Mojo
Mostly harmless
Nonsense! It's a Hooke flanking manouevre, and thus easily parried via the Royal Observatory:
Greenwich
Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
Greenwich
flimflam_machine
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 245
Ah well the Wren Reassertion should deal with that! St. Paul's!
Bubbster wrote:
Hmmm... arrogant:
• adjective having an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities.
Check.
Pompous:
• adjective affectedly grand, solemn, or self-important.
Check.
Well if it's objectively true that AJ is beautiful then it's objectively true that Bubb is arrogant and pompous.
Time to stop bumping this thread do you reckon? As it stands it's a pretty searing indictment of Bubb's idiocy.
sinnikal
Muse
That's seems objectively agreeable. However.......................
complying with the Carling Academy protocol (3rd amendment, 2nd clause)
Brixton.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I think I got too caught up in this thread before, and I probably should've realized the style of argumentation that BF is using about ten pages before I did.
You will notice, dear readers, that BF often makes claims, retracts them, then advances them again when it is convenient to do so. For example, he was claiming early on (and recently) that objective=true and subjective=false. When I (and others) called him on this, he claimed that false=false and subjective=objectively false (?), but somehow subjective != false. When it was pointed out that this is a contradiction... well, he seems to have ignored it.
You may also notice that BF is using a lot of weasel language. He is now bringing words like "harmonious" into the discussion in an attempt to explain how beauty is objective. However, the introduction of such a vague, hazy word does not clarify discussion, it obfuscates it. He is equivocating the meanings of various words (especially "objective") and paving over subtleties in both language and philosophy.
He also seems wont to insult or belittle those who disagree with him. Although I can't see his posts directly, I notice from quotes that he's still claiming Z is displaying "magical thinking" for, as far as I can tell, disagreeing with him.
Having reviewed his previous discussions, and given the progress of this one, I can see how BF "destroys" those who argue against him: he simply wears them down until they ignore him, then he claims victory and moves on. His arguments here are the same ones he made years ago on the archived threads I turned up when I typed "OS 012" and variations thereof into Google.
So BF isn't here to debate, discuss, or enhance his theories; he's here to preach the gospel of OS 012. The volume of responses he posts alone make it difficult to carry on a concentrated discussion.
Remember, according to him no one understands his theories, and yet he can perfectly understand theirs.
Which is funny, coming from someone that doesn't understand the distinction between objective and subjective in philosophy and is now desperately trying to salvage that chestnut without having to admit he was wrong in the first place.
You will notice, dear readers, that BF often makes claims, retracts them, then advances them again when it is convenient to do so. For example, he was claiming early on (and recently) that objective=true and subjective=false. When I (and others) called him on this, he claimed that false=false and subjective=objectively false (?), but somehow subjective != false. When it was pointed out that this is a contradiction... well, he seems to have ignored it.
You may also notice that BF is using a lot of weasel language. He is now bringing words like "harmonious" into the discussion in an attempt to explain how beauty is objective. However, the introduction of such a vague, hazy word does not clarify discussion, it obfuscates it. He is equivocating the meanings of various words (especially "objective") and paving over subtleties in both language and philosophy.
He also seems wont to insult or belittle those who disagree with him. Although I can't see his posts directly, I notice from quotes that he's still claiming Z is displaying "magical thinking" for, as far as I can tell, disagreeing with him.
Having reviewed his previous discussions, and given the progress of this one, I can see how BF "destroys" those who argue against him: he simply wears them down until they ignore him, then he claims victory and moves on. His arguments here are the same ones he made years ago on the archived threads I turned up when I typed "OS 012" and variations thereof into Google.
So BF isn't here to debate, discuss, or enhance his theories; he's here to preach the gospel of OS 012. The volume of responses he posts alone make it difficult to carry on a concentrated discussion.
Remember, according to him no one understands his theories, and yet he can perfectly understand theirs.
Which is funny, coming from someone that doesn't understand the distinction between objective and subjective in philosophy and is now desperately trying to salvage that chestnut without having to admit he was wrong in the first place.
flimflam_machine
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 245
Don't blame yourself Jonny, plenty of valued contributors have got involved with Bubb to their detriment. I thought at page 5 you had got Bubb to the point where he would actually realise that he was erroneously conflating "objective" and "true" but he just ignored your argument (or just didn't understand it) and pushed on.
Has anyone read THE BASIC LAWS OF HUMAN STUPIDITY by Carlo M. Cipolla? Absolutely superb little essay which states that the essence of stupidity is doing things that cause inconvenience or cost to others while deriving no benefit, or even incurring a loss yourself. The author also states that the worst kind of person to get involved with is a stupid person since, unlike a straightforward bandit, their actions have no reason or logic behind them because they are too stupid to try to derive any benefit from them. Just a thought in light of Bubb's behaviour.
Yes, and he continues to call Z a satanist, despite Z have explained carefully why this is grossly offensive, safe in the knowledge that Z has him on ignore.
Bubb's actions are all explained much better by the theory that he is simply a troll and a wind-up merchant who likes the attention and pathetically gets off on abusing people. He's very good at dragging people into arguing the minutiae of various issues but when you go back and track his progress as a whole (especially through his original thread here and on badscience.net) it becomes abundantly clear that he's not really interested in rational debate and has nothing of any value to contribute. Whether he actually believes in what he write is irrelevant next to his trolling and general twattishness.
Apologies for prolonging this thread.
Z
Variable Constant
Of COURSE there are arguments against her beauty. Her mouth is too large. Her eyes, too small. Her hands are hideous. She's too thin.
Your mileage may vary.
That's WHY her beauty is subjective.
To the Pai Dong, her neck is too short. Her skin, too pale. Her cheekbones are too high. Her hair is smooth and flat. Her features are just altogether unpleasant.
You know, it's almost as if he's claiming that being European is a measure of beauty! Racism, anyone?
(Yes, I know the Japanese find Western faces beautiful - but not all non-whites think of whites as beautiful. She's got a big strike against her in many cultures, just for being pale skinned.)
Last edited:
Z
Variable Constant
He defines objective beauty as PERFECT symmetry.
Therefore, Angelina Jolie is not a beautiful woman.
PERFECT symmetry - not a term used, by the way, in any application of the term - could only be applied in mathematics, to describe a perfect sphere.
Check out the Wikipedia entry on Symmetry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry
Notice this portion, under Symmetry in Aesthetics:
To summarize: appreciation of symmetries is subjective; therefore, beauty as defined by symmetry (since defining it as PERFECT symmetry is nonsense, unless only spheres are beautiful) is SUBJECTIVE.
Game, set, match.
Z
Variable Constant
In Summary
This thread has demonstrated the failings of OS012 and the weaknesses of Rome's thinking abilities admirably.
After 51 pages of exchange of ideas, NO ONE other than Rome accepts OS012 as valid, and Rome refuses to accept it as invalid, or make any changes. After 51 pages of dialectic, Rome has refused to alter any of his comments or concepts, even after being shown innumerable times that many of his core concepts are founded on misconception, poor grasp of language, weak logic skills, etc.
OS012 has failed to adapt to include the argument, and has failed to bring both sides of the discussion into agreement.
Rome has further failed to demonstrate how a system which can only deal with subjective statements is an objective system. He has failed to demonstrate how a knowledge value (mystery) should be included as a truth value in an objective system. He has failed to demonstrate the mathematical validity of the 0,1,2 system, and has failed to address many related mathematical issues. He has succeded, though perhaps unintentionally, in exposing his adoration of numerology OVER mathematics.
Rome asked others not to conflate idea with person, and shortly thereafter, proceeded to do so himself, repeatedly. Rome asked others to refrain from ad-hom, insult, etc - while himself using ad-hom and insult heavily. Rome exposed his own personal information, with additional confirmation of his identity, then made unreasonable demands to not use his name.
Rome has referred to OS012 as 'open source', but refuses to release details that might prove useful in the application of OS012 (as this thread demonstrates, the system as currently revealed is useless) on the grounds that a commercial venture of some sort is underway.
Rome has repeatedly redefined terms without justification, usually after being shown that his use of terms was wrong or lead to contradictions. Rome has repeatedly referred to shoddy resources such as Wikipedia, while rarely accepting contradictory statements from the same resources. Rome has demonstrated lack of ability in reading comprehension, basic logic, reason, mathematics, politics, religion, cultural awareness, aesthetics, physics, law, research methods, and probably a few others as well.
Rome continues to make vile ad-hom attacks against me, though I have him on ignore. (If the rest of you feel he crosses the line with his insults, please feel free to report him on my behalf; since I haven't personally witnessed his childish insults, I won't make the report)
At this point, the thread is basically dead. Rome is apparently either too ignorant/delusional to realize he's been defeated, soundly, or is too stubborn to ever concede even the smallest defeat. Sound logical argument after sound logical argument fail to have any impact on him, as he either ignores them, or fails to understand them, or simply refuses to accept them.
Therefore, he is neither here to discuss nor to explain, but to preach.
Since no one here CAN be converted by irrational, contentless preaching, such as he is employing, the thread has lost all purpose.
From this point forward, any posts will either be by Rome himself, desperately and stubbornly attempting to save face and get in the last word (thereby declaring victory); by newbies who either foolishly think he can bring Rome around, or who honestly don't get it yet; by existing discussion participants who are too stubborn to let go; and by those still playing Mornington Crescent.
(Yes, that's my move - under the Manchester Addendum, verified just this January, and still valid.)
If anyone's interested, I started a much better thread on Beauty in the R&P section, where we've had many excellent replies relating to the subjective nature of beauty and its relation to objective qualities.
This thread has demonstrated the failings of OS012 and the weaknesses of Rome's thinking abilities admirably.
After 51 pages of exchange of ideas, NO ONE other than Rome accepts OS012 as valid, and Rome refuses to accept it as invalid, or make any changes. After 51 pages of dialectic, Rome has refused to alter any of his comments or concepts, even after being shown innumerable times that many of his core concepts are founded on misconception, poor grasp of language, weak logic skills, etc.
OS012 has failed to adapt to include the argument, and has failed to bring both sides of the discussion into agreement.
Rome has further failed to demonstrate how a system which can only deal with subjective statements is an objective system. He has failed to demonstrate how a knowledge value (mystery) should be included as a truth value in an objective system. He has failed to demonstrate the mathematical validity of the 0,1,2 system, and has failed to address many related mathematical issues. He has succeded, though perhaps unintentionally, in exposing his adoration of numerology OVER mathematics.
Rome asked others not to conflate idea with person, and shortly thereafter, proceeded to do so himself, repeatedly. Rome asked others to refrain from ad-hom, insult, etc - while himself using ad-hom and insult heavily. Rome exposed his own personal information, with additional confirmation of his identity, then made unreasonable demands to not use his name.
Rome has referred to OS012 as 'open source', but refuses to release details that might prove useful in the application of OS012 (as this thread demonstrates, the system as currently revealed is useless) on the grounds that a commercial venture of some sort is underway.
Rome has repeatedly redefined terms without justification, usually after being shown that his use of terms was wrong or lead to contradictions. Rome has repeatedly referred to shoddy resources such as Wikipedia, while rarely accepting contradictory statements from the same resources. Rome has demonstrated lack of ability in reading comprehension, basic logic, reason, mathematics, politics, religion, cultural awareness, aesthetics, physics, law, research methods, and probably a few others as well.
Rome continues to make vile ad-hom attacks against me, though I have him on ignore. (If the rest of you feel he crosses the line with his insults, please feel free to report him on my behalf; since I haven't personally witnessed his childish insults, I won't make the report)
At this point, the thread is basically dead. Rome is apparently either too ignorant/delusional to realize he's been defeated, soundly, or is too stubborn to ever concede even the smallest defeat. Sound logical argument after sound logical argument fail to have any impact on him, as he either ignores them, or fails to understand them, or simply refuses to accept them.
Therefore, he is neither here to discuss nor to explain, but to preach.
Since no one here CAN be converted by irrational, contentless preaching, such as he is employing, the thread has lost all purpose.
From this point forward, any posts will either be by Rome himself, desperately and stubbornly attempting to save face and get in the last word (thereby declaring victory); by newbies who either foolishly think he can bring Rome around, or who honestly don't get it yet; by existing discussion participants who are too stubborn to let go; and by those still playing Mornington Crescent.
(Yes, that's my move - under the Manchester Addendum, verified just this January, and still valid.)
If anyone's interested, I started a much better thread on Beauty in the R&P section, where we've had many excellent replies relating to the subjective nature of beauty and its relation to objective qualities.
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Ah but the thing is, Rome so so so needs to have the last word. He likes to end threads with one of his "summing up" posts, or by being banned or forced to leave. I know that whatever I say will not sway him in the slightest, but I am just wondering how long he will keep on going if he is denied the satisfaction of ending the thread on his own terms. He has been trying to wind up this thread for a day or so, but each time someone comes back at him with an argument, he can't resist it. So what will make Rome leave the thread before the rest of us, or will it go on forever?
flimflam_machine
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 245
Well both Taffer and Z have both reached Mornington Crescent. Bubb also called it but that was obviously in contravention of Lyttleton's Amendment to the Finchley rules so he has disqualified himself from this and all future games. I'm currently at St. Paul's but I'm happy to carry over the ecclesiastical first-square double move advantage to the next game.
Could I just say that the highlight of this thread for me was Mojo showing that Bubb apparently defines "not" differently from everyone else. Marvellous!
Nice summary Z. Says it all beautifully, but then that's just my opinion.
Last edited:
My claim is substantiated by 50 pages of this thread and your contribution to it. You are perfectly capable of reading them yourself, after all you typed most of them. With the exception of you not a single other contributor to this thread will disagree with me. So, report me to the moderators. Go on!
And you appear not to understand the meaning of the word "libellous", nor can you spell it.
If it is "true"?
I can't believe you are still here thinking you have "won". But that's a subjective POV, I guess.
It is consistant with reality, and the strategy of dialectic.
Zep, you entering this discussion far to late to be of value. If Objective Beauty is a misnomer, then you need to argue that rationaly. Simply telling me it's my opinion is not an argument or a counter, rather, an opinion
You dont need to say anymore. It's irrelevant if she doesnt appeal to you.
Imagination can be shown to be contradictory with reality using logic and dialectic. Either back up your claim with facts, or back up your claim with facts. Backing up your claim with opinion is what FOX News does, and it's just not considered OBJECTIVE.
I dont have much time for petty tit for tat. Introduce your argument, please.
BF
Well it must have travelled a bit then. I've always found SoCal spliff much inferior to herb sourced from north of the Bay Area, although Humboldt can be a little challenging.
Agreed, North Cal produces wonderful spliff. My favorite however is Hawaiian.
sinnikal
Muse
Perhaps in bivalent thinking, but in ternary thinking, it just neatly demonstrates that beauty has both an objective and subjective component.
I would. I would say that is soley an opinion about reality that is not consistant with reality.
agreed
But the fact remains, however, that people with highly symmetrical features are considered beautiful in the standard sense, and are highly employed as BEAUTY models.
That is a statistical truth
Please give an example of perfect symmetry that is not found to be beautiful.
Then you have a false idea about what 'symmetry' is. Picasso's paintings do indeed use symmetry in the planar or radial sense.
I am not going to go on, because your argument is based on an assumption regarding what 'perfect symmetry' is.
Rather, before you come back here, do a little research in Art on symmetry/assymetery, and design.
If you are defining beauty as 'soley in the eye of the beholder', then that means beauty exists as an internal phenomenon. If the internal phenomenon of beauty relates to objective phenomenon, then beauty can therefore be considered to be both objective and subjective, and you are contradictory.
Get clear on your argument, and please dont waste my time with old ones.
So some objective statements are true, and all false objective statements are false? What makes only some objective statements true and ALL false objective statements false?
so there is no distinction between false objective and objective? Can you make up your mind here please?
It's objectively true because it is objective. Saying something is objectively true, in common usage, is the same thing as saying something is objective, and adding 'true' is redundant.
How come you didnt say it was an objective statement?
so all statements are objective statements then?
can you please link to where objective statements are defined in common usage in sets and subsets please?
Watch, pokey.
This statement is objective.
This statement is objectively false.
It is relevant, it's your contradiction
Yes, your posts are riddled with them, and so are museums.
Dude, your boring me
This statement is OBJECTIVE.
This statement is OBJECTIVELY FALSE.
Those are two distinct meanings, clearly, and are nouns. Those two nouns, objective and false, clearly do not mean the same thing, and thus, they are contradictory to each other if defined the same.
You can define objective however you want, your usage is acceptable in rules of grammar in bivalent logic operations. However, that is not what this argument is about. This argument is about MY usage of objective/subjective, and I am addressing claims that my usage is NOT in step with COMMON USAGE. Since my definitions are indeed CONSISTANT with the first and second definitions of Objective given in the dictionary, and yours are consistant with the FIFTH definition given, which produce contradictions with possibly the first and definatly the second, I therefore state that any argument against my usage as 'narrow' is false, misleading, misinformed, and misguided.
OBJECTIVE
(I am in harmony with these meanings)
1.) Of or having to do with a material object.
2.)Having actual existence or reality.
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See synonyms at fair1.
3.)Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
(you are in harmoy with this meaning, and are struggling with the contradictions)
5. Grammar
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
Please stop boring me with your tired argument.
flimflam_machine
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 245
The answer's in the question there Bubbster!
Sorry Z, new class of post which I call the "laughing a Bubb's hilarious attempts at logic/philosophy/general thinking" type of post.
Must, stop posting.... Bubb just too hilarious....
Last edited: