I'll be entirely honest, Sellied: I pretty much checked out on your post the moment I read "why do you take the word of a 'wheelcheered' scientist" as if him being "wheelcheered" (I'll assume you meant wheel-chaired; that's not a typo, that's an outright lack of knowing how to spell. You don't accidentally hit "ee" when reaching over to type "ai," they're nowhere even close to each other, unless you're just brain-damaged; it'd explain a lot actually) is somehow detrimental to his intellect, as if somehow, because he is suffering from a disease that renders his range of motion to nearly 0% that somehow his brain is inferior and unworthy of being considered an equal of someone who is NOT wheel-chair bound. It was at that point I pretty much realized that whatever you had to say was basically on the equivalent level of a ten year old saying his dad is going to beat up my dad.

Seriously. Fuck off. Nobody here likes you. And I suspect nobody offline likes you, either, given your absolute lack of open-mindedness and the way you spend your time (on forums, trolling). Run along and go play with your dolls, child.

Er . . . . . . . . what is Stephen Hawkings' argument ?

Regards

Grimesy

So, what have we learned from this thread?

Ask people why they believe what they believe before you insinuate that their arguments are stupid.

(July 2, 2012 at 10:14 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:wheelcheered scientist

Wheelcheered?

He probably has something against people in wheel chairs. I'll put him in one if that's the case.
He doesn't seem a very pleasant or very well liked person. Probably not even offline.
It wouldn't surprise me if he ends up getting decked at some point.

(July 4, 2012 at 1:03 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 4, 2012 at 12:34 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: To some degree that is the issue I have with Stephen Hawkings' presenting it. He hasn't defined his argument in a terrible logical fashion, yet presents it as viable option.

It's quite possible that you lack the background to fully grasp the argument. That's not a criticism - as I myself do not. Half of the stuff he says goes over my head, the other half goes WAY over my head.

(July 4, 2012 at 12:34 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: No one seemingly will dare dispute what's he said, particularly given it's in the realm of theoretical physics. And as it's in this realm it becomes almost untouchable, almost an element of faith has crept into it.

Quote:I doubt I would have to look very hard to find other theoretical physicists that disagree with him on at least minor points, if not major ones.

That is the problem, you're looking to assess it solely on the basis of verifiable evidence. This is your belief system/worldview/whatever you want to call it. This consists of an assumption which means only that which has proven to exist does, anything which has no evidence does not exist. I realise you may not believe this, but the practical application of it equates to be the same thing.

There are no new arguments from either side. To understand someone's persepctive I think you need to take step back and look at what their worldview is, and any conclusions they draw (atheism, agnosticism, theism) is a result of this worldview. Focussing on specific points, premises, etc is, misleading and only going to result in trolling arguments.

I am so sick of seeing Stephen Hawkings' belief being proposed as fact, because Stephen Hawkings' said it. The reason why I began with this argument, is this is where is usually ends, so I thought I'd just cut to the chase.

---

(July 4, 2012 at 8:30 am)Ace Otana Wrote:

(July 2, 2012 at 10:14 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Wheelcheered?

He probably has something against people in wheel chairs. I'll put him in one if that's the case.
He doesn't seem a very pleasant or very well liked person. Probably not even offline.
It wouldn't surprise me if he ends up getting decked at some point.

Nothing more impressive than internet tough guy talk from a guy called "Ace".

(July 4, 2012 at 6:44 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote:

(July 4, 2012 at 1:03 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It's quite possible that you lack the background to fully grasp the argument. That's not a criticism - as I myself do not. Half of the stuff he says goes over my head, the other half goes WAY over my head.



That is the problem, you're looking to assess it solely on the basis of verifiable evidence. This is your belief system/worldview/whatever you want to call it. This consists of an assumption which means only that which has proven to exist does, anything which has no evidence does not exist. I realise you may not believe this, but the practical application of it equates to be the same thing.

There are no new arguments from either side. To understand someone's persepctive I think you need to take step back and look at what their worldview is, and any conclusions they draw (atheism, agnosticism, theism) is a result of this worldview. Focussing on specific points, premises, etc is, misleading and only going to result in trolling arguments.

I am so sick of seeing Stephen Hawkings' belief being proposed as fact, because Stephen Hawkings' said it. The reason why I began with this argument, is this is where is usually ends, so I thought I'd just cut to the chase.


He probably has something against people in wheel chairs. I'll put him in one if that's the case.
He doesn't seem a very pleasant or very well liked person. Probably not even offline.
It wouldn't surprise me if he ends up getting decked at some point.

Nothing more impressive than internet tough guy talk from a guy called "Ace".

Your reading comprehension doesn't do you any favours.

He said : "It wouldn't surprise me if he ends up getting decked at some point."

You read: He is threatening to deck me.

He never once implied that he would be the one to hit you, so how does his response equate to him being the internet tough guy of whom you speak?

You should re-read what he wrote, he said:

"He probably has something against people in wheel chairs. I'll put him in one if that's the case."

Maybe that implies nothing to you.

Dammit, it is I who needs some reading comprehension lessons... although, how do we know that he didn't mean as a social experiment? OK, I'm going to go back to drinking beer; I'm pretty good at that.

(July 4, 2012 at 6:57 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: You should re-read what he wrote, he said:

"He probably has something against people in wheel chairs. I'll put him in one if that's the case."

Maybe that implies nothing to you.

Clearly if that interpretation of opinion is not the case, you have nothing to worry about from our Ace. Even less so since we only exist to each other at the other end of an internet connection. What may befall you at the hands of others irl à la Ace's closing comment is out of our hands.

(July 4, 2012 at 6:57 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: You should re-read what he wrote, he said:

"He probably has something against people in wheel chairs. I'll put him in one if that's the case."

Maybe that implies nothing to you.

Read again, I said "he probably has something against people in wheel chairs". If you have a problem with people being physically disabled, I wouldn't hesitate to knock you over. If you don't have any nasty dislike of people in wheel chairs, then we haven't got a problem. I have to be honest, I really don't like people who are like that.

Also I do think you'll end up decked at some point. Some people won't put up with you.