Prince's Evangelical Obsession

[Carmel]

Elizabeth,
You are deluding yourself.

Diebert refered to him as "a way above
average poster".

It was originally Ryan who observed accurately that he has many supporters.

I can think of several other members here who support him based on statements from other threads. Why don't you ask them why they support him?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Diebert refered to him as "a way above average poster".

Diebert made an evaluation. I'm not sure if that is a reflection of Diebert's respect for prince, or a comment about what the average poster of late to GF. Even if Diebert is giving prince a high evaluation, giving someone a high evaluation is different from being a supporter of a particular person. In favor of accuracy though, I will wait for Diebert to say for himself if he considers himself a prince supporter. In response to your claim that it was illogical of me to direct my question only to you about if that was what you support, I maintain that the evidence of supportership to the degree of asking that question was limited to you.

As for asking Diebert if this is what he considers above average - I'll leave that alone. The average post quality has decreased pitifully. I noticed one poster being compared to an AI philosophy bot, and I considered that poster to not be the only one. At least we know that prince is not a bot.

It was originally Ryan who observed accurately that he has many supporters.

You have misinterpreted Ryan.

prince keeps a distant from actual debate, and only attacks others when there is an overly easy target, and he knows he has support from enough other posters not to feel the burn of an incorrect position.

Ryan noted that prince waits to find out if his position is supported enough by enough other posters that he will get enough support from those other posters to not be attacked for attacking a particular poster. That is an entirely different claim than that prince has a bunch of supporters that will stand behind him.

You are deluding yourself.

You see, this is the sort of influence that I don't want prince to have over people who might be impressionable enough to think that's the way that we debate things here. Perhaps Kevin Solway's latest video might be of value to you.

[Carmel]

You are beyond tedious, Elizabeth.

I'm speculating that's why prince doesn't want to engage in a discussion with you. You have absolutely no ability for higher abstract reasoning, whereas, prince does. so does Diebert, which is why he can recognize that same ability in prince. You're mentally stuck, spinning your wheels, caught in a web of mediocrity and minutae.

Learn how to ZOOM OUT. ....then, bugger off.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Well Carmel, you are right to consider yourself a prince fan, however this is not a place for a mudslinger's fan club.

[Dan Rowden]

Prince is being a vacuous twit.

I have no stomach for such people, right now. I'm in the mood to teach someone how to fly off a tall building. Takers?

[Carmel]

lol!

Oh, he has other supporters alright...
but no one could ever love him the way we do!

(((prince)))

[Dan Rowden]

Justify creationism in one paragraph. I'd love to see that.

[Blair]

Justify creationism in one paragraph. I'd love to see that.

I'm not a creationist, Dan. Some of what I say is similar, granted.

Take a look at Monica Belluci, her body, shape and face. It has an aesthetic quality which I do not find in any human art. Paintings and sculptures etc..by people is rubbish to my senses, it revolts me. There's your proof of God. He is the consumate artist, the likes of which a fuckweasel likr you can't even begin to appreciate.

[Robert]

Monica would be honoured.

Well, she is God's wife after all.

[Carl G]

You see, this is the sort of influence that I don't want prince to have over people who might be impressionable enough to think that's the way that we debate things here. Perhaps Kevin Solway's latest video might be of value to you.

Golly, another small and useless effort from Kevin. What's happened to the man?

As for prince, I'd say his abusiveness does not serve anyone or anything. And while I'd agree that he shares his vision of reality all too briefly in his posts, I do get what he is saying -- the core of it is that there is another, higher level of understanding, above what logic can give one. There actually may be no way to accurately explain it in words, and there may not be a good reason to try, on a public forum. This is the crux of what the logicians here despise, the idea that logic may not be the be all and end all of knowing.

If Quinn was here, no doubt he would counter with the notion that logic brings one into the infinite -- in the most basic, direct, and elemental way possible -- and thus there can be no higher discipline.

This is the debate we are dancing around in this thread.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I do get what he is saying -- the core of it is that there is another, higher level of understanding, above what logic can give one. There actually may be no way to accurately explain it in words

While that is true, I see no evidence that prince has done anything other than take Lao Tzu's opening words:

The Tao that can be named is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the
enduring and unchanging name.

and taken it as a license to make unfounded claims. Anyone can parrot Lao Tzu, but if all that one is going to say is that he can't talk about it, then he needs to quit talking.

I have used Christian terminology to point at deeper concepts, so that is not what I am challenging. I do understand that one can use any religion's terminology as a tool to point at something deeper, but prince is not pointing at anything deep at all.

Flitting from thread to thread claiming to be the smartest person in the world because he knows God now and everyone else is a twit, twat, or dickweed does not point to him knowing anything at all other than how to sling insults. If a person makes a claim here, they are expected to back it up because that is what we do here.

BTW Carl, care to defend your position that there wasn't much to Kevin's last video, or is an insult against the person sufficient retort to a video analyzing ad hominems sufficient for you?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

BTW Carl, care to defend your position that there wasn't much to Kevin's last video, or is an insult against the person sufficient retort to a video analyzing ad hominems sufficient for you?

Though, if you do wish to make a proper post on the subject, please make a thread on the matter on the Men of the Infinite forum, as to not derail prince's evangelism thread. Thanks.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Take a look at Monica Belluci, her body, shape and face. It has an aesthetic quality which I do not find in any human art. Paintings and sculptures etc..by people is rubbish to my senses, it revolts me. There's your proof of God. He is the consumate artist

So you're saying "I saw a pretty woman, so I know there is a God."

Okay, so let's have a look. She seems to be absent of obvious physical deformities, which is an indication of good health - of course it is a little hard to tell her exact state of health from her face, especially since there is so much make-up on that face, plus the false eyelashes, and obvious use of hair products. Each of these are designed to enhance that which is evidence of good reproductive health. And they are human art - placed on the canvas of a woman.

It is of evolutionary advantage to be attracted to healthy specimens because passing one's genes on with unhealthy specimens decreases the chance of those genes surviving. The fact that you are attracted to a woman showing indications of good reproductive health is evidence that your genetic programming for mate selection based on reproductive health is functional. Your desire does not have to have anything to do with how much likelihood that you would actually procreate with this woman. The genetic programming of desire is enough to contribute to continuation of the species, which is the function of evolution.

[Tomas]

.


Carl's Ryan Obsession

-Ryan Rudolph-
Carl, You usually criticize my use of words and poor grammar. Semantics and grammar is how you
usually pick apart my posts. As far as attacking my actual arguments, sometimes, but rarely.

-tomas-
Didn't you know, Carl is trying to pick up the mantle of David "The Koan" Quinn.


-Ryan quite-rightly continues-
I share all of the views with the admins, and the general objectives of this forum, but I don't
spend as much time editing as some others do.

-tomas-
Excellent Ryan, sweet!


-Ryan gets to the heart of the matter-
Carl, you tend to be such a perfectionist of things that do not matter very much. As long as
the meaning is there in the posts, the presentation is secondary. You place more value on
presentation and less value on content.

-tomas-
Bravo! That's was David "The Koan" Quinn's near-exact words in his first reply to Carl.


-Ryan seals the deal-
And as far as picking apart my generalizations, I am aware that a generalization does not
apply to all cases, but you often feel the need to point this out to me time and time again.

-tomas-
Take heart, Ryan, David "The Koan" Quinn has named you as an up-and-comer philosopher.

PS- I've been doing some more Remote-Viewing (again), and "The Koan" is presently working on
Chapter 9, Page 103 of his latest book, titled "The Top-11 Intellectual Elites on Genius Forum."
Too: When taking a shower, please close the shower curtain a tad more tightly ;-)

[Carl G]

I see Tomas' hard-on for Carl continues unslackened.

[Kunga]

When love is new it is exuberant....at times obsessive....i remember many times being obsessive when i was in love...in love with a religion even.....for the past 10 years or so i've been obsessed with studying Buddhism....but now the obsession has died...and i can relax now....but again i will say...when love is new.............instead of attacking each other maybe we can be more patient and tolerant......acid +acid= combustion :)

[Gurrb]

prince keeps a distant from actual debate, and only attacks others when there is an overly easy target, and he knows he has support from enough other posters not to feel the burn of an incorrect position.

Some of his opinions have become known as of late, which I do not agree with. Especially his views on evolution and god.

Prince doesn't like to take big risks because he doesn't want to have his ego hurt. I think he needs a bit more courage.

"Sometimes its not about having a correct position, but exposing ones incorrect positions, but of course the ego tries to avoid pain, avoid ego-destruction, and ultimately avoid the possibility that it could in fact be incorrect about something"

There is no incorrect position, but a less accepted one. A 'position' should be taken that is not like any other to prevoke thought and creativity. As Einstein said, "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination." Prince should consider this.

[Blair]

Justify creationism in one paragraph. I'd love to see that.

So not only did humans evolve from..nothing at all, but they also evolved and mutated into male and female (nevermind how that was possible) , at exactly the same time and in exactly the same way that made them compatible.

Sure, Dan, pull the other leg.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

When love is new it is exuberant....at times obsessive....i remember many times being obsessive when i was in love...in love with a religion even...

You may have something there. Prince is acting like he is in love with his new religion, plus, his first "argument" was that there are attractive women, and his second "argument" is that there are men and women, I wonder if he isn't hoping that by becoming theistic, he might get hooked up with a woman. Anyone feel like looking up any statistics on the gender breakdown of theists and atheists in America? Just from casual observation, it seems to me that there are more male atheists and male agnostics than female atheists and female agnostics, so he may feel that he's improving his odds by switching camps. There may be more than one type of love motivating prince into the theistic camp.

[Carmel]

Kunga:.............instead of attacking each other maybe we can be more patient and tolerant......acid +acid= combustion :)

Carmel:
'twould be nice...and Kunga, you're really very sweet, you know? :)

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kunga,

If you want to improve your logic skills, there is no greater reward in life than becoming more clear minded in thought and action. Logic holds the key to perceiving the world with crystal clear lenses.


If you start with a question, that question will lead into a dozen more until you realize how poorly your definitions of the world are, and how poorly you understand the human mind.

Think about this:

"When we speak from a lack of awareness of our own minds, the content of our thoughts is the lesson itself"

[Beingof1]

So not only did humans evolve from..nothing at all, but they also evolved and mutated into male and female (nevermind how that was possible) , at exactly the same time and in exactly the same way that made them compatible.

What an obvious point.

Truth is almost always stunningly, the obvious.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Kunga:.............instead of attacking each other maybe we can be more patient and tolerant......acid +acid= combustion :)

Carmel:
'twould be nice...and Kunga, you're really very sweet, you know? :)

Yes, she is sweet, and that is a valuable asset in the world; however this is a training ground for sharpening out logic skills. I made the same mistake when I came here, but there wasn't anyone who could explain it in a way that I could understand. I expect that I can do a lot better for her than what was done to me.

The most important thing to learn in order for this place to be a training grounds that sharpens our skills rather than a destructive force is the meaning of ad hominem. The idea is not to attack each other, but to attack faulty reasoning. With skilled, reasonable debaters, it is easier to see the difference. With someone whose debating skills need a lot of work, it's much more difficult on many levels. There is also the aspect that debating online leaves much less room to communicate tone - which is less important for more seasoned debaters, but can make a lot of difference not only with the less skilled debaters, but even more so for those who are trying to learn from observation.

Patience and tolerance are good things, and to an extent they are employed here - but it is boundaries that make a thing what it is. You wouldn't go to NASCAR and expect them to devote much time to stopping and smelling the roses, would you? When they leave NASCAR they may do something slower paced, but it is the speed and the intensity that make NASCAR what it is.

[Carmel]

Elizabeth,
Quit preaching to me, I'm not interested in a having a discussion with you. I thought I made that perfectly clear with my previous comment "bugger off"

I don't think you are wise or enlightened by any stretch of the imagination. You also have poor reasoning skills and worst of all, you are meddlesome and gossipy.

This is my second request for you to "bugger off".

Thank you in advance. :)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

So not only did humans evolve from..nothing at all, but they also evolved and mutated into male and female (nevermind how that was possible) , at exactly the same time and in exactly the same way that made them compatible.

What an obvious point.

Truth is almost always stunningly, the obvious.

Yes, and that is why so many people fall for the fallacy of using a true statement as an irrelevant (or at least conclusion jumping) answer to a question.

Justify creationism in one paragraph. I'd love to see that.

So not only did humans evolve from..nothing at all, but they also evolved and mutated into male and female (nevermind how that was possible) , at exactly the same time and in exactly the same way that made them compatible.

Sure, Dan, pull the other leg.

Although prince's statement quoted by Beingof1 (good to see you back, BTW) is a true statement, juxtapositioned with the request for proof from Dan, it is not a true answer.

Oh, and there's another snide remark tagged on the end. Prince appears to be addicted to those things.

Prince appears to be addicted to those things.

I recognize that to a newbie, this may appear to be an as hominem, too. It is not because the reference is to prince's pattern of abuse - so that is a fair strike against a pattern of poor debating skills. It is very close to an ad hominem because much of what we are is a compilation of our patterns of behaviors, but it is just this side of the line because it is a reference to a particular pattern of behavior that is germane to the issue, and was previously and recently explained to prince in a more formal manner.