This beatdown is for people who can read

I have been depressed recently. As intimated in the previous post, it is like being adrift in a sea of empty faces. It has already begun to affect my schoolwork, and I absolutely cannot afford to fail this semester. My parents have told me that if I fail, that’s it. Presumably I would still be invited to Christmas.

So now I’ve finally been backed into a corner, with only my CREATIVITY to save me. Let’s see… Depression is long-term frustration. Frustration is repressed anger.

So I’ve decided to be pissed off instead. It is long past time to put a hurting on someone who deserves it.

If I can deconstruct your arguments so easily, you’d better pack some lube for when a person with that coveted “150 IQ” shows up.

Polymath on Wiki philosophy

I take it we are not playing by Queensbury rules. So be it. Let’s see if this anorexic, anxious pipsqueak can handle it the way he always graciously volunteers to dish it out.

This isn’t a proof at all.

R-E-A-D-I-N-G

C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-O-N

What part of that did you not understand? Was it one of the parts or the whole thing put together?

For one thing, you would have to demonstrate that the spread of Cro-Magnon in Europe actually does characterize an invasive species.

No, I would not, which is exactly what I spent 1,000 words explaining. You know, for someone with the IQ to handle this sort of concept.

I could try rewriting the idea, but frankly I did a great job last time. Everybody else got it because they weren’t hell-bent on embarrassing themselves in public by failing to understand.

Instead, I am going to spend my time making an example out of you because you tried to out Stoddard, one of our own, because you are an anklebiting, backstabbing, traitorous little coward. We lost one of our very few productive thinkers because you don’t understand how IQ works and you couldn’t handle your shit.

This can’t be done, because there is practically no fossil record of Cro-Magnon, and fossil dating methods are notoriously unreliable.

This, from the guy who pretends to understand how a proof works. Nevermind that this is not a mathematical field (though it was hilarious when you tried to argue about IQ like it was), let’s pretend that it is mathematical so the audience can see you’re full of shit.

Here is how a mathematical proof works. You have premises, and you have a conclusion. If the argument is valid, that means the conclusion follows from the premises. You don’t have to show that the premises are sound for a proof to be valid. If the premises are sound and the proof is valid, then the proof is sound. But a mathematical proof can’t be sound. Math relies on axioms. You can’t show that axioms are sound.

You are so full of shit that you don’t even realize you’re in over your head. Maybe when you solve some of the problems I post in the hall, you can continue pretending to be better at math than I am.

But the easily observable fact is that I’m a superior thinker to you in every way. Except I don’t sit back and snipe at my betters like a little bitch.

Second, you would have to demonstrate that the presence of an invasive species implies an immediate and violent genocide of species that were previously present. [Ed: READING is for smurt IQ] Based on my limited knowledge of ecology, I can say that this is likely false.

Oh good, enlighten us with what you don’t know. I’d better lube up because you have shown an extraordinary capacity for arguing from ignorance. Maybe you should send one of your IQ papers to one of the big journals in the field of intelligence research. I bet they’d fast-track your article to publication. Maybe you could title it “I don’t understand this field so it’s probably not important”.

If this is how you want to play then I will gladly fuck you up some more. You still have another big comment sitting in the thread full of material. I am fucking DONE with this shit.

Let’s return for a moment…

If I can deconstruct your arguments so easily, you’d better pack some lube for when a person with that coveted “150 IQ” shows up.

Hmm. Do I take intellectual advice from an emotionally incontinent retard, or from someone who can at least figure out how weightlifting works?

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to This beatdown is for people who can read

  1. Koanic says:

    May the depression pass and your grades also.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      The depression is on its way out. It is no wonder extraverts take out their anger on other people, because it seems to work very well for its purpose.

      It is not good but I am out of other options.

      Thank you for the well-wishes, I will make good use of every scrap of help I can get.

  2. “Instead, I am going to spend my time making an example out of you because you tried to out Stoddard, one of our own, because you are an anklebiting, backstabbing, traitorous little coward. We lost one of our very few productive thinkers because you don’t understand how IQ works and you couldn’t handle your shit.”

    I didn’t try to out Stoddard. I can assure you that I had no malicious intent toward him. You don’t know specifically what went on between him and me.

    “Here is how a mathematical proof works. You have premises, and you have a conclusion. If the argument is valid, that means the conclusion follows from the premises. You don’t have to show that the premises are sound for a proof to be valid. If the premises are sound and the proof is valid, then the proof is sound. But a mathematical proof can’t be sound. Math relies on axioms. You can’t show that axioms are sound. ”

    Yeah yeah, Godel’s incompleteness theorem and all that. I’m familiar with it. Edenism can’t be treated like math. In math, you can choose to change axioms and get a different result, like non-Euclidean geometries, and that’s all well and good. In history, either something happened or it didn’t. There are no axioms, there are just facts. In math, if you change an axiom, you aren’t “wrong”, you’re only “wrong” within the context of other axioms. In history, you’re just plain wrong.

    “You are so full of shit that you don’t even realize you’re in over your head. Maybe when you solve some of the problems I post in the hall, you can continue pretending to be better at math than I am. ”

    I don’t claim to be better than you at math. At any rate, our respective math skills are irrelevant. We are talking about an edenism wiki, not math.

    The rest of the post hardly merits a response. You have turned far more aggressive than I ever was. Once my opponent launches into a stream of personal insults, I know that it’s not worth pursuing. I know you are in a rough state right now. We’ve all been there, and it can leads us to say things that we would ordinarily be above saying. I hope you feel better soon, and I will gladly continue the discussion if and when you can cool down. Until then, I am going to stay silent on the matter.

  3. Russell says:

    “But a mathematical proof can’t be sound. Math relies on axioms. You can’t show that axioms are sound.”

    Hold up there, sparky. The mathematical proof can be sound if the axioms are valid. You can’t derive axioms by deduction, but the soundness is dependent on the system.

    Unless I’m missing something here, the only thing we can really say is that a valid and sound mathematical proof is only weakly related to truth.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      > The mathematical proof can be sound if the axioms are valid.

      No, it can’t. It can only be sound when the axioms are sound because the axioms are the premises. But we choose axioms arbitrarily to get some system with properties we want.

      Now, I’ve been arguing lately that you can choose axioms both arbitrarily and correctly by using good sense, but this is not the same thing as soundness. Or at least it isn’t obviously the same thing- we could open up this black box and find that it’s full of moving parts or fairies and magic dust, or both.

      • Russell says:

        My understanding was that if axioms were valid, then we can take them as sound.

        Hmm. I’m going to have to think about that.

        I think the break is between soundness of the system, and the connection to Truth. In other words, if you build a valid system, you can assume the axioms are sound for that system, but not necessarily sound when moving systems to Truth. Unless I’m still missing the point, I’d say mathematical proofs cannot be sound outside their system.

        “Or at least it isn’t obviously the same thing- we could open up this black box and find that it’s full of moving parts or fairies and magic dust, or both.”

        Yeah, I think we are circling the same point from different paths.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s