I have a theory on the identity of Bartricks

god must be atheist

Nobody can be so stupid and argue so well as Bartricks.

He riles on people, and provokes everyone in sight. He is very good at pulling in other people into his debates.

He is completely unreasonable, and does not listen to logical thought.

But he is steadfast, he is not insane, yet he is consistent in his ability to sustain a long conversation about nothing, with the clearly most profoundly wrong propositions. He does this with confidence, with flair almost.

And he is hateful. Everyone gets on the bandwagon, trying to prove him wrong, then bashing him.

This can't be done by an ordinary user.

000000000000000000

My theory is that he is the owner of the website, or someone to whose circles -- like the family -- the website owner belongs.

Bartricks' job is to generate conversation, retain membership, and keep members active. He may or may not receive compensation for doing this job, or else he has vested interest in the survival of the site.

He is doing a good job at it. I think he deserves a hefty raise.

I think it could also be a she that is behind the identity of Bartricks; I used the masculine gender for him in this post due to complete laziness on my part.

00000000000000

Please don't misconstrue these as facts or stated facts. This theory of mine, that is, that Bartricks is an agent of the site owner, is complete conjecture, a mere opinion, and I base it on nothing but what I or anyone else could see or experience by using this site.

What is your opinion on my opinion? Does it make sense to you? Is it reasonable? Believable?

Do you buy it?

Brett

↪god must be atheist

Do you buy it? — god must be atheist

You put up a good case.

Baden

:eyes:

praxis

↪god must be atheist

I thought he was you, mostly because for both of you truth doesn’t appear to be high on you list of values.

Baden

:fire:

Noble Dust

This is so cool; we now have our own unique micro-conspiracy theories.

Michael

Nobody can be so stupid — god must be atheist

My theory is that he is the owner of the website — god must be atheist

Ergo, @jamalrob is stupid.

god must be atheist

This is so cool; we now have our own unique micro-conspiracy theories. — Noble Dust

(Fasten your seat belts, long sentence for the next five lines!)

Is it true what I heard (from my cat, confirmed by an independent source, my radiator), that @Jamalrob is only a figurehead, a spokesperson, a non-existent virtual Big Brother; and it is in fact the Syndicate, lead momentarily by Dr. No, who is struggling to straddle the organization alternating with his archrival, Dr. Evil, who is running this site?

praxis

Bartricks' job is to generate conversation, retain membership, and keep members active. — god must be atheist

The problem here lies in the law of attraction or like attracts like, as the saying goes. Bartricks will attract and encourage a Bartricks-like membership and discourage a membership with, how should I say, different qualities.

For example, remember the guest speaker discussion you started and mocked Massimo Pigliucci‘s work on stoicism? I suspect that may have discouraged him from participating.

god must be atheist

↪praxis

The discussion with Massimo Pigliucci's work and my criticism of it is not the topic here. Please start a topic on that, if you wish to discuss that. Please don't try to hijack this thread for your own trivial and vengeful little purpose.

I believe you have an agenda and you're trying to egg me on. You are bitter because I put in straightforward, irrefutable arguments about the relationship between man and man's believed god. If you wish to address that, please open a new discussion on that.

You have been following my posts and responding with insults.

I counted three insults in succession:

mocked Massimo Pigliucci‘s work on stoicism — praxis

(You, @praxis obviously can't tell the difference between thought-out critical analysis and mockery; your bias for your favourite philosophical trends and your bias against me is clear here)

I thought he was you, mostly because for both of you truth doesn’t appear to be high on you list of values. — praxis

(You have no clue on my values and on Bartrick's values. Appearances give no clue to truth or to motivation.)

And this is why you fit the role of the forum clown so well. — praxis

(I like to joke around, but I resent being called a clown.)

I ask you to please stop following me, and stop hurtling insults at me.

god must be atheist

mocked Massimo Pigliucci‘s work on stoicism — praxis

You are not very Stoic about my valid criticism of Stoicism; you are not Stoic about it at all.

You just proved my case.

god must be atheist

The problem here lies in the law of attraction — praxis

No serious thinker believes in the law of attraction. You do.

praxis

You are bitter because I put in straightforward, irrefutable arguments about the relationship between man and man's believed god. — god must be atheist

Huh?

your bias for your favourite philosophical trends and your bias against me is clear here — god must be atheist

And that’s bad?

mocked Massimo Pigliucci‘s work on stoicism
— praxis

You are not very Stoic about my valid criticism of Stoicism; you are not Stoic about it at all. — god must be atheist

Some of your criticism may have been valid but nevertheless accompanied by mockery.

The problem here lies in the law of attraction
— praxis

No serious thinker believes in the law of attraction. You do — god must be atheist

Well, this topic that you’ve started shows your favorable interest in Bartrix, and it actually did cross my mind prior to reading this topic that you might be the same person, so I might be becoming a believer.

god must be atheist

And that’s bad? — praxis

Bias is not bad? What do you think? Eh, you've already shown that when you show bias, it's good, according to yourself.

god must be atheist

Some of your criticism may have been valid but nevertheless accompanied by mockery. — praxis

Can you point out the mockery? If not, then take this back. Also take back the accusation that I mocked Dr. Pigliucci.

And you are definitely not Stoic about it. You just said something in response, but you agree that you are not Stoic. And you are biassed for Stoicism... makes sense. Bias is support for an unfounded cause or unfounded opinion. Your bias for Stoicism is unfounded, because you are not Stoic. If you were, you would not be biassed. But you necessarily are, because you support Stoicism, yet you are not Stoic.

So... you are not only biassed, you are also hypocritical.

god must be atheist

Well, this topic that you’ve started shows your favorable interest in Bartrix, and it actually did cross my mind prior to reading this topic that you might be the same person, so I might be becoming a believer. — praxis

Your argument that purportedly supports your belief in the law of attraction is very weak. It is infinitesimally weak. It is so weak a five-year-old could point it out to you. So please don't insult my intelligence by asking me to show it to you how weak it is.

praxis

And that’s bad?
— praxis

Bias is not bad? What do you think? Eh, you've already shown that when you show bias, it's good, according to yourself. — god must be atheist

What's so bad about being in favor of something like stoicism, or disfavor of someone who doesn't share your values? It's true that I may be prone to confirmation errors and the like, but in your case, I'm not in any position of power whereby you might be treated unfairly. In any case, I'm just being honest. We all have biases. If we can acknowledge and be mindful of them they are less likely to be maladaptively expressed.

I hate to think of you living in a childish fantasy where no bias exists.

Can you point out the mockery? — god must be atheist

The version of Pigliucci‘s work you describe in the OP of this topic (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7163/stoicism-is-an-attractive-life-philosophy-but-can-it-be-taught/p1) is absurd, a parody designed to make it look ridiculous. In the end, you even acknowledge its absurdity, asking things like "where did I make an assumptional error in creating a premise to my arguments," and flaunt your mockery.

Your bias for Stoicism is unfounded, because you are not Stoic. ... — god must be atheist

More of your clownish drivel.

Your argument that purportedly supports your belief in the law of attraction is very weak. It is infinitesimally weak. It is so weak a five-year-old could point it out to you. So please don't insult my intelligence by asking me to show it to you how weak it is. — god must be atheist

I would never insult the intelligence of someone who couldn't argue as well as a five-year-old.

Streetlight

I missed this thread. This is great.

Shawn

Holy shit is this a funny thread!

A pissing contest over a no true Strawman.

praxis

I’m actually related to the Fraser clan.

I have a theory on the identity of Bartricks

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions