[ridiculous comment removed]Pottapaug1938 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:30 am There goes serfwhateverheis, again -- chasing, like a dog after a rabbit, after a side topic of mine. He again uses the "argument from verbosity" logical fallacy, at great length, to completely miss the point of my comment, which responded to his assertion that "like the claim of 'frivolity,' this sort of view could be (tho isn't necessarily) a collateral attack where one simply denies the coherence of the words and phrases use, as a way to avoid having to deal with them."
Yes, it "could be", in someone's delusion; but it "could not be," in anything like the cases which we are discussing.
Now, serfsomethingorother, my patience is REALLY getting thin. Your next serving of word salad might get tossed.
Kym Sweet, Australian idiot, Gets the Meads treatment
Moderators: Prof, Judge Roy Bean, ArthurWankspittle
-
- Gunners Mate
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2022 3:27 am
Re: Kym Sweet, Australian idiot, Gets the Meads treatment
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 2429
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:56 pm
- Location: M3/S Hubble Road, Cheltenham GL51 0EX
Re: Kym Sweet, Australian idiot, Gets the Meads treatment
"Consider the lilies..."
"aaaaah".
"aaaaah".
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's Razor
-
- Quatloosian Federal Witness
- Posts: 7568
- Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm
Re: Kym Sweet, Australian idiot, Gets the Meads treatment
No shit.serfmaninthepolis wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:39 pmSo, "scientific proof" is different from "legal proof."
Most people can say that in eight words. It takes you 8000.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
- David Hume
-
- Gunners Mate
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2022 3:27 am
Re: Kym Sweet, Australian idiot, Gets the Meads treatment
So why would anyone conflate scientific proof (man cannot fly) with legal proof (men are not subject to the state without consent, or whatever the thesis is)? The latter is fundamentally not a scientific question, so comparing it to "men cannot fly to the moon" is frivolous gibberish.wserra wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:36 pmNo shit.serfmaninthepolis wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:39 pmSo, "scientific proof" is different from "legal proof."
Most people can say that in eight words. It takes you 8000.
[more gibberish snipped]
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 2429
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:56 pm
- Location: M3/S Hubble Road, Cheltenham GL51 0EX
Re: Kym Sweet, Australian idiot, Gets the Meads treatment
Who is this 'anyone' conflating words? Only an idiot wouldn't understand at a word can have different meanings in different contexts. And that would be you.serfmaninthepolis wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 9:43 pm So why would anyone conflate scientific proof (man cannot fly) with legal proof (men are not subject to the state without consent, or whatever the thesis is)? The latter is fundamentally not a scientific question, so comparing it to "men cannot fly to the moon" is frivolous gibberish.
[more gibberish snipped]
For someone self-proclaiming that they are philosophically well read
![Snicker :snicker:](./images/smilies/icon_snicker.gif)
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's Razor
-
- Gunners Mate
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2022 3:27 am
Re: Kym Sweet, Australian idiot, Gets the Meads treatment
Dictionaries are sort of useless for establishing the meaning of words, they have two forms, one is circular, the other contains undefined terms, e.g.AnOwlCalledSage wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:57 amWho is this 'anyone' conflating words? Only an idiot wouldn't understand at a word can have different meanings in different contexts. And that would be you.serfmaninthepolis wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 9:43 pm So why would anyone conflate scientific proof (man cannot fly) with legal proof (men are not subject to the state without consent, or whatever the thesis is)? The latter is fundamentally not a scientific question, so comparing it to "men cannot fly to the moon" is frivolous gibberish.
[more gibberish snipped]
For someone self-proclaiming that they are philosophically well readyou don't appear to understand what a standard dictionary is for.
Circular:
{A: BC, B: AC, C: BA}
Undefined:
{A: BC, B: CD, C:BA}
I favor Aristotle's account of how a sound becomes a noun, it is by treaty (kata suntheke) and the reason we can make these treaties is because we share the same 'affections in the soul.' So the words represent mental states, not words, that is, like, the view that a degenerate computer program would have, a sort of Chinese Room style language processing, ala Searle.
-
- Trivial Observer of Great War
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:44 pm
Re: Kym Sweet, Australian idiot, Gets the Meads treatment
Uh.... no. Searle's contribution to AI and natural language processing have been viewed as intellectual masturbation that bear no relevance to the real world. About his only contribution to the field was a flurry of attempts in the 1980's to patent algorithms using his philosophy that all failed. For those of you that don't know the Chinese Room Problem here ya go. Using google type in any phrase from Blackstone. Take the eleventh hit result and copy paste the second paragraph. Repeat as often as required, using random hits and paragraphs. The observer cannot tell that I am a computer program, a human being, or serfmanwhatever. BTW, Searle was a particularly nasty example of the academic who thinks he is as a god, something about being a scummy landlord, a little bit racist and would trade academic advancement for sexual favors.serfmaninthepolis wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 5:48 pm So the words represent mental states, not words, that is, like, the view that a degenerate computer program would have, a sort of Chinese Room style language processing, ala Searle.
-
- Cannoneer
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2021 9:37 pm
Re: Kym Sweet, Australian idiot, Gets the Meads treatment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emper ... ew_Clothesserfmaninthepolis wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 5:30 amIt's always possible you just can't read English. I mean, there are always two options when you cannot comprehend something, it is above your mind, or it is nonsense.
It isn’t likely to work when nobody agrees with you.
-
- Cannoneer
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2021 9:37 pm
Re: Kym Sweet, Australian idiot, Gets the Meads treatment
serfmaninthepolis wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 5:36 am(1) The problem with your view is that the Courts are no longer charged with maintaining nothing more than ancient customs, striking down anything that conflicts with precedent. That's simply not how they function…
Actually, in common law jurisdictions that is exactly how they function where judicial precedent is concerned, unless the judicial precedent has been superseded by legislation.
Did the defendant in the case in question cite any such legislation?
Sorry, only just seen the thread, and as far as I can see this hasn’t been addressed.