Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Totally on-brand that you find discussing logic 'garbage.'
In my opinion, this is far more interesting than discussing how you get ladies drunk so you can have sex with them.
Yes, I live in a beautiful home in Orange County (California).
full disclosure: it's someone else's house, but I have permission to live here.
This is the moderation thread. Nobody cares about your logic discussion. Nobody cares about God. Nobody in here cares about what is going on in the UK. There are other threads for these discussions. We need to get this crap out of here.
Nobody cares about a handful of nerds trying to outsmart each other. This place is pathetic.
Do you prefer to talk about your rape fantasies of bringing home women and drugging them up?
At least you don't start every sentence with "I mean" like you used to do in the limit holdem thread. That was super cringe.
It's you liberals who fantasize about me fantasizing about the nonsense you made up. I wouldn't doubt if you have a little personal history that you are projecting on to me.
This is the moderation thread. Nobody cares about your logic discussion. Nobody cares about God. Nobody in here cares about what is going on in the UK. There are other threads for these discussions. We need to get this crap out of here.
Nobody cares about a handful of nerds trying to outsmart each other. This place is pathetic.
Are you under some kind of court order that you have to post here?
It depends what you mean by true or false.I could evaluate the proposition as true by stipulation if I wanted to include it as a property of God for the purposes of evaluating a theistic argument or as a conceptual analysis, so I have no problem with affirming the proposition in that context. But when we start to get so far away from everyday notions of truth I want to know mor
P1: If the king of France is bald, then France has a king.
P2: France has no king.
C: Therefore, the king of France is not bald.
At first glance, this seems straightforward. In fact those versed only in material logic might die on that hill since per the truth tables P1 is true. However, in classical logic, P1 commits the existential fallacy, because it treats a conditional as if it presupposes the existence of the king.
So in a sense those stipulations are already there, we just violate them with common language.
Don't you wish you could say what you really wanted to say?
Also, don't forget who neutered you in the first place.
You should put me back on ignore like you claim you did. I couldn't imagine being so triggered by a poster that I had to put them on ignore. Do I really control your emotions and ruin your day based on what I say?
This is the moderation thread. Nobody cares about your logic discussion. Nobody cares about God. Nobody in here cares about what is going on in the UK. There are other threads for these discussions. We need to get this crap out of here.
Nobody cares about a handful of nerds trying to outsmart each other. This place is pathetic.
You're discussing politics on an internet poker site
You're a nerd dude.
This is the moderation thread. Nobody cares about your logic discussion. Nobody cares about God. Nobody in here cares about what is going on in the UK. There are other threads for these discussions. We need to get this crap out of here.
Nobody cares about a handful of nerds trying to outsmart each other. This place is pathetic.
The proof that nobody cares about the logic discussion is that it has generated almost 100 posts by about a half-dozen participants.
Amazin'!
At least you don't start every sentence with "I mean" like you used to do in the limit holdem thread. That was super cringe.
It's you liberals who fantasize about me fantasizing about the nonsense you made up. I wouldn't doubt if you have a little personal history that you are projecting on to me.
I personally feel that your borderline date rape escapades are a tad more cringe than somebody beginning sentences with "I mean..."
Don't you wish you could say what you really wanted to say?
Also, don't forget who neutered you in the first place.
You should put me back on ignore like you claim you did. I couldn't imagine being so triggered by a poster that I had to put them on ignore. Do I really control your emotions and ruin your day based on what I say?
Huh?
You seem super pent up. Must have been a while since you sufficiently liquored some woman up
Actually I think maybe the present king of france is not bald may actually be true, because that just means that bald is not predicated on the present king of france (because there is none) 😉
Although a non-existent person cannot have a corporeal attribute like baldness, neither can they have a corporeal attribute like not-baldness (i.e. a head of hair).
At least you don't start every sentence with "I mean" like you used to do in the limit holdem thread. That was super cringe.
It's you liberals who fantasize about me fantasizing about the nonsense you made up. I wouldn't doubt if you have a little personal history that you are projecting on to me.
You stopped posting in the limit forum because you couldn’t figure out basic concepts after 2 decades. You really want to talk about another one of your pathetic failures aside from your rapiness towards women, be my guest.
Formal logic could take some lessons from programming then. Dereferencing a null pointer throws an exception, which halts execution if unhandled. In languages without exception handling it just causes a segfault and your application crashes. Suffice to say, you don't get a truth value either way.
Not sure that's what you want logic to do. Like fundamentally, it's easier and more natural to have a bunch of nonsense, say theorems about the empty set syntactically return True rather than making meta rules and meta rules about meta rules etc in an attempt to avoid this. In computing where you can limit inputs etc naturally it makes much more sense,
You stopped posting in the limit forum because you couldn’t figure out basic concepts after 2 decades. You really want to talk about another one of your pathetic failures aside from your rapiness towards women, be my guest.
I stopped posting in limit because limit is dead. I play NL now.
How many times did you and the other idiot in there chime in with what you would do only to be corrected by myself, Unguarded or DD?
I think we need to see proof of you correcting anyone. Well, I know I want to see it.
Hahahhahahahhajaaajajajajjahahjaahhaahahhahahajahahajjahaja
Paintrapist was a limit reg now flaunting he plays NL?
This clown just exists to be a clown
I stopped posting in limit because limit is dead. I play NL now.
How many times did you and the other idiot in there chime in with what you would do only to be corrected by myself, Unguarded or DD?
lol you’re the biggest ****** on that forum and everyone was shocked at how stupid your posts are but ok.
Not sure that's what you want logic to do. Like fundamentally, it's easier and more natural to have a bunch of nonsense, say theorems about the empty set syntactically return True rather than making meta rules and meta rules about meta rules etc in an attempt to avoid this. In computing where you can limit inputs etc naturally it makes much more sense,
This is almost entirely a data or symbol manipulation issue. I doubt anyone in the history of the world made these sort of claims outside of supernatural stuff.
Not sure that's what you want logic to do. Like fundamentally, it's easier and more natural to have a bunch of nonsense, say theorems about the empty set syntactically return True rather than making meta rules and meta rules about meta rules etc in an attempt to avoid this. In computing where you can limit inputs etc naturally it makes much more sense,
I was being somewhat tongue in cheek. I can't think of a mechanism that would allow logic to throw an exception or to segfault in real life...
Hahahhahahahhajaaajajajajjahahjaahhaahahhahahajahahajjahaja
Paintrapist was a limit reg now flaunting he plays NL?
This clown just exists to be a clown
When I first read this, I thought you were saying mongidig had a previous account with the username Paintrapist, which would have been more than a little concerning.
