? Like, "I don't know if I am currently beating a horse, since I do not have one"? Yet again you fail miserably.

Is the Mandurian word for "house" the same as the Thai word for "bed"? (I don't speak either language and don't know.)

The answer is "No". There is no Mandurian language, therefore the Mandurian word for "house" doesn't exist, which makes it very different from the existent Thai word for "bed". Possibly you meant a local dialect of Italian spoken in Manduria, in which case the answer is "no". Alternatively, you might have meant Mandarin Chinese, in which case the answer is still "no".

Of course, "I don't know" is an existent answer to the second question. However, using it in a debate doesn't strengthen your argument, especially when a sufficient answer is a Google search away.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 02, 2010, 12:49:30 AM

He still thinks that "I don't know" is a bad answer to a "yes" or "no" question.

Oh, but by all means, you have repeatedly done the same. When I pointed out your hypocrisy, you ignored it. Of course, as you have noticed, this is yet another example.

Do tell us all how this is another example. I doubt that you can back up this claim any better the last dozen you've failed at. Do enlighten us. Then tell about how you got that picture of two australias. Then tell us how I was arguing just semantics on Carpenter's first proof. We'll wait (not really).

Do tell us all how this is another example.

Claiming there are no replies due to having ignored them in the past is arrogance and hypocrisy. By being arrogant and hypocritical you have demonstrated yet another example of your arrogance and hypocrisy, which was arrogant and hypocritical in its nature.

I doubt that you can back up this claim any better the last dozen you've failed at. Do enlighten us.

And another one. How entertaining.

Then tell about how you got that picture of two australias.

Feel free to abandon your attempts to derail the thread just because you're losing it. It won't work. If you want to ask questions regarding Australias, feel free to ask in the thread regarding Australias.

Then tell us how I was arguing just semantics on Carpenter's first proof. We'll wait (not really).

What, again? As you said yourself many times, not all questions are worth answering. I speculate that you wouldn't read my answer, and then request another one, which you wouldn't read either. You rarely read threads before posting in them. If you wish to have your question answered, just read my previous posts. It's easy, assuming you comprehend English.

Of course, you forgot to respond to the main point of my previous post. I'll wait (really!).
EDIT: To remind you:

Quote from: ClockTower on September 02, 2010, 12:49:30 AM

Did you stop beating your horse today? (I don't have a horse, and never did.)

No, I didn't stop beating my horse today. I never started doing so to begin with. The reason for that is that, much like yourself, I do not have a horse.
Do you think "I don't know" is the answer here? Like, "I don't know if I am currently beating a horse, since I do not have one"? Yet again you fail miserably.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 02, 2010, 12:49:30 AM

Is the Mandurian word for "house" the same as the Thai word for "bed"? (I don't speak either language and don't know.)

The answer is "No". There is no Mandurian language, therefore the Mandurian word for "house" doesn't exist, which makes it very different from the existent Thai word for "bed". Possibly you meant a local dialect of Italian spoken in Manduria, in which case the answer is "no". Alternatively, you might have meant Mandarin Chinese, in which case the answer is still "no".

Of course, "I don't know" is an existent answer to the second question. However, using it in a debate doesn't strengthen your argument, especially when a sufficient answer is a Google search away.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 02, 2010, 05:37:51 AM

Do tell us all how this is another example.

Claiming there are no replies due to having ignored them in the past is arrogance and hypocrisy. By being arrogant and hypocritical you have demonstrated yet another example of your arrogance and hypocrisy, which was arrogant and hypocritical in its nature.

Again do tell us all how this is another example. Where did I claim that there were no replies? If you want to send multiple issues in a single post, that's fine. But I'm going to wait on the resolution of your first point before moving on. I really don't feel an obligation to answer all your points, especially when you start off a post with a poor response.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 01, 2010, 03:13:20 PM

It's Carpenter you'd have to talk to about changing the word he used, not me. I simply have not in anyway argued about the semantics of the word. Requring that Carpenter talk to each and every aeronaut before claiming that not a single aeronaut has seen something is logic, not semantics.

And this is where you fail ultimately. How is this logic?
It has been established that there are two biological sexes amongst mankind: male and female. OH WAIT. According to logic, I have to talk to every single person on Earth to verify that. Since I can't possibly accomplish that, I conclude that there is a different number of sexes.

I still don't understand how is it that you are the only one who fails to understand simple reasoning. How in any possible way can you absolutely know that every people in the world is either male of female without checking it out personally? You can only do generalization that it may be so based in your experiences but there is no absolute conclusion that it is 100% so. And your last sentence is also wrong. You don't conclude that there is different number of sexes but that there may be more sexes. Until you don't get even that simple logic there is nothing to talk with you.

Ah, so the conclusion is that Carpenter's point may or may not be valid. I'll agree with that, because one of these is true for certain.

Ah, so the conclusion is that Carpenter's point may or may not be valid. I'll agree with that, because one of these is true for certain.

It's another way to say that Carpenter didn't really say or prove anything.

Ah, so the conclusion is that Carpenter's point may or may not be valid. I'll agree with that, because one of these is true for certain.

This incredibly long discussion is just about your attempts at using mathematical logic where it does not belong.

In science there are no absolute truths. No experiment is totally valid and most experiments are not totally invalid. Welcome to the world of fuzzy logic, where every statement about truth is only about a probability of being true.

That is why all of science is based on overwhelming evidence, not on your binary logic.

You will have to learn about your logic statements before making yourself seem even less intelligent than what you seem right now.

To make the point above clearer:

Every time an experiment or observation shows something weird a number of experiments are designed to find out whether they were the result of bad experiments, bad equipment, noise or some other problem. If that one experiment proves to have weird results the fame of the original experimenter goes through the roof. There is nothing that puts a scientist's mind to spin like an unexplained phenomenon.

But what made Carpenter's experiments (the very few he published) underwhelming was that his results were easily explained by better experiments.

We will never know whether Carpenter tweaked his results towards his desired results, or whether the very timid designs were fine tuned to get the desired results or if he really wanted to make good science. What we know is that better experiments have consistently demolished the validity of his experiments.

Please explain how my opposition to binary "logic" is binary in its nature.

Please explain how my opposition to binary "logic" is binary in its nature.

Please support punctuation. Please explain how "logic" is binary in its nature.

Please support punctuation.

Please explain how "logic" is binary in its nature.

It doesn't have to be. However, binary "logic" is binary in its nature due to being defined as binary. I thought that's a very simple concept.

To further explain: while the shape of the Earth is constantly being contested on these fora, a round Earth is round* in its nature due to being defined as round, and a flat Earth is flat* for the very same reasons.

*-inb4 hills and mountains and geoids and so on.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 03:13:56 PM

Please support punctuation.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 03:13:56 PM

Please explain how "logic" is binary in its nature.

It doesn't have to be. However, binary "logic" is binary in its nature due to being defined as binary. I thought that's a very simple concept.

Then please explain the reason you've chosen binary logic over logic then.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on September 03, 2010, 03:19:56 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 03:13:56 PM

Please support punctuation.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 03:13:56 PM

Please explain how "logic" is binary in its nature.

It doesn't have to be. However, binary "logic" is binary in its nature due to being defined as binary. I thought that's a very simple concept.

Then please explain the reason you've chosen binary logic over logic then.

I've done the very opposite of that. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you did so, though?

I've done the very opposite of that. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you did so, though?

Binary logic is what you insist on with the position of it's a "yes" or "no" question. Logic allows for at least four states for each question: True, False, Unknown, and Unknowable. Yet, you seem lost in some nascent state that treats the world as black and white. That's the point.

Nope, I do grayscale. You keep switching between the two depending on which suits you more. I asked you why you're doing this, and am still awaiting an answer.

Nope, I do grayscale. You keep switching between the two depending on which suits you more. I asked you why you're doing this, and am still awaiting an answer.

And I keep challenging you for any example of my inappropriate use of logic. Oddly you seem unable to answer that challenge. You do understand that 1) grayscale is the wrong word, and 2) each type of logic has its appropriate use, right? There is nothing wrong with using the right tool for the task.

There is nothing wrong with using the right tool for the task.

That's exactly why I asked you to justify your use of it. Being no less hypocritical than usually, you did not "answer that challenge". Also, further confirming your hypocrisy, you have just attempted to argue semantics again. Shame on you.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 05:04:00 PM

There is nothing wrong with using the right tool for the task.

That's exactly why I asked you to justify your use of it. Being no less hypocritical than usually, you did not "answer that challenge".

Troll much? I'll answer any well documented challenge, but I won't respond to you any longer when you fail to document your challenge. I hopes troll can find eatz.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on September 03, 2010, 05:35:08 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 05:04:00 PM

There is nothing wrong with using the right tool for the task.

That's exactly why I asked you to justify your use of it. Being no less hypocritical than usually, you did not "answer that challenge".

Troll much? I'll answer any well documented challenge, but I won't respond to you any longer when you fail to document your challenge. I hopes troll can find eatz.

Haha. Okay, I accept your withdrawal. I expected nothing else.

hmmm... sorry to change subjects, i know how much you FES like to argue pointless dribble. So i'm curious, we all know rowie was wrong, we know his astronomy didnt work, we know he found zero proof that the earth is flat. (Despite the fact that the faq for this forum clearly says that rowie proved the earth must be flat with a series of experiments.....ummm fraid not) In fact, when he found no proof, he made up magical science to explain things, bendy light, the conspiracy, a giant pea-tree dish being accelerated upwards by gods knows what for god knows why. The fact that there are thousands of millionaire ( not to mention 3rd world countries) with private satellites, yet none of them want to come forward cause all of them.....every single one....is part of the conspiracy......
all in all my question is this: y do you personally think that the earth is flat PP?

all in all my question is this: y do you personally think that the earth is flat PP?

You'll notice he does not have the title "Flat Earth Believer" under his name.