Your welcome, but the true gift im bestowing upon you is enlightenment, youre just to stupid to realise it. Im calling you names AND dismantling every wrong headed thing you barf onto your keyboard.
For example, despite claiming to be some kind of writer you are unable to articulate any actual humour in your responses. You are not clever, all you do is repeat the same thing (big surprise) about toddlers and tantrums which are two things Ive already said to you! :lol:
(Repeating my own quips back to me, but devoid of the same caliber).
Want another one? You are too engaged with the contents of your own ass to even realise that YOU are the joke, WE are all laughing at you dummy! Wise up.
I repeat, the ONLY thing you have going for you is sheer, stubborn stupidity. Eventually I will get bored of humiliating you, long before anything actually permeates its way past you nigh impenetrable baby mind.
You are like the character Wimp Lo, from the movie Kung Pow. He was purposely trained in martial arts backwards, so he thinks losing is winning. He gets kicked in the face, he gloats about his “face to foot style, howd you like it?” Or gets kicked in the nuts and falls on the ground “my nuts to shin style. I cannot stand, do you surrender?”
Thats you. Too hopelessly soft in the head to to realise when you should beg for mercy.
Youve lost on every front, if you had any shame at all you would shut the fuck up, but you cant, cuz you are just to obtuse.

:lol:
Ill be here all week, dont forget to tip your waitress. Lol

Cretin I hadnt used yet, but you just earned it. Only a cretin tries to glom their way into an exchange with someone else and use it to indirectly address...well me in this case.
Also, sport implies a contest. You are no contest. The only thing, ONLY thing you have going on is a skull so thick you dont get tired of being punched in the head.
Do you know the reason you are making short responses now you dishonest stooge? Want me to tell you?

I think I agree.

Agnostic atheist.

True, murder is a human title but we have a working definition in the thread and I think according to that the chimps committed murder.
And yes, leaders can go to far...and then they might get murdered.

Tyrant is a human title, something we have in our societies. The alpha male of chimps IS a tyrant. Thats how their society works. Since they acted outside that rule and killed him, it constitutes murder. Its as close to unlawful as the chimps have.

Yes, because your childish ego compels you. You think that because I call you childish that switching it back onto me will bother me? The difference, once again silly Frank, is that you ARE a child, you HAVE a childish ego. I can stop at any time, you cant.
Watch.


Hey, Frank, shut your stupid mouth.

There. Nothing worth responding to. But you will. Your ego compels you and you need to deal with that before you can come up with anything meaningful to say on this or any other issue.

In any case, some people might say that one of the measures of "intelligence"...is the ability to act like a grown up...no matter how tight your panties get. — Frank Apisa

Acting like a grown up is called maturity. One can be immature, and intelligent. So these people who might say that are wrong.
Another sign of immaturity? Not being able to resist the pull of your childish ego, to always have to get in the last word even to someone whose acting like a petulant adolescent, to someone you think is throwing a tantrum. Pay attention here, I may be acting immature, but you arent. Your childish, egocentric personality is REAL. Look up from your own ass and see your reflection. Just try.

Ill take a crack at devils advocate here...

So the monkeys do have a social structure, they do have rules they live by similar to the laws humans live by. The alpha chimp is the king, he gets his choice of females, the other males are beta and subservient and thats the way their primitive society works. Ganging up and killing the alpha chimp is going against the order they implicitly agreed to live by. This qualifies as murder, as murder has been defined here.
So yes, it was murder.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Intelligence is measured by being published?! Its measured by writing talent?!
You are a fucking moron. You cannot even tell the difference between some accomplishment that brings you pride and intelligence.
And still, unable to resist your childish ego. No matter what I say, no matter the petulant adolescence, you will never be able to ignore me, never be able to resist chiming in with some insecure, irrelevant chest puffing drivel no one cares about. Im providing you with a mirror, take a good look. See if your dim, skulking intellect can self reflect.

“We”?! Holy shit Frank. There is no “we”. Thats just you trying to lend weight to your sad attempt at getting to me by pretending your part of some consensus.
My attitude and tone can be dialled up or dialled back, it can be turned off and turned on. This is not the case with your dullness of mind. Thats a permanent condition, which can only be helped by working on your humility, on your arrogance. You are not smart, accept it so that maybe one day, you might, MIGHT be able to not be accurately assessed as stupid.
Anyway, time to point out your sloppy thinking again. A petulant adolescent and a philosopher are not mutually exclusive, which is how you treated them in context there (not that you are going to understand context but what can you do?). Also, your respect means nothing to me, what a pathetic conceit you have allowed yourself.

Well...when I am wrong, I acknowledge that I am wrong...so...

...I thought you were an intelligent person, Dingo.

My bad. — Frank Apisa

Wrong again dummy. You continue to display thoughtless, sloppy thinking. If you thought I was intelligent before, the only thing thats changed is now im insulting you, and dispensing with politeness because you do not deserve it. Neither of those things are indicators of intelligence, so once again you have no basis for what you are saying. You aren’t even smart enough to understand how embarrassed you should be each time you open your stupid mouth to get in the last word because your childish ego compels you to.
See, its not that your stupid, Im not one of those guys that feels good by demeaning others who are less intelligent. No, what provokes me about you is that you are aggressively stupid, arrogantly dumb. If you were just stupid, then I believe you can still be taught, still capable of learning until you might have something interesting to say/contribute, but thats not the case. You are dull, but think your smart, you have a grossly inflated sense of your grasp of logic and reason. You have a chip in your shoulder about being treated as an intelligent person, my guess is due to insecurity. These things make you obnoxious, deserving of ridicule and derisive treatment, and they prevent you from being reached through discourse. These things are whats represented with the expression “having your head up your ass”, but of course your too dim to understand the underlying point in me using that phrase and see only the insult. You really do need to get your head out of your ass, I promise you will notice an immediate improvement in your discourse and ability to understand. A wise man starts with the possibility that they are wrong, they exercise humility.
Plus, you are being dishonest. You are not arguing in good faith. Thats is maybe what most makes you deserving of no respect or civilised treatment. The only thing more pathetic than a dishonest, Disingenuous goon is a dishonest, disingenuous goon whose so dishonest they are even lying to themselves.
Normally im content to let some dummy get in the last word and be done with them but for some reason I have this uncharacteristic idealism that you have a a brain somewhere underneath that thick skull of yours, that its these obnoxious personality traits more than rampant stupidity that prevents you from understanding things my 8 year old has no trouble with. That, and you are best served by being put in your place

But, wait. Here's the point.... Should people who have "given up", be, supported by society anymore, or left to fend for themselves? — Wallows

Depends on what you mean by give up. I thought you meant suicide or something like that. If you just mean move away from society and live by yourself...then no, society doesnt owe you support or anything else. Society is a social contract we make with each other, if you choose not to participate in that social contract then yes youbare on your own.

Lol, thanks. I was sincerely trying.

No one can reasonably claim I didnt give him every chance to have a reasonable discussion....well, aside from having to try and slow things down and walk him through it but I didnt know how else to talk to someone with the reading comprehension of a toddler except to talk to them like a person with the reading comprehension of a toddler. He didnt even get that!

So...a lecture from you on how to post reasonably and politely...in a screed like this. — Frank Apisa

No dipshit, I didnt say anything about polite. You have very poor reading comprehension levels.

So...I take it that you are not going to answer my question. — Frank Apisa

Correct, your dishonesty overshadows my desire to do so. You are acting in bad faith here, your true interest is running your stupid mouth. So no.

Okay...I didn't think you would. — Frank Apisa

Yes, not thinking. Your specialty.

Nothing wrong with giving up, thats someones personal choice.

No ones to blame. Thats just being dealt a bad hand, an unlucky toss of the dice.

Deja vu...

Your very first post to me was condescending...and damn near every post since has had tinges of condescension rippling through it. That is one of the reasons I am not showing as much respect to you that I normally do to people with whom I am in discussion. — Frank Apisa

I don’t care. Keep these little self important diatribes to yourself....like its my fault I have to talk to you like a child because your too dense to understand things at a higher level.

Here you start off with a pretense that I am saying it is not acceptable to continue making your point...despite my specific answer to your question on that issue being, "Yes, make any arguments you want...that is your right." — Frank Apisa

Holy shit. I explained I had to ask questions to make my point, then you said go ahead and make your point but im not answering any more questions. You are not paying attention, you are just waiting to continue soapboxing.

I suspect this "what is the meaning of need" crap is just an extension of that condescension. — Frank Apisa

A very dim witted suspicion. I was trying to clarify your use of “need”, so that I could answer your irrelevant question in an attempt at communicating with you despite the giant chip on your shoulder and obtuse, deaf and ranting disposition.

Anyway, to show you at least a modicum of respect so that we might get this discussion back on track, I am simply going to ignore that question...so it won't be counted. — Frank Apisa

The respect of a moron who cannot track more than one thing at a time is not required for discussion. The discussion is on track when both parties act in good faith (which you aren't) and when both parties are paying attention to what the other is trying to say. (Which you are also not doing, unless you are being dishonest and/or some kind of idiot).

Answer my question as written. You do not need any further explanation of the words I used. — Frank Apisa

No you goofy prick, YOU are not the one who decides if I need clarification. How can you not understand such simplicity?!
Clarification is for the person trying to understand, me in this case. The best person to determine if I understand your question is me, not you.

Now, you are an atheist whether you like it or not, you are just too stupid on too many levels and in too many ways to comprehend how utterly void of merit your protests that you are not an atheist really are.
Like your comprehension levels, your little tantrums are childish And are an obstacle to having any kind of meaningful discussion with you.
You need to get your head out of your ass, as you are not nearly the intellect you think you are, nor is your position anywhere near as strong as you think it is. Removing your head from your ass will help with that. Then, you need to clean the shit from your ears (a result of having your head up your ass, no doubt) and fucking listen to whats being said to you. Pay attention, some people are actually interested in discourse, back and forth, learning...instead of just blathering the same witless garbage and ignoring anything that stands in the way of repeating the same, defenceless, vacant drivel the way you do.

I suggest you shut the fuck up and save whatever pathetic response you cook up, because while Im tired of trying to use reason and logic to get through that thick fucking skull of yours but I feel positively invigorated to continue pointing out the ways in which you have completely, epically failed to make your case or even understand the simplest concept...you will get more of the same from me going forward. I mean, I know your inflated, toddler ego will not let you and it will be irresistible for you but try...just try, to shut your stupid mouth Long enough to notice or learn something.

Ok, so NOT acceptable to continue making my point.
I gotta say, getting more and more clear you arent paying attention.

Ok, so in order to answer your question I need to know what you mean by “need”, and why you put it in quotations. This is because Im not sure what the word “need” means in the context of a word definition. This is a clarifying question, so hopefully it doesnt qualify for this strange tit for tat you’ve adopted.

So are you actually interested in hearing other peoples points, or are you just interested in your turn to make yours? This is you, once again, trying to shift the burden to me, to dodge an argument made directly against yours.
I tried making my point all at once, and you failed to engage and/or understand it, so its necessary to go step by step (which will require a series of questions) to see where either you are misunderstanding or where I am. By refusing to go through it step by step, you are just doubling down on exactly what I said you were doing.
In fact, I am going to address your question in the process of making my point because my point (chosen at your request) is about what the most sensible definition of atheism is.
If thats still not acceptable after that further explanation, then I will answer your question but not without noticing this is merely another attempt to dodge on your part, and my patience is wearing thin. Not a threat, just a fair warning that this discussion may not survive you forcing us into the weeds.
Is it acceptable for me to continue making my point?

Im not finished making my point, I just asked the one question so we can do it step by step, and not get lost in the weeds.
So I would like to finish what I started...we might find your question moot after Ive made my point and/or you have refuted my point.
Acceptable?

Ok, so you arent following the discussion. What you just posted was what you posted initially. We arent talking about that right now, but lets walk you through it step by step. Before you go off about being condescended to, thats not what Im doing. From my perspective, you are not getting what Im saying. Going through it step by step will help one of us to understand where they have gone wrong, could be me or it could be you and by going over it we will determine which it is. We do not determine who is correct by who asserts the loudest and hardest, so just stop doing that.
Ok, so you have posited a definition of atheist above. Your definition does not include people who lack a belief in god, correct?

You have just done exactly what I said you are doing, making assertions with no arguments....and you did that while saying thats not what you are doing.
I do not need to hear your position again. I understand what your position is. At your request, I chose one of the two arguments I made against you. It was to determine which definition (lack of belief, or yours) is the most sensible. I offered reasoning as to why mine was stronger, and yours the weaker. I used an analogy to illustrate further the error you make in your definition. You have not addressed any of it. You just keep repeating (and adding new) assertions, and restating your original reasoning (which doesnt have much to it to start with, but Im trying to be charitable). I have addressed these, and if there is some reason why my arguments are wrong, you need to demonstrate it. Unlike you, who claims its impossible to show your position the weaker of the two because it isn’t (which is an assertion and a circular line of reasoning), I am open to being wrong. I just want to be shown how.
So, once again: address my argument, address my refutation of your argument...and now since you’ve made yet another assertion I would like you to tell me in what way I have failed to address your argument since I do not see how.

Dingo...you sound like Trump. Everything everyone else is doing is substandard...and what you are doing is laudable. — Frank Apisa

No, Its just you that Im talking about and Im not saying what you are doing is substandard. I think that you are wrong, thats all. I could be the one thats wrong, and the way to determine that is for us to state our positions and defend them. Thats not what you are doing. You are making assertions, failing to defend them and then restating your assertion.
Once again, I have already provided an argument as to why your definition is the weaker one. Address that. I have offered a position and reasoning why my definition is better, stronger. Address that.
You simply are not engaging with whats being said to you, instead you are attempting to dodge...trying to shift the burden, comparing me to Trump, making it about my attitude, my spelling and punctuation, personal problems in your life, changing the subject, complaining about me not going along with your dodge/shift, restating again in caps...anything but what you are actually supposed to be doing.
YOU asked me to pick one thing, which I did. I laid out my position (again, this was at YOUR request), defended it and offered an argument against your position. I did what you asked, and it is not unreasonable for me to expect you to address it.
Now, you have laid down the groundwork to throw your hands up and walk away so you can do that. You can address my points, thats another option. What isnt an option is for you to drag me into the weeds, I am not going to play this game with you.
The choice of course is yours, but Im still interested in the discussion if you want to actually have it.

Why would I do that? Were we having a disagreement over something? If so, lets start with that instead of whatever this is...

Your response has no counter-points, and still no demonstration that your way of defining atheism is better. All you did was try and ad hoc your own definition.
I stated a position, then offered reasoning/defense of that position, then offered reasoning as to why your position is wrong. You have not addressed any of it. Instead you are making a largely irrelevant update on your definition and using that to attempt a pivot, a shifting of the discussion, a dodge. These are the weeds I mentioned, lets try and stat out of them.

An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." — Frank Apisa

I think the definition of atheism “lacking belief in god” is the most sensible. This is accurate because all atheists lack a belief in god, it is the common denominator of the atheist category, and that makes it definitive of what an atheist is.
Contrasted to your own definition
“An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
That Describes two kinds of atheists, two examples of people who lack a belief in god (one because they feel like they have some reason to believe no god exists, the other who lacks belief in god because they find that the more likely). It doesnt cover the ground it needs to in order to be definitive.
Your definition is the worse of the two, it confuses category and sub category. An analogy would be “berries”....you are defining “berry” as strawberrys and blue berries. Atheism is like “berry”, the guy that believes there are no gods is the “strawberry” and the guy thinking it more likely that there is no god the “blueberry”. An Agnostic could be a “raspberry”, just another berry (another type of person who lacks belief in god).
Aside from your aversion to the label, what makes your definition the better one? You havent demonstrated it at all.

1 - well, according to your way of defining atheism you are not an atheist but according to the proper usage of the term you are. I know that irritates you, and you want to dodge the label by redefining the word, and thats fine. We can talk about what the most sensible definition is, and see if maybe you have improved the definition but you are incorrect to act as though your way of defining atheism is standard, proper, or accepted by actual atheists.

I've seen your writing...and you are either careless or don't give a damn about how your posts look. If you actually are intelligent...have more respect for what you write. Otherwise people will make unwarranted judgments about your abilities. — Frank Apisa

Its the latter. Unwarranted judgements are strong indicators of stupidity, thats my litmus test. If someone has a problem with it it tells me everything I need to know about whose smart and whose not.

Anyway, your responses were about being offended so you have yet to address my actual points, if you care to do so.

Thats not what Im doing, thats your own sensitivity. I think you are lost in the semantics, and explaining/showing you how is walking you through it, its not meant to be condescending. Its just that I think you are confused, and im just being honest and straightforward.
Besides, you don’t know anything about me, so you really have no idea how I compare to your “more credentialed and informed” conversations. Im not impressed by your appeal to other conversations you’ve had and I dont have time for some chip on your shoulder about being treated as an equal. Maybe once you’ve cooled off you will see you’ve overreacted here and the discussion can continue but maybe not...it seems like you have more pressing matters to tend to anyway.

1 - well, according to your way of defining atheism you are not an atheist but according to the proper usage of the term you are. I know that irritates you, and you want to dodge the label by redefining the word, and thats fine. We can talk about what the most sensible definition is, and see if maybe you have improved the definition but you are incorrect to act as though your way of defining atheism is standard, proper, or accepted by actual atheists.

2 im asking you that because you are lost in semantics, so I was walking you through the semantics. We can just focus on what the most sensible definition of atheism if you want instead if you like, these are two separate counter-points to your current position.

What are ego ideals?

Now I feel like your having fun with me here, being intentionally difficult on this point... you seriously do not know what self reflection is?

An internal, mental mirror, yes. Self reflection.

I feel like you aren’t connecting with what Im saying. Knowing yourself is what self reflection is all about. How are you trying to know yourself?

...and how does your misery factor into that? I thought philosophy was causing you anguish?

I dont know what you mean.