Philosophical Vegan Forum

I wonder what Teo's next belief is gonna be; Maybe something along the lines of Vladimir Putin not existing because the name 'Vladimir' means 'rule' and that's too much of a coincidence or something.

Red wrote: Don't think it's fair to assume they're trolling.

Come on now, @Not The Real JREG claimed studying computer science somehow makes people racist.

Red wrote:Are you:
A) Willfully ignorant
B) Mentally incompotent
C) Delibrately dishonest
D) All of the above

I'm going with D.

Or, it could be that I am, unlike most people, trying to be consistent. I am trying to hold hypotheses which I like and hypotheses which I don't like to the same standards of evidence. If it is unreasonable to believe in perpetual motion machines because they appear to contradict the 1st law of thermodynamics, then it should also be unreasonable to believe in bombs since they appear to contradict the second law of thermodynamics. I am also trying to hold claims that prisons exist to the same standards of evidence as the claims that hell exists. Actually, I think most of the people are doing that, except that most of the people decide both hell and prisons exist, while I decide that both of them are false.

MittensTheCat3 wrote:No!!!! Teo!!! I am not trolling!!! You are the smartest person not only in Croatia but in all of Europe!!!

If you actually believed it, you would give some reasons for believing that.

-

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:51 am Ignoring all the debate, I will put you to the test: @teo123 and attempt to answer part of your question:

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:48 pm 2) Bombs appear to contradict the second law of thermodynamics, which says that a body can't convert its internal energy into mechanical work. That's what bombs are supposed to do. They receive very little energy that triggers them, and they turn their own internal energy into loads of mechanical work. Therefore, bombs probably don't exist.
This is wrong, but is it personal incredulity fallacy? When I was saying that, I thought it wasn't because "bombs contradict the second law of thermodynamics" is an objective claim, it doesn't talk about my mind but about external world.

Actually, there is the term "appear" in your example. Appearance is something related to a subject. You lost it somewhere in between your example and your analysis. This appearance is probably caused by lack of understanding the second law of thermodynamics and failure to consider obvious evidence, hence an example of personal incredulity.

Well, we can't know how stuff really are, only how they appear.

Red wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:43 am I wonder what Teo's next belief is gonna be; Maybe something along the lines of Vladimir Putin not existing because the name 'Vladimir' means 'rule' and that's too much of a coincidence or something.

So, for those of you who don't know (and I am not expecting you to know, of course), on another forum, I started a discussion of whether it's reasonable to believe that "Vladimir" is Vladimir Putin's real name, because "Vladimir" can be read as "ruler of the world" or "peaceful ruler", both readings seeming rather ironic for one of the most powerful people in the world.
James Mallory suggested in Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, that Teuta(na), the name of a famous Illyrian queen, as it is written in historical sources, wasn't actually her real name, but a title meaning something like "mistress of the people" (from the root *tewt). Well, by that logic, "Vladimir" probably isn't Vladimir Putin's real name either, right?
Why it is that, when I publish papers about linguistics (one of my papers is available in this PDF on page 70), people are praising my effort, but, when I try to apply linguistics to something in the real world, people call me an idiot?

I was just joking! What the fuck???

You really never do cease to outdo yourself.

Red wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:58 pm I was just joking! What the fuck???

You really never do cease to outdo yourself.

So, you think "Vladimir" is the Russian president's real name?

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:21 pm

Red wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:58 pm I was just joking! What the fuck???

You really never do cease to outdo yourself.

So, you think "Vladimir" is the Russian president's real name?

Having read your arguments, I now don't think that Vladimir is his real name! Well done Teo, you've convinced me!

Red wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:06 pm

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:21 pm

Red wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:58 pm I was just joking! What the fuck???

You really never do cease to outdo yourself.

So, you think "Vladimir" is the Russian president's real name?

Having read your arguments, I now don't think that Vladimir is his real name! Well done Teo, you've convinced me!

Finally that you admit it can sometimes happen that I am right and you are wrong. Be it only in a field I have published peer-reviewed papers about, and you know next to nothing about that.

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:55 am

Red wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:43 am I wonder what Teo's next belief is gonna be; Maybe something along the lines of Vladimir Putin not existing because the name 'Vladimir' means 'rule' and that's too much of a coincidence or something.

So, for those of you who don't know (and I am not expecting you to know, of course), on another forum, I started a discussion of whether it's reasonable to believe that "Vladimir" is Vladimir Putin's real name, because "Vladimir" can be read as "ruler of the world" or "peaceful ruler", both readings seeming rather ironic for one of the most powerful people in the world.

This is really weird behaviour Teo, it's like you're delighting in knowing about so many conspiracies and having created so many of your own novel conspiracies, that when someone creates an absurd example of something you might believe, you're excited to tell them you've covered it already. It reminds me of when you admitted to arguing for conspiracies you didn't actually believe:

teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2016 5:21 pmI realize that I crossed every single line. On forums, I used some arguments for which I knew exactly why they are false. In real life, I insulted a friend by claiming that he was a part of the conspiracy because he claimed that airplanes exist and that he was in one. He, of course, asked me how did I thing he had got there if airplanes didn't exist, and I told him that I didn't owe him that answer and that he could prove dragons exactly the same way (seriously!). He said we were not friends any more and left. It's hard for me to figure out what was I thinking when I said that. Was I serious? Was I trying to be funny? I mean, now I cry when I remember that conversation.

I'm not going to respond to anything you say back, so please don't put any effort into writing a long treatese, just think on it.