Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 30, 2024, 7:19 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ontological Disproof of God
RE: Ontological Disproof of God
Now all I want to do is tort Duane.

Tort tort tort tort tort tort tort tort tort tort tort tort tort tort tort tort tort tort tort tort tort
















































Tort
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
Reply
RE: Ontological Disproof of God
(September 12, 2018 at 9:49 pm)negatio Wrote: Yes, Kelso, stick to insults presented via pure assertion. 

Yeah, melted this down to this one point for two reasons. 

• Pure assertion implies no base, your actions (or rather your text based behavior) are the base here. If you’ve dealt with this before, then experience should tell you why it occurs. 

You’re a certified superior intelligence that’s gone through psychological screening? Fair enough. That just reinforces the point that you should understand why you get the reactions you do. 

• If you can adjust enough where you drop the persecution complex and get used to the actual use of the rules here, you’ll find that less and less people here will insult you. Like Parker’s Tan, in my signature, most of us make change in the coin tendered around here. Stop shitting on the forum floor, and crying unfair when people treat you like you shit on the floor. Simple as that. 

Until then:



[Image: bbb59Ce.gif]

(September 17, 2015 at 4:04 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I make change in the coin tendered. If you want courteous treatment, behave courteously. Preaching at me and calling me immoral is not courteous behavior.
Reply
RE: Ontological Disproof of God
The way I see it you've basically got three options negatio:
  1. Stop fighting and accept the olive branches and suggestions offered and things will likely get better over time.
  2. Continue fighting an unwinnable battle against the staff, either till you get banned, or, if you don't, just ongoing negativity ad nauseum, all the while alienating yourself from and looking like an idiot to everyone, even those who would have otherwise been inclined to help you. Is that negativity worth it? Is that how you want to spend your time?
  3. Leave... walk away; being here has been a negative experience for you so you can cut your losses by just walking away.
I suggest number 1 or 3. But number 2 will only lead to further alienation and negativity... on an ongoing basis... so I suggest you ask yourself seriously whether that's what you want going forward.
Reply
RE: Ontological Disproof of God
(September 12, 2018 at 9:48 pm)Losty Wrote: There are no laws here. Just rules. Rules which are interpreted and enforced by staff. Regardless of how you feel about it. You keep insisting you’re not a troll but all you post is crap like this. If you’re not a troll stop going on about the rule, and talk about your OP. Maybe participate in other threads. Comment your opinion. There are plenty of philosophy threads available if that’s the only thing you’re interested in.



Now, I am going to openly, in open forum, request staff to make a ruling, and, do not respond that I need approach almighty staff via a special, secrete, thread, because I have not yet received answer-one to important questions which I have previously asked staff via a special thread.  That special thread is inauthentically employed by staff to maintain a tyranny, whereby, staff informs one that any questions one has to be addressed to staff must be presented in private, and, thereby, staff is actually obviating any possibility for one to receive answers, because, tyrannical staff, in the absolute absolutism which they practice within the forum, do not, will not, answer embarrassing questions, therefore, I openly request staff, in open forum, to:

Render their sagacious ruling regarding the intension of sentence three of the Introductions Forum Rules, the question of the hour among members, which reads : "Note that this does not give you a carte blanche to act in an insulting or rude manner in other areas of the forums.''

Now, watch staff either totally ignore me; beg-off; or reply with something totally vacuous.  Negatio.
Reply
RE: Ontological Disproof of God
Anyone thinking the AF staff members are tyrannical obviously prefer delusion over reality. I've been to forums where the staff are tyrannical, and the mods here are far from that.
Reply
RE: Ontological Disproof of God
(September 13, 2018 at 12:20 am)negatio Wrote:
(September 12, 2018 at 9:48 pm)Losty Wrote: There are no laws here. Just rules. Rules which are interpreted and enforced by staff. Regardless of how you feel about it. You keep insisting you’re not a troll but all you post is crap like this. If you’re not a troll stop going on about the rule, and talk about your OP. Maybe participate in other threads. Comment your opinion. There are plenty of philosophy threads available if that’s the only thing you’re interested in.



Now, I am going to openly, in open forum, request staff to make a ruling, and, do not respond that I need approach almighty staff via a special, secrete, thread, because I have not yet received answer-one to important questions which I have previously asked staff via a special thread.  That special thread is inauthentically employed by staff to maintain a tyranny, whereby, staff informs one that any questions one has to be addressed to staff must be presented in private, and, thereby, staff is actually obviating any possibility for one to receive answers, because, tyrannical staff, in the absolute absolutism which they practice within the forum, do not, will not, answer embarrassing questions, therefore, I openly request staff, in open forum, to:

Render their sagacious ruling regarding the intension of sentence three of the Introductions Forum Rules, the question of the hour among members, which reads : "Note that this does not give you a carte blanche to act in an insulting or rude manner in other areas of the forums.''

Now, watch staff either totally ignore me; beg-off; or reply with something totally vacuous.  Negatio.

Your question in the thread you made was answered by Pandemonium, you admitted earlier that you haven’t even read it.


You say you’re going to ask staff to make a ruling. What do you want a ruling on?
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay

0/10

Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
Reply
RE: Ontological Disproof of God
No, I could not determine that quote and reply are the same thing, because, there is already a Quote represented by a button upon the face of the page, so, the face of the thread should, then, actually, have two tabs bearing the same exact designation, i.e., Quote and Quote. Negatio.
Reply
RE: Ontological Disproof of God
(September 13, 2018 at 12:49 am)negatio Wrote: No, I could not determine that quote and reply are the same thing, because, there is already a Quote represented by a button upon the face of the page, so, the face of the thread should, then, actually, have two tabs bearing the same exact designation, i.e., Quote   and    Quote.  Negatio.

Hitting “reply” opens a reply box with a quote in it. Hitting quote selects a post to be quoted without opening a reply box. Either button allows you to quote a person in your reply. You may also reply without quoting anyone by clicking “new reply”. I hope this helps.
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay

0/10

Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
Reply
RE: Ontological Disproof of God
The quote button just doesn't work for me. Weird. Therefore, I've always just used the reply button.
Reply
RE: Ontological Disproof of God
(September 13, 2018 at 12:43 am)Losty Wrote:
(September 13, 2018 at 12:20 am)negatio Wrote: Now, I am going to openly, in open forum, request staff to make a ruling, and, do not respond that I need approach almighty staff via a special, secrete, thread, because I have not yet received answer-one to important questions which I have previously asked staff via a special thread.  That special thread is inauthentically employed by staff to maintain a tyranny, whereby, staff informs one that any questions one has to be addressed to staff must be presented in private, and, thereby, staff is actually obviating any possibility for one to receive answers, because, tyrannical staff, in the absolute absolutism which they practice within the forum, do not, will not, answer embarrassing questions, therefore, I openly request staff, in open forum, to:

Render their sagacious ruling regarding the intension of sentence three of the Introductions Forum Rules, the question of the hour among members, which reads : "Note that this does not give you a carte blanche to act in an insulting or rude manner in other areas of the forums.''

Now, watch staff either totally ignore me; beg-off; or reply with something totally vacuous.  Negatio.

Your question in the thread you made was answered by Pandemonium, you admitted earlier that you haven’t even read it.


You say you’re going to ask staff to make a ruling. What do you want a ruling on?


I am too sensitive to bear Pandemonium's scary; intimidating; condescending; absolutistic and tyrannical posture toward me.  I am afraid of the generally unpleasant aura P. exudes, therefore, I am fearful of viewing all communications from her. Is there a forum rule advising me that I must subject my pyche  to staff's nauseating and overbearing absolutistic tyranny ?
Are you are telling me the post contains answer to my question regarding systematically misleading doublespeak ?  If so, I don't know; perhaps it might be worth going into a particular hell to obtain the information...I actually hesitate to engage unpleasant dictators. Negatio
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  My own moral + ontological argument. Mystic 37 11323 April 17, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Last Post: FatAndFaithless
  Ontological Limericks chimp3 12 3365 December 22, 2016 at 3:22 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  On Anselm's 2nd Formulation of the Ontological Argument FallentoReason 7 3224 November 21, 2016 at 10:57 am
Last Post: FallentoReason
  How would you describe your ontological views? The Skeptic 10 2873 July 29, 2014 at 11:28 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation MindForgedManacle 23 5774 March 20, 2014 at 1:48 am
Last Post: Rabb Allah
  The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic Rational AKD 82 31932 February 17, 2014 at 9:36 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  The modal ontological argument - without modal logic proves atheism max-greece 15 5203 February 14, 2014 at 1:32 pm
Last Post: Alex K
  The Ontological Argument MindForgedManacle 18 6298 August 22, 2013 at 3:45 pm
Last Post: Jackalope
  Plantiga's ontological argument. Mystic 31 8209 April 25, 2013 at 5:43 pm
Last Post: A_Nony_Mouse
  Why ontological arguments are illogical liam 51 28706 August 14, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Last Post: Angrboda



Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)