(05-29-2009 10:29 AM)Artifice Wrote:  

(05-29-2009 10:15 AM)Rebel Wrote:  YOU back it up with facts.

It has been backed up with a DOE study. You're just being difficult because you don't like being proven wrong.

Insult me again tough guy.

Insult you again? You started the insults by calling me a "douche", you retarded *******.

I'm still waiting on that link. Since you've diverted from the request over and over, I'll just assume you don't know what you're fuckin' talking about and using your opinion as fact.

I'll bet judges love your idiotic ass.

Modern Education, that follows the gods of gray and off-white, teach based on Hegelian Synthesis. Especially in law shools, which is the basis of why we are now looking at "evolving" Laws and the need for "empathy" minded Judges who outright declare they are not "blind" but are in fact Bias.

Western Civilization was built on Education using the Anti-thesis epistomology. We shifted away from that in the late 1800's(Europe is ahead of us 30 yrs or so) and here we are today.


William Blackstone was the main legal mind taught in all law schools until the late 1800's, and the rise of "Synthesis" and the Rationalist thinkers epstimological views.

Quote: Now let us go back to the period immediately after Rousseau, to Immanuel Kant, and Hegel, who changed the whole concept of epistemology, man always thought in terms of antithesis. That is, you learn by saying “a” is not “non-a.” That is the first step of classical methodology of epistemology, of knowing. But Hegel argued that antithesis has never turned out well on a rationalistic basis, so he proposed to change the methodology of epistemology. Instead of dealing with antithesis, let us deal with synthesis. So he set up his famous triangle—everything is a thesis, it sets up an antithesis, and the answer is always synthesis. The whole world changed in the area of morals and political science, but it changed more profoundly, though less obviously, in the area of knowing and knowing itself. He changed the whole theory of how we know.

In my books I move quickly to Kierkegaard, who took this a step further. He set up, as I have indicated, the absolute dichotomy between reason and non-reason. Kierkegaard, and especially Kierkgardism that followed him, teaches that that which would give meaning is always separated from reason; reason only leads to knowledge downstairs, which is mathematical knowledge without meaning for the particulars. This is Kierkegaard’s contribution.

All of this flows from four men – Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard—and their thinking in the area of epistemology. From Hegel, this kind of thinking has replaced antithesis with Synthesis, so turning the whole theory of knowledge upside down. Today, existentialism has three forms: the French Jean-Paul Satre; the German, Heidegger; and that of Karl Jaspers, who is also a German but lives in Switzerland. The distinctions between the forms of existentialism do not change the fact that it is the same system even though it has different expressions with these different men, namely, that rationality only leads to something horrible in every area including knowledge. Indeed, not including knowledge, but first of all knowledge—principally knowledge. To these men as rationalist the knowledge we can know with our reason is only a mathematical formula in which man is only a machine. Instead of reason they hope to find some sort of mystical experience “upstairs,” apart from reason, to provide a universal.

Here we can feel again the whole drift of the hippie movement and the drug culture as well. Man hopes to find something in his head because he cannot know certainly that anything is “out there.” This is were we are..

-Francis Schaeffer, "He is there and he is not Silent"

This line of Synthesis thinking led directly to Communism and all its horrors.

Synthesis is taught in the classrooms and Existentialism is one of the main religions preached in Hollywood pulpits to this day, one of the best examples was of course: Forrest Gump


its a complete and totaly 180 turn from the thinking of the Founding Fathers and foundations of Western Civilization.


“a” is not “non-a.” is Logic 101 and a foundational princple of Classical Education. the gods of grey and off-white are the foundational princples of Synthesis Education, and is Illogical.

(05-29-2009 10:54 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-29-2009 10:29 AM)Artifice Wrote:  

(05-29-2009 10:15 AM)Rebel Wrote:  YOU back it up with facts.

It has been backed up with a DOE study. You're just being difficult because you don't like being proven wrong.

Insult me again tough guy.

Insult you again? You started the insults by calling me a "douche", you retarded *******.

I'm still waiting on that link. Since you've diverted from the request over and over, I'll just assume you don't know what you're fuckin' talking about and using your opinion as fact.

I'll bet judges love your idiotic ass.

1

2

3

Go ahead dipshit. Deny the 72% stat from that study some more.

Quote:"The answer give to this dilemma goes back at least to Socrates. If man is basically good, then he must do evil things because of ignorance. Therefore the savior for ignorant man must be education. The antidote to ignorance is teaching. But the contrast of Socratic thinking to the Christian faith is striking. In Christian teaching, man is a sinner and rebel, and he must be saved by Jesus Christ. In the humanistic faith, man does evil because he is untaught, and if he were taught more effectively, or with better-funded programs, or more progressive curricula, then the great savior -- education -- would straighten out all his internal kinks"

--(The Case for Classical Christian Education, p. 45).

Its of little wonder there is such hatred for other forms of Education, even those the nation was built on, to be taught in the Schools.

(05-29-2009 11:16 AM)GGniner Wrote:  If its not black, its white, nevermind all of the other colors in the rainbow

Basicly, this is more of your myopic, binary worldview. Everyone who disagrees with your White anglo saxon funadmentalist christian idea of morality, history, government, and society, is evil, and impure.

Sounds a whole lot like the islamofascists you have masturbation fantasties about.

Artifice....

1. Wildebest handed Torch his ass on a plate when it comes to Evolution just go find the thread.

2. You're never going to get a denier to admit to it. How long have you been on these boards? Why waste your time.

3. By their standards OJ's innocent. Mountains upon mountains of evidence points in only one direction, but if you have to prove something you can't. SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING!!!! That's how Torch thinks he wins his arguments. He asks for proof. What I find hilarious is he boasts of errors in the Theory of Evolution. If so, it would no longer be a theory. Cite that source Torch. Cite the errors of Evolution or GWT. There is ABSOLUTELY no proof of any error or it would cease being a theory. Start a thread that denies CO2, Methane, NO2 or the plethora of green house gases don't trap heat. Start a thread that denies natural selection. They are asking for your citations. Return the favor??????

You know Mach, you're right. The intellectual disohnesty gets to me though. And the evangelicism of some of these folks to the point that they want to deny science.

I'm not going to spout the "well I have lots of black friends" line in reference to Christians, cause that's not what this is about. (e.g. There are plenty of God fearing folk that I hold in very high regard). I just cant personally comprehend how someone could see all the synergy in the admittedly evolving scientific theory and not only ignore it, but deny it. And then go on a crusade about how a bunch of evil (insert various slurs and here) idiots in "Hollyweird", who can barely tie their shoelaces, let alone comprehend the technical aspects of this science, can design and proliferate such a vast hoax and conspiracy as modern science. Or whatever other tinhat theory GGNiner is obsessed with this week. That seems to be his latest reason to deny science. That and the horrible flaw that critical thinking could ever evolve beyond the basic binary function. Its exasperating.

I don't get the "saltiness" that some from the left acquire for GG. I don't find him nearly as toxic as some of the others.

Look at this thread about evolution and guess who gets in a hissy and takes the ball away and goes home.

http://www.ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=294959&page=1

Wildebeest must of researched the "Discovery Institute" that brainwashes kids into singing songs about man walking with the dinosaurs and fossils are just the work of the devil trying to confuse us.

(05-29-2009 11:54 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I don't get the "saltiness" that some from the left acquire for GG. I don't find him nearly as toxic as some of the others.

Look at this thread about evolution and guess who gets in a hissy and takes the ball away and goes home.

http://www.ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=294959&page=1

It's because he has never ever given one inch and his primary purpose in life is to perpetuate his myopic worldview, and in doing so, demonize anyone who disagrees with him as pure evil. In short, it's intellectual dishonesty and intolerance. Those happen to be major hot buttons with me, which is probably why he drives me up a wall, but not you. We have a poster on the Niner board who says even more insane things than GG, but I just laugh at him. I actually like him even though I think he's nuts. It's probably the difference in motivations. The other guy is at heart a good guy, just misguided.

Heck, Ninerfan1 and I couldn't be any more opposed on these types of issues and I think the world of him, even if we've gotten into it before. He's good people.

(05-29-2009 11:19 AM)Artifice Wrote:  Basicly, this is more of your myopic, binary worldview. Everyone who disagrees with your White anglo saxon funadmentalist christian idea of morality, history, government, and society, is evil, and impure.

Sounds a whole lot like the islamofascists you have masturbation fantasties about.

Logic 101 only has two colors: Right and Wrong, What is A is not -A

Compare that to Synthesis which says differently

I used to go toe to toe with Ninerfan1 too. Then one day I started to appreciate him. He is good people. BTW I thought that was a term only used in NW Ohio.

(05-29-2009 11:15 AM)Artifice Wrote:  1

2

3

Go ahead *******. Deny the 72% stat from that study some more.

To provide religious or moral instruction? Morals and religion? What kind of whacked out study would mutually marry the two terms together? Am I to assume you think morals ONLY come from religion?

Looks like a BS story. Trying to teach your kids to be respectful towards others and not act like people like you, isn't mutually exclusive to religious teachings.

How do you imply logic to an illogical world GG?????????????

(05-29-2009 11:39 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Artifice....

1. Wildebest handed Torch his ass on a plate when it comes to Evolution just go find the thread.

2. You're never going to get a denier to admit to it. How long have you been on these boards? Why waste your time.

3. By their standards OJ's innocent. Mountains upon mountains of evidence points in only one direction, but if you have to prove something you can't. SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING!!!! That's how Torch thinks he wins his arguments. He asks for proof. What I find hilarious is he boasts of errors in the Theory of Evolution. If so, it would no longer be a theory. Cite that source Torch. Cite the errors of Evolution or GWT. There is ABSOLUTELY no proof of any error or it would cease being a theory. Start a thread that denies CO2, Methane, NO2 or the plethora of green house gases don't trap heat. Start a thread that denies natural selection. They are asking for your citations. Return the favor??????

Kinda like your worshiping at the Global Warming alter, right?

Again cite the study that shows CO2 does not trap heat. It's time to start your guy's lines of arguments. We are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Show me where CO2 does not trap heat.



I'll be waiting

(05-29-2009 12:30 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  How do you imply logic to an illogical world GG?????????????

The Rule of Law is one place, when the law isn't all mushy.

as for here, like this:

1) Micro-Evolution is proven science, not a theory.
2) Macro-Evolution has no proof, is not science and is at best a theory.


and for Extra-Credit posting Double D's on the Tennis Court to prove the Logic that 34DD's are not 34B cups......as 'A' is not 'non-A'

ok... there is no such thing as proven science. There are laws. These laws describe natural phenomena. Earth around the sun....... gravity....... A theory will NEVER NEVER EVER NEVER NEVER graduate into a law. That's where the powers that be try to trick you. Does that help clear it up? Your 1 and 2 above is based upon falsehoods.

ok change the language from "proved" to "observed" then

1) has been observed
2) has never been observed

(05-29-2009 12:34 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Show me where CO2 does not trap heat.

I'll be waiting

Wow, think that one up all by yourself? Question, when has there ever been a time when CO2 was NOT emitted into the atmosphere?