[Mongrel I have, it would be easier to know exactly what you are talking about if you would be so kind as to just mention the threads, if you don't mind.

He also said in a thread about Trump that most women would enjoy the particular "treatment" he bragged about giving them during the campaign. It was pretty vile.

It's not fair that particular members get accused based on fancy; it's disgraceful.

Looks like somebody's buttons really got pushed...:)

— John Harris
Oh yes, my butt is red

On that we can agree...:)

↪John Harris Which button should I press so that you tell me that you won't read any of my future comments in this thread? >:

I've already pushed too many buttons needing to debunk so many of your arguments, I'll let you figure that out.

Yes, I am a child and you are my toy! X-)

No, I've clearly made you my toy in our discussions, where you've been left a child well-"spanked"...:)

↪Buxtebuddha You have to admit that Mr. Harris is a little bit like a toy. You press the button, and there he goes! >:O

Because I respond to your trolling? That only makes the children you who aren't here to talk philosophy but immaturely try to get reactions out of people. How sad.

Rofl. Right on queue, you fucking madman, >:O

Rofl. The only mad man is you, and your trolling and mad emolji proves it. Keep on causing conflict, though...:)

Actually, it's Buxtebuddha since he just trolled me out of nowhere again. It's what people who can't actually contribute tend to do...poor kid.

One can neither experience the world entirely subjectively or objectively. One can never escape themselves or the world around them.

My participation on this forum serves as more than adequate evidence to warrant the reader's conclusion(s) that I know how to use a dictionary. Concluding otherwise is unjustifiable for it requires thinking/believing that it is possible to produce my writing while not knowing how to use a dictionary.

You already wrote that nonsense and I've already responded:

That only matters if you embrace the dictionary's definitions of evidence and justified. You havent done so. So, I still stand right on the matter. And there is no definition for "sufficient reason to believe."
You have to provide that definition yourself. Again, you've failed to do so, proving me right again.

Thanks, man.

And that still stands true. You have both failed to embrace the dictionary's definitions and failed to provide your own. So, we're done and I'm not reading any more of your posts that just continue to prove me right.

You're not making any sense. I didn't write what you've just quoted me as having said.

I made perfect sense, and your memory is terrible. You said "sufficient reason to believe" right below:

↪creativesoul

With the overwhelming amount of information available, it is increasingly important to have a clue about what counts as evidence, what counts as being justified, and what counts as being sufficient reason to believe...

My participation on this forum serves as more than adequate evidence to warrant the reader's conclusion(s) that I know how to use a dictionary. Concluding otherwise is unjustifiable for it requires thinking/believing that it is possible to produce my writing while not knowing how to use a dictionary.

That only matters if you embrace the dictionary's definitions of evidence and justified. You havent done so. So, I still stand right on the matter. And there is no definition for "sufficient reason to believe."
You have to provide that definition yourself. Again, you've failed to do so, proving me right again.

Thanks, man.

I am engaging it and you're wrong right from the get-go when you say: "For my money Post Truth (PT) has more to do with the establishment loosing the ability to push their own version of truth." The establishment has always promoted things as objective that werent and sought to undermine truths generated from the roots of society. So we dont' live in a PT world

↪John Harris
From the start I have said that we do not live in truth but in belief. The difference is the pass of change.

Sorry, you haven't proven any of that and you're wrong.

John Harris
You've not been paying attention.

Yes I have, you've been reading things wrong.

PT is about the framing of an item of news. On the twittersphere many people have concluded that
Muslim men groom white girls
On the bare face of it that statement is true. However, when you scratch the surface it turns out there is one or two highly publicised instances of groups of men of mostly Muslim origin (not necessarily devout or even practicing) who have been charged with the grooming of girls. This has fuelled an attitude against creeping Sharia, loss of British identity and terrorism.
Yet the "TRUTH" of these instances is statistically insignificant, and the vast majority of abuse of young women is perpetrated by white men, and by people known to the women as a family member.
It does not matter a rat's arse how or if you "DEFINE" your terms.
What the media effectively achieves is a stilted view of the modern world which feeds prejudice. Where is the "TRUTH"?

These things have been happening for thousands of years. Again, this doesn't point to a post-Truth world

↪John Harris
In a really important sense all our most cherished beliefs concerning social realities are PT in the sense that they are rely on the acceptance of others around us believing the same stuff. Life outside science relies much on faith. You've only to look at attitudes to money; that curious thing that can be created and destroyed at the touch of a computer button. But even in the says when it was back up with hard metal such as gold or silver, the value of that metal was based on trust.
PT should tell us that hard truth in the social realm is fleeting at best. As for coming up with a new idea; they seem to happen daily.

None of this points to us being in a Post-Truth world as opposed to other times.

Yes it does, since you can't even do that. Anyone who understands a term can at least define it.

I know. I thought you were Creative.

It does not follow from the fact of someone providing a definition of a term that s/he understands the term.

And yet you can't even define it, which shows you understand it even less. So, we're done on this discussion Creative. I'm getting tired of your proving me right.

So, you still can't provide definitions for evidence, being justified, and what counts as sufficient reason to believe, as you said people must be able to do. Thanks for playing.

Any interested reader who should care enough can easily browse through another author's comments on this forum, and after doing so can draw their own conclusions regarding whether or not that member has a clue when talking about evidence, being justified, and/or warrant.

Any interested reader can see Creative has just proven again he has no clue when talking about evidence, being justified, and or warrant. He is practically a virtuoso at the art of proving himself wrong.

Anyone can provide definitions. That only requires knowing how to use a dictionary. It doesn't prove that the person understands the notions being defined.

Clearly you can't since you can't provide either the dictionary definitions or your own, even when you're free to do so.

I cannot prove you wrong by virtue of defining them.

The irony...

Of course you could if you could define them. You've proven you can't and proven me right.

The Irony...:)

With the overwhelming amount of information available, it is increasingly important to have a clue about what counts as evidence, what counts as being justified, and what counts as being sufficient reason to believe...

And it's adorable you write this but you keep proving you have no clue about what counts as evidence, what counts as being justified, and what counts as sufficient reason to believe...just as you did above.

Some folk are prone to focus upon the person/author and not the content of the writing.

Yeah...you.

With the overwhelming amount of information available, it is increasingly important to have a clue about what counts as evidence, what counts as being justified, and what counts as being sufficient reason to believe...

And yet you've continually proven yourself to not having a clue about any of those things. Feel free to define them and prove me wrong. We both know you can't.

For my money Post Truth (PT) has more to do with the establishment loosing the ability to push their own version of truth. This has very little to do with objectivity, and everything to do with control of the people by the state.

The establishment has always done this. The governments of Queen Elizabeth and Augustus certainly pushed their own versions of the Truth. So, we do not live in a Post-Truth world different from a particularly truthful period.

For the moment, at least, the Internet and social media have revolutionised communication, and the rich and powerful media is n decline unable to keep up with changing social realities.

This is a good point. For while the internet has helped foment lies. It has also revealed truths--like the DNC's heinous rigging of its primary for Hillary Clinton--that nobody would have known in a pre-internet period.

PT is yet another means by which the powerful seek to undermine truths generated from the roots of society. PT calls into question emerging POVs and hopes to re-establish traditional myths of class, church and nation; all of which are quickly becoming unpacked as false gods.

Again, you're correct that there are particularities to this period, but one of them isnt it being a Post-Truth one. You need to come up with a new one. I don't think anyone's topped Digital Information Age.

The only one nitpicking, and erroneously, is you. If you think I'm wrong, name one thing natural that isn't chemical. We both know you can't.
— John Harris

Are hypothetical examples ok? If not, I could take anything from the fields of social sciences which you can theoretically explain with chemistry but no one does for obvious reasons.

Natural entities arent' hypothetical examples, you know that perfectly well and just cant come up with any examples. Thanks for proving I was right.

I said it and someone responded to that. So, the only one jumping to conclusions--and is clearly just trolling now--is you.
— John Harris

So you made a false assumption and everyone else made the mistake of not noticing it and attacking other parts of your arguments. The point still stands, "hasn't been found" does not equal "can't be found".

No, I made no false assumption since nobody, including you, has shown that it is false, and I showed they havent' again above. You're clearly just trolling now, so I wont be responding to any more of your posts.

Of course it's valid and you haven't shown it isn't. So, the only one making assumptions, and erroneous ones, is you.
— John Harris

The comparison between two things of which one exists and other one doesn't is not a valid one, shouldn't that be obvious? You can't take it as a premise that soul doesn't exist either.

No, it absolutely was a valid one in the context I used it, and you haven't shown otherwise. And I, and others, can take it as a premise the soul doesnt' exist just as one can take it as a premise God doesn't. You need to get better at this, even if you are just trolling. So, good bye, I won't even be reading your next posts.

John Harris Thanatos Sand didn't 'forget your password.' Thanatos Sand is banned, 'John Harris' is a sock puppet account, you're a troll, pure and simple, nobody here ought to respond to your posts, until you're banned again, which is imminent.

Yes, I did forget my password and explained it to, and cleared it with, Baden, who has erased the Thanatos Sand account. And since I never hid the fact who I was, and the Thanatos Sand account no longer exists, this isn't a sockpuppet account. And you're being a troll, pure and simple.

John Harris Everything chemical is natural (within the context, to stop any nit picking beforehand), but not vice versa.

The only one nitpicking, and erroneously, is you. If you think I'm wrong, name one natural entity that isn't chemical. We both know you can't.

I don't recall anyone saying that soul couldn't be found, you just jumped to the conclusion that it hasn't been found and therefore can't be found.

I said it and someone responded to that. So, the only one jumping to conclusions--and is clearly just trolling now--is you.

If you start with the premise that Christ doesn't exist - against which I won't argue because it's irrelevant - your comparison isn't a valid one.

Of course it's valid and you haven't shown it isn't. So, the only one making assumptions, and erroneous ones, is you.

Also any claim is an assumption until proven and as there is no consensus on His existence you can't claim your stance to be a fact.

Of course there's consensus on his existence, the consensus of the scientific world and the consensus of most of the world that doesn't believe in him. And I no more have to establish Christ's existence isn't a fact than I have to establish angels arent' a fact. Sorry.

Because Christ doesn't exist. And that's it, metaphysician. Your arguments have gotten so silly that i'm not going to waste my time engaging them anymore. I won't be reading any more of your posts.
— John Harris

Quite an assumption.

It's no assumption and you haven't shown that it is. Again, erroneous smugness is not an argument.

Its a nice idea Cav, but if the soul is natural, it would have been detected by now. There's just no chemical entity/human part that could escape sciences exhaustive means of detection.
— Thanatos Sand

First the discussion is about the possibility of soul being natural, and then you jump to the idea that it is chemical? Sure.

The chemical is natural and vice versa. I'm sorry you didn't take any science classes in high school. Erroneous smugness is no compensation...:)

Also, there are stars, planets and moons we haven't found, does this mean they are supernatural or don't exist?

I never said those couldn't--unlike the soul--be found. Reading classes may be a glaring lack as well. I suggest you read better if that's not the case.

That's a hilarious example of trying to apply science outside of its legitmate range of applicability

I did no such thing, since if people are saying the soul is natural, I was using their own range of applicability, and even if there is a soul, it has no clear range of applicability. I'm not surprised you don't grasp that.

As for the rest of your post, it was as incoherent as the rest of yours and not even worth addressing. And I won't address any more of your (always erroneous/incoherent posts) on this thread.

Thanks for sharing that, Noble Truth.

Not exactly my taste, but it definitely shows artistic vision.

I never said you did, but I know the absurd inundates your grey matter... ;)

John Harris

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Sorry, Noble. I have no time to read the story of how your mind works. It's late.

What you said is strange since you didn't contact the soul, ffs, you encountered Plato's theory of it.
— John Harris

No, that's not the case. As I tried to explain, Plato's writing explained how I would recognize the soul, such that I could identify it as "the soul". This is just like a description might explain to you how you would recognize the Mississippi River so you could identify it as such.

Yes it is the case. And It is absolute nonsensical and hilarious that you compare the directions for finding something that someone theorized to directions to an already-physically discovered river. Using your outlandishly faulty logic, if Tolkien told you how to find the Gollum, you'd go...and the sad thing is you would.

Likewise, there was a time when I was very young when I didn't recognize my parents as "my parents", but I was still in contact with them at that very young age.

And now you're saying your parents are no more real than a non-proven soul..

You might as weill ask, when you come across Christ, how do you know he's Christ. Just nonsensical.
— John Harris

Why do you find this to be nonsense? How would you know that it is Christ, if you came across Christ?

[Because Christ doesn't exist. And that's it, metaphysician. Your arguments have gotten so silly that I'm not going to waste my time engaging them anymore. I won't be reading any more of your posts.

Those are physical demonstrations showing the calculations and machinery used could make something fly.
— John Harris

They are demonstrations that the logic of calculations are useful, therefore they are logical demonstrations. Making cars fly is a logical demonstration, just like drawing geometrical figures on a piece of paper, or laying out the foundation of a building using the Pythagorean theorem, these are demonstrations of the validity of logic.

You really hate science, which is pretty sad since it allows you to drive a car and could one day save your life. Those aren't just demonstrations of logic. They are scientific demonstrations of specific physics and engineering formulas, chemical designs for gasoline, and engineering designs. Try that.

No he didn't. The theorized what he thought the soul was. Nobody saw the soul or detected it in any way through his theory.
— John Harris

That's a strange thing for you to say, because I came into contact with the soul through reading Plato's demonstrations, so clearly you're wrong when you claim nobody did. I found the soul. And if I did, then quite likely many others did too.

No, what I said was perfectly lucid. What you said is strange since you didn't contact the soul, ffs, you encountered Plato's theory of it. I would have loved to have seen you read The Lord of The Rings. You must have yelled "I encountered Gollum and some Orcs!" And the Neo-Platonists belief in the soul doesn't make it real. You must also believe Christians's belief in Christ and Satan make them real. Interesting.

I have a deep soul.
— John Harris

Evidence that you are lying.

No, evidence you're just trolling, which shows you have no soul.

I answered that question. And I asked you, if you encountered your parents, how would you know they were your parents without referring to theory. You still haven't been able to answer that, showing the fallacy of your original question.
— John Harris

I just answered that, I've known my parents since birth, and I recognize them. You however have not answered my question.

No, you didn't answer that. Many adopted kids know their parents since birth, then find out when they're 40 they were adopted. That could be you. So, you don't know they're your parents, and recognizing them is far from enough. And I've answered all your questions...and debunked all your arguments.

So when you come across a soul, how would you know it is a soul without referring to some theory of what a soul is. How would you expect that a soul would ever show itself to you as a soul, unless you referred to a theory of what a soul is, to be able to designate the thing before you as a soul?

And you still neglect the fact there may be no soul and nobody has shown there is. You might as weill ask, when you come across Christ, how do you know he's Christ. Just nonsensical.

[What we do have in this world is the educated (are you?) understanding that we do not accept something exists until it has been scientifically demonstrated.
— John Harris

You really should reconsider what you're saying here. Scientific experimentation is used to verify and falsify theories. It does not demonstrate whether or not things exist. That is a matter of metaphysics, ontology.

No, you should really reconsider what you are saying. Without science, we'd never have discovered many species. You clearly haven't heard of Darwin. Considering your disdain for science, I'm not surprised. Anyway, say hi to your parents...even if they're not your real ones.

You better be careful. Buxtebuddha is going to get jealous of your new pronoun friend.

Thanks, man. I've enjoyed our conversation, too.