Metacrock Your Failure Can Not Be Stated in Mere Words

[Magnus102]

Metacrock I have to say that it was nice of you to attack me here. After all, when many other posters pointed out that your attacks on me were utter nonsense you seemed to get quite angry. I suppose when confronted with your own flawed reasoning such anger is to be expected.
Some points :
1. I am well aware Kant wrote in German.
2. You were the one who said Kant "destroyed Hume", which is nonsense. Kant built on Hume's work not destroyed it.
3. Kant thought we could not prove god exist, but still took his existence on faith.
4. The point of posting the Stanford article was to lend support to me assertion of Hume's perceived importance, and was not meant to attack your viewpoint otherwise. If it agrees with your view is unimportant, as I only wished to illustrate that many consider Hume to be a giant among English philosopher. The other stuff I posted attacked your view, and you were attacking a straw man the entire time, as Wnope pointed out.
5. If i posted your ad hominem attacks on me here people would view you (rightly ) as a miserable joke. They can go to CARM if they want and see the others but here are a few highlights:
"you are the fig tree"
"Your knolwedge of philso[phy i snot even up par with a fresheman. you know nothing. you know nothing nothing hothing nothing nothing.

read Bombach you clattering nattiering little paupus twit you have nothin to say you know nothing."
EDIT: I removed some rather mean things I had written about you here. I really should not have posted them to start with.

[Metacrock]

I over reacted, sure. But I have more than ample reason. The kind of shit you little demons piled on me in your ignorance and you inablity to think deeply, your fear of differing view points, your hatred of God and of everything decent, your loathing of goodness, your inability to reason, all of this has driven you and those like you to heap abuse upon me and upon every Christian on the CARMath board. I am more than justified in lashing back.

You said that I don't know anything about philosophy. But you weren't content to stop there. You said this before I said anything insulting at all. You know that is the case!

you were not content to stop at just saying I don't know my own busienss, my profession. you said I actually lied about it. You weren't content to just say "you don't know" you had to also impune my motives. Then you also impunnied my intelligence.

There are two issues that clealry motivate you:

(1) That you are so stuck on the idea of Hume being important because its all you know about him.

(2) you are not capable of making critical distinctions in the arguments you address. You are distorting my arguments in a simplistic fashion.

the article you quoted said absolutely nothing to contradict anything I said. It has no specifics about the actual arguments of Hume or Kant. The one I quoted was very specific. that means my article trumps yous because yous said nothing of any consequence.


My argument was that Kant render Hume outdated, and puts empiricism in its place as underrating human reason. I did not say "Kant beat up Hume" or anything stupid like that. you just can't make critical distinctions or think deeply.


You are not on the level in terms of knowledge or depth of reason to be able to post here.

[doxaws]

Warning: you are not allowed to insult anyone, or to attack posters personally. We do no allow this sort of negative BS on these boards.

The topic Metacrock put up has been deleted, and Meta has been docked 15 sunbeam points and a black rain cloud by his name on the big chart .

[Magnus102]

I over reacted, sure. But I have more than ample reason. The kind of shit you little demons piled on me in your ignorance and you inablity to think deeply,

This is why people love to rip apart your interesting (though flawed) ideas.. All you do is insult. For the record I am a member of freaking MENSA and do not have to prove my mental prowess to you .

your fear of differing view points, your hatred of God and of everything decent, your loathing of goodness, your inability to reason, all of this has driven you and those like you to heap abuse upon me and upon every Christian on the CARMath board. I am more than justified in lashing back.

I loath goodness? Are you serious ? I do not feel anything for god, just like you do not feel anything for Santa. As for your other comments I will not dignify them with a response, as they are just another example of why you are pathetic.

[quote']
You said that I don't know anything about philosophy. But you weren't content to stop there. You said this before I said anything insulting at all. You know that is the case!
p[/quote] That is only because you said Kant destroyed Hume, when in reality that was not Kant's intention nor what he did.

you were not content to stop at just saying I don't know my own busienss, my profession. you said I actually lied about it. You weren't content to just say "you don't know" you had to also impune my motives. Then you also impunnied my intelligence.

No, I think you do know about it. That is why I said that you lied, because a lie implies one knows the truth. I never said you did not know the subject matter as I recall.

There are two issues that clealry motivate you:

(1) That you are so stuck on the idea of Hume being important because its all you know about him.

????? I read all his books on line. I just finished Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion a week ago!

(2) you are not capable of making critical distinctions in the arguments you address. You are distorting my arguments in a simplistic fashion.

the article you quoted said absolutely nothing to contradict anything I said. It has no specifics about the actual arguments of Hume or Kant. The one I quoted was very specific. that means my article trumps yous because yous said nothing of any consequence.

As I stated the only part of the Stanford article I wanted to use for our debate was that one line. Below that I attacked your ideas. To claim I tried to use the Stanford article to argue anything but that one point is absurd.

My argument was that Kant render Hume outdated, and puts empiricism in its place as underrating human reason. I did not say "Kant beat up Hume" or anything stupid like that. you just can't make critical distinctions or think deeply.

No, you said he destroyed him. I might agree that Hume's staunch empirical thinking was outmoded by Kant-but this does not mean Kant destroyed his work. In fact in my post on Carm I clearly explained how he built on Hume's work. No one on CARM was even an empiricist in the
strict sense anyway , but that did not stop your from building your strawman to attack.

You are not on the level in terms of knowledge or depth of reason to be able to post here.

Perhaps, I am not up to your level of knowledge. I will admit this freely. After all, you are a 5o year old former phd candidate and I am an 18 year old who just got out of high school. I think, however', that I am more reasonable than you could hope to be. Your rants and attacks,while amusing, are not the work of one with a great intellect.

[Metacrock]

I over reacted, sure. But I have more than ample reason. The kind of shit you little demons piled on me in your ignorance and you inablity to think deeply,

This is why people love to rip apart your interesting (though flawed) ideas.. All you do is insult. For the record I am a member of freaking MENSA and do not have to prove my mental prowess to you .

No one rips me apart logically. I kick ass every time. you can't win an argument with me without doing this because you are not as good a thinker as I am. It may be an obvious thing to do but it's still just taking advantage of something not related to logic or reason or abilities.

your fear of differing view points, your hatred of God and of everything decent, your loathing of goodness, your inability to reason, all of this has driven you and those like you to heap abuse upon me and upon every Christian on the CARMath board. I am more than justified in lashing back.

I loath goodness? Are you serious ? I do not feel anything for god, just like you do not feel anything for Santa. As for your other comments I will not dignify them with a response, as they are just another example of why you are pathetic.[/quote]

that appraisal is not for discussion. how could I expect you or your ilk to understand it?

[quote']
You said that I don't know anything about philosophy. But you weren't content to stop there. You said this before I said anything insulting at all. You know that is the case!
p[/quote] That is only because you said Kant destroyed Hume, when in reality that was not Kant's intention nor what he did.[/quote]

No I did not say that. You did not read it carefully.

you were not content to stop at just saying I don't know my own busienss, my profession. you said I actually lied about it. You weren't content to just say "you don't know" you had to also impune my motives. Then you also impunnied my intelligence.

No, I think you do know about it. That is why I said that you lied, because a lie implies one knows the truth. I never said you did not know the subject matter as I recall.[/quote]


you didn't understand the subtleties involved in what I said, that's why you think it was a lie.

There are two issues that clealry motivate you:

(1) That you are so stuck on the idea of Hume being important because its all you know about him.

????? I read all his books on line. I just finished Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion a week ago![/quote]

that books really sux. he had a child's understanding of religion. The Essay is the most important thing to read by Hume. his social criticism kind of stuff and his history is piss poor.

(2) you are not capable of making critical distinctions in the arguments you address. You are distorting my arguments in a simplistic fashion.

the article you quoted said absolutely nothing to contradict anything I said. It has no specifics about the actual arguments of Hume or Kant. The one I quoted was very specific. that means my article trumps yous because yous said nothing of any consequence.

As I stated the only part of the Stanford article I wanted to use for our debate was that one line. Below that I attacked your ideas. To claim I tried to use the Stanford article to argue anything but that one point is absurd.[/quote]

I know. that's the problem. it's such a shallow point to worry about.

My argument was that Kant render Hume outdated, and puts empiricism in its place as underrating human reason. I did not say "Kant beat up Hume" or anything stupid like that. you just can't make critical distinctions or think deeply.

No, you said he destroyed him. I might agree that Hume's staunch empirical thinking was outmoded by Kant-but this does not mean Kant destroyed his work. In fact in my post on Carm I clearly explained how he built on Hume's work. No one on CARM was even an empiricist in the
strict sense anyway , but that did not stop your from building your strawman to attack.[/quote]

It wasn't a straw man. you just can't follow an argument.

You are not on the level in terms of knowledge or depth of reason to be able to post here.

Perhaps, I am not up to your level of knowledge. I will admit this freely. After all, you are a 5o year old former phd candidate and I am an 18 year old who just got out of high school. I think, however', that I am more reasonable than you could hope to be. Your rants and attacks,while amusing, are not the work of one with a great intellect.[/quote]


No you are not. But I've wasted too much time on this petty crap. I don't care who insulted whom I wont waste my time these nay sayer tactics that are just designed to raise my PB.

[Metacrock]

this is from the standford Encyclopedia that you quoted:

George Berkeley
First published Fri 10 Sep, 2004

George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, was one of the great philosophers of the early modern period. He was a brilliant critic of his predecessors, particularly Descartes, Malebranche, and Locke. He was a talented metaphysician famous for defending idealism, that is, the view that reality consists exclusively of minds and their ideas. Berkeley's system, while it strikes many as counter-intuitive, is strong and flexible enough to counter most objections. His most-studied works, the Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (Principles, for short) and Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous (Dialogues), are beautifully written and dense with the sort of arguments that delight contemporary philosophers. He was also a wide-ranging thinker with interests in religion (which were fundamental to his philosophical motivations), the psychology of vision, mathematics, physics, morals, economics, and medicine. Although many of Berkeley's first readers greeted him with incomprehension, he influenced both Hume and Kant, and is much read (if little followed) in our own day.

[Magnus102]

I over reacted, sure. But I have more than ample reason. The kind of shit you little demons piled on me in your ignorance and you inablity to think deeply,

This is why people love to rip apart your interesting (though flawed) ideas.. All you do is insult. For the record I am a member of freaking MENSA and do not have to prove my mental prowess to you .

No one rips me apart logically. I kick ass every time. you can't win an argument with me without doing this because you are not as good a thinker as I am. It may be an obvious thing to do but it's still just taking advantage of something not related to logic or reason or abilities.

Really? In the debate section on CARM HRG royally kicked your ass, and on many carm threads you just seem to give up after you have been refuted, or else your posts turn into shameless ad hominem.

your fear of differing view points, your hatred of God and of everything decent, your loathing of goodness, your inability to reason, all of this has driven you and those like you to heap abuse upon me and upon every Christian on the CARMath board. I am more than justified in lashing back.

I loath goodness? Are you serious ? I do not feel anything for god, just like you do not feel anything for Santa. As for your other comments I will not dignify them with a response, as they are just another example of why you are pathetic.

that appraisal is not for discussion. how could I expect you or your ilk to understand it?

[quote']
You said that I don't know anything about philosophy. But you weren't content to stop there. You said this before I said anything insulting at all. You know that is the case!
p[/quote] That is only because you said Kant destroyed Hume, when in reality that was not Kant's intention nor what he did.[/quote]

No I did not say that. You did not read it carefully.
[/quote] No, I did, and anyone who wishes to check can go long on CARM where it is set into type forever.

you were not content to stop at just saying I don't know my own busienss, my profession. you said I actually lied about it. You weren't content to just say "you don't know" you had to also impune my motives. Then you also impunnied my intelligence.

No, I think you do know about it. That is why I said that you lied, because a lie implies one knows the truth. I never said you did not know the subject matter as I recall.

you didn't understand the subtleties involved in what I said, that's why you think it was a lie.
[/quote] Whatever man.

There are two issues that clealry motivate you:

(1) That you are so stuck on the idea of Hume being important because its all you know about him.

????? I read all his books on line. I just finished Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion a week ago!

that books really sux. he had a child's understanding of religion. The Essay is the most important thing to read by Hume. his social criticism kind of stuff and his history is piss poor.
[/quote] If you thought was crap you are an idiot. I am sorry but I am going to be blunt here. The essay is also great, but to say that book sucks! I used to think you were halfway smart Metacrock.

(2) you are not capable of making critical distinctions in the arguments you address. You are distorting my arguments in a simplistic fashion.

the article you quoted said absolutely nothing to contradict anything I said. It has no specifics about the actual arguments of Hume or Kant. The one I quoted was very specific. that means my article trumps yous because yous said nothing of any consequence.

As I stated the only part of the Stanford article I wanted to use for our debate was that one line. Below that I attacked your ideas. To claim I tried to use the Stanford article to argue anything but that one point is absurd.

I know. that's the problem. it's such a shallow point to worry about.
[/quote] No, it shows clearly how you misrepresented the importance of Hume. AKA Lying

My argument was that Kant render Hume outdated, and puts empiricism in its place as underrating human reason. I did not say "Kant beat up Hume" or anything stupid like that. you just can't make critical distinctions or think deeply.

No, you said he destroyed him. I might agree that Hume's staunch empirical thinking was outmoded by Kant-but this does not mean Kant destroyed his work. In fact in my post on Carm I clearly explained how he built on Hume's work. No one on CARM was even an empiricist in the
strict sense anyway , but that did not stop your from building your strawman to attack.

It wasn't a straw man. you just can't follow an argument.
[/quote] Yes, it was. i freely admit the mind suggests it's own categories etc. Kant is the reason we were saved from Hume's ultimate skepticism.

You are not on the level in terms of knowledge or depth of reason to be able to post here.

Perhaps, I am not up to your level of knowledge. I will admit this freely. After all, you are a 5o year old former phd candidate and I am an 18 year old who just got out of high school. I think, however', that I am more reasonable than you could hope to be. Your rants and attacks,while amusing, are not the work of one with a great intellect.

No you are not. But I've wasted too much time on this petty crap. I don't care who insulted whom I wont waste my time these nay sayer tactics that are just designed to raise my PB.[/quote]


I want to be mean to you badly for your insults. To be honest , you make a very easy target. I just can not bring myself to do it to you , because I think that once you might have been someone worth knowing. I pity you too much to desire to debate with you any further,

[KR Wordgazer]

Then why bring your attacks here to his own message board, Magnus? Keep this kind of disrespect on CARM, where everyone appears to be used to it. If it escalates there, it's only to be expected-- but this place is generally a nice, respectful board.

[Metacrock]

I want to be mean to you badly for your insults. To be honest , you make a very easy target. I just can not bring myself to do it to you , because I think that once you might have been someone worth knowing. I pity you too much to desire to debate with you any further,

you started it dumb butt. if you hadn't called me a liar and said I was stupid we could have had a nice little discussion about philosophy. But you don't do that sort of thing do you? With you it can only be insults and meanness because you can't think.

Oooops just lost some sunshine ponits. well I'm a grumps 50x over.

[KR Wordgazer]

*offers Metacrock a virtual hug*

I know you like to talk about what interests you, Metacrock-- but CARM makes you crazy, and then some of the craziness leaks back over here. I think they've gone off the deep end over there and I've stopped going. (Someone told me they recently banned the word "free." )

Anyway, I think you have a right to blow off some steam on your own board (perhaps if you hadn't mentioned Mangus by name, he wouldn't have come over here after you?)

I did read Kant, Hume, Descartes & others in college, but it was basically a 101 type class, and 20 years ago, so I wouldn't be much good at "philosophizing with you, dude." (to quote Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, which we just brought home for the kids to see)