Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by BAEOZ


1. Fleabytes

Comment #131244 by BAEOZ on February 22, 2008 at 5:31 am

I think, well, I know, Styrer just likes the sword play (not a Freudian slip). You just have to catch him off guard, eg., comment #432, and join in the fun!

We try to find our fun where we can. I beg pardon if my attempts at humour insulted or perplexed. Though I guess that's the nature of the medium, or the nature of my sense of humour, or both. I find it amusing, sometimes to deliberately say the vexing thing instead of the expected thing, which, ironically, makes one appear not to get irony. Sometimes I find it amusing to play a straight bat to a curly ball. Sometimes the joke is on me. Still, I don't think Styrer's a fuckwit.

But for the final (please Zeus. Give me the strength) time. AVE ATQVE VALE.

2. Fleabytes

Comment #131234 by BAEOZ on February 22, 2008 at 5:10 am

Peace off, humourless git.

Oh the irony. That's just what I was thinking. You really think you're it and a bit. But you're not more nor less than any other. Calm down, you might see that others see what you see. Or not.

3. Fleabytes

Comment #131221 by BAEOZ on February 22, 2008 at 4:32 am

And to all you fine people at RD.net I'll leave it for now by saying AVE ATQVE VALE. :)

4. Fleabytes

Comment #131220 by BAEOZ on February 22, 2008 at 4:27 am

Russell. I apologize. My attempts at tongue in cheek humour fail. I was just grabbing from Tarski in a faux counter to you point. I am, however surprised that you don't appear to agree that one can prove that 5 is not less than 4. ;) But again I'm not a philosopher. The more I read of philosophy, the more Luddite/Troglodyte I feel. Anyway, I'll leave it by saying that I wasn't seriously trying to argue with you. Peace.

5. Fleabytes

Comment #131212 by BAEOZ on February 22, 2008 at 4:07 am

Superb uptake of my invitation to put on an in-house shindig! Didn't understand a single inflammatory note!:)

I can't mention the false premise any conclusion gig. So, I'll just paraphrase Paula. It's not about you Styrer. Peace.

6. Fleabytes

Comment #131202 by BAEOZ on February 22, 2008 at 3:52 am


Fuckwit.

Never a true more true pronoun* assigned. :)

Yes I know what a pronoun is, it stand in for a noun. It seems that Styrer and some others would name me a fuckwit, thus it's a fuckwit for Baeoz. Let's not get into Russell's theory of descriptions, because my description doesn't live up to the pronoun fuckwit. :)

7. Fleabytes

Comment #131200 by BAEOZ on February 22, 2008 at 3:50 am

Actually, it's not true that you can derive any conclusion from a premise that happens to be false. Can we please have a moratorium on saying this?

The logical point that people presumably have in mind - and which first-year logic student always have trouble getting their heads around - is that you can derive any conclusion from internally inconsistent premises.

My mistake. I obviously haven't yet surpassed a first-year logicians understanding. How does this work with a condition that only has an antecedent and a consequent? Tarski says something like: If clay were a metal, then it would be malleable to demonstrate the case of a false premise and false conclusion. It doesn't seem inconsistent to me. The base of the argument is that If x is a metal, x is malleable. Clay isn't a metal, but is malleable. (If clay is a metal (false premise), clay is malleable (true conclusion.) If wood is a metal (it isn't, false conclusion). It isn't malleable. Seems like you end up with a true conclusion. But then you can have false antecedent and false conclusion and have a true statement....

Anyway, I don't get logic. Thus, Moratorium observed. If possible, do you disagree with the argument that you can't prove a negative (like you can't prove that 5 is not less than 4? Or better, that NOT(A & NOT A)) If so, can we have a moratorium on that saying too?

8. Fleabytes

Comment #131187 by BAEOZ on February 22, 2008 at 3:35 am

I believe I did. He was the one who proudly termed himself WeeFlee Styrer.

9. Fleabytes

Comment #131182 by BAEOZ on February 22, 2008 at 3:26 am

The inimitable WeeFlea says:

The only reason I was given was that my views cause arguments

I believe we have the definition of equivocation. Whe we say argument, we mean the presentation of logical sentences. When David Robertson says argument, he means condemning you and your kin to hell fire. Easy mistake to make I'm sure.

10. Fleabytes

Comment #131179 by BAEOZ on February 22, 2008 at 3:21 am

Sorry. I'm in that kind of mood.

Why sorry? My comments are totally tongue in cheek.

11. Fleabytes

Comment #131174 by BAEOZ on February 22, 2008 at 3:15 am

Does anyone think David actually believes what he writes - surely that would mean he is insane?

As the many, and great logicians on this site will tell you (I'm not of their number): From a false premise you can derive any conclusion. David starts with false premises and viola. No insanity required. But insanity may follow.

12. Fleabytes

Comment #131163 by BAEOZ on February 22, 2008 at 3:04 am

For the first, and only time in my intellectually nondescript existence I believe I can critique one of my heroes, Prof. RD. He states:

ad hominem / ad feminam

Now all latin lovers would know that homo refers to humanity. Vir refers to the masculine sex. So a ad-hom is an ad-man/ad-women (vir/femina). Petty (and) I know, but epeeist got kudos for a point I made earlier. So, bottom feeders, like myself gain points where they find them. Almost WeeFlea like.

*EDIT. I'm sure RD knew the difference between homo and vir. And I'm sure Epeeist got points where points were merited. No matter how much I desire that my thoughts were succinctly so worded.

And yes Quetz. That was nit-picking. Quite pathetic nit-picking. Can you feel the pathos? No? Nor I. Sometimes I confuse humor with verbal diarrhea. ;)

13. Fleabytes

Comment #131090 by BAEOZ on February 22, 2008 at 12:23 am

In my view the treatment that Robertson has received on this site is absolutely despicable and unworthy of a community of people who pride themselves in their recognition and their use of level-headed rational discourse.

View noted. But your opinion isn't based on evidence. All you need to do is read the thread that have been plagued by Robertson's hatred and bile. There's no need to repeat your opinion again. It really has been noted.

With every response you deliver to his posts you are confirming the truth of his complaint that you are incapable of debate. This has been the experience of ADH, of myself, of the Bishop and of any other theist poster who has ventured onto this site and tried to represent a theist perspective

I wonder if you read the particularly insightful part of Paula's article where she commented on a believers need to feel persecuted and the associated paranoia? You don't present a perspective, you present a pathology.

There are exceptions to this rule of course, but the knee-jerk hate-speech massively outweighs reasoned attempts at dialogue. You can hardly be surprised that theists who post her end up deciding that it isn't worth it!

Ridicule? Yes. Derision? Yes. Hate? Hardly. Me thinks you project too much.

Anyway, keep feeling oppressed when ironically you're the majority of the population. Keep hoping for the lions and pagans. Sadly, you're on an atheist site that has neither.

14. Fleabytes

Comment #131059 by BAEOZ on February 21, 2008 at 8:47 pm

To illustrate: I might read a book by McGrath and seek a decent rebuttal to his naysayers, but I would not be happy for an unknown McGrath apologist to take on the task of supporting his points in his stead. I would not countenance anything less than a rebuttal from the author himself.


You've taken a huge leap in logic there. Paula was never, to the best of my knowledge, speaking for Dawkins. She was speaking for herself. Perhaps you think all intellectual debate must be only between authors of books. We'd be in a sorry state if nobody could give their own 2c on a subject.

15. Fleabytes

Comment #131013 by BAEOZ on February 21, 2008 at 5:22 pm

I wouldn't get too carried away on the spelling thingy, English is probably THE language that will take perfectly good foreign names, words etc. and Anglicize them.

Totally. I just found it interesting the Kant and Cant that Russell was mentioning. I was only joking about Germans being pesky. Oh well. :)

16. Missing link found in Sydney Harbour

Comment #130979 by BAEOZ on February 21, 2008 at 4:09 pm

ONE of evolution's missing links has been found lurking in Sydney Harbour.

Although only a microscopic, single-celled creature

So that's where John Howard has been hiding since the last election.

17. Fleabytes

Comment #130975 by BAEOZ on February 21, 2008 at 4:03 pm

not so much Kant as cant.

Interestingly Kant (or one of his forbears) change his name from Cant so that those pesky Germans wouldn't pronounce Tsant or something. Kant's dad or a paternal ancestor was a Scot too.

18. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #130915 by BAEOZ on February 21, 2008 at 1:40 pm

To those who suggest Islam is inherently anti-democratic, Fuller responds that Christians have supported recent dictatorships...

He doesn't dispute that Islam is anti-democratic, but hey, it's no worse than Christianity. I love that kind of reasoning.

also doesn't let off the hook those atheists who like to blame religion, whether Islam or Christianity, for inciting much of the planet's violence.

He notes that the "principal horrors" of the 20th century "came almost exclusively from strictly secular regimes: Leopold II of Belgium in the Congo, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin and Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

Never heard this line before. How novel.

Sidfaiwu:
At some point, multiculturalism stopped being a means to integrate different cultures and started being a way to reinforce cultural differences.

When you tell each group that its own culture applies then you're being racist. Muslim women have to obey muslim rules, etc. They don't get the law of the land.

19. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130559 by BAEOZ on February 20, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Maybe they can study why we fight so hard to display a code of conduct given us by a war criminal.

CĂłmo?

20. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130547 by BAEOZ on February 20, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Not that it matters, and this is just an uniformed opinion but science and maths came from philosophy and will probably never not be philosophy in some sense.

21. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130545 by BAEOZ on February 20, 2008 at 8:11 pm

OK guys, take a neutral corner each (not the same one) and come fighting fair when I give the signal. :P

22. Fleabytes

Comment #130477 by BAEOZ on February 20, 2008 at 4:27 pm

of several nights of insomnia, a bad cold, reading wooter's posts

Perhaps a holiday is in order? Sounds rough. I'll not be looking at Wooter's posts so that my mind isn't totally wrecked.
About what were the philosophy papers?

23. Fleabytes

Comment #130473 by BAEOZ on February 20, 2008 at 3:59 pm

I believe he may well be on this site doing that now. I feel a disturbance in the force, like a million brain cells all cried out in pain

Steve, is it just me, or are you letting your humorous side have more free reign? This comment near made me crack up laughing at my desk. Not a good look at work. Keep up the good work and the funny stuff too.

24. Fleabytes

Comment #130084 by BAEOZ on February 20, 2008 at 3:40 am

as well as those of Plantinga,

A Plantinga is maximally possible, and what is possible must exist therefore a Plantinga exists. I'm convinced. Let's now replace Plantinga with cantelope and see if modal logic still works..... :)

25. Fleabytes

Comment #130078 by BAEOZ on February 20, 2008 at 3:26 am

I have never seen this 'Wee Flea' around,

Thank Josh. The flea was irritating all. But Josh provided the antidote.

26. Fleabytes

Comment #130074 by BAEOZ on February 20, 2008 at 3:22 am

Richard. You have a knack for summing things up in a minimum of words.

27. Fleabytes

Comment #130060 by BAEOZ on February 20, 2008 at 2:00 am

Paula, I just bought the book you recommended and a similar book on cosmology. No body tell my wife. :) Damn credit cards and amazon.

28. Fleabytes

Comment #130059 by BAEOZ on February 20, 2008 at 1:58 am

Where do you guys find the time
a)to read all those "flea"s
b)to write thoughtful reviews of things you've read
c) consistently make postings on this blog?


a) I haven't read them.
b) I haven't written them.
c) I consistently post mindless babbling in the spare moments of work because contiguous computer programming and dealing with inanity of people who don't listen to what I've told them (or is it my inability to explain) makes this site seem like an oasis of reason, even if it's not.

29. Fleabytes

Comment #130056 by BAEOZ on February 20, 2008 at 1:55 am

Thanks MPhil, so far nothing. I sent you a PM that mentions a service that allows one to send large file.

30. Fleabytes

Comment #130052 by BAEOZ on February 20, 2008 at 1:45 am

Thanks Paula. :)
I've got to stop asking people about books. I buy so many of them, some I read quickly, others I delve into, others seem to only give the bookshelf a reason to be, but all are loved. I'm weird.....

31. Fleabytes

Comment #130050 by BAEOZ on February 20, 2008 at 1:36 am

Paula, what is the Baggini book you've read? I just read "philosopher's toolkit" by him and another which was great.

32. Fleabytes

Comment #130008 by BAEOZ on February 19, 2008 at 9:53 pm

I just remembered, I was going to wean myself of the RD site for a while. D'OH! Another resolution not carried out. Back to the drawing board.

33. Fleabytes

Comment #130007 by BAEOZ on February 19, 2008 at 9:52 pm

I always knew you had a softer side....

Group hug!

34. Fleabytes

Comment #130003 by BAEOZ on February 19, 2008 at 9:41 pm

I wonder if they felt that Dawkins would somehow "collapse under the weight" of their arguments, a sort of "let's all shout at the same time" approach.

I suppose that if you have no firm foundation from which to argue, all you can do is shout at the opposition and hope they'll be cowed into submission....

35. Fleabytes

Comment #129998 by BAEOZ on February 19, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Thanks MPhil. Kant must've been a genius, because he's renown for his philosophy, not infamous. I'll have to get that Quine one.

36. Fleabytes

Comment #129989 by BAEOZ on February 19, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Das ist verboten! Next we'll all be German idealists. We must speak English to remain analytical.....

37. Fleabytes

Comment #129988 by BAEOZ on February 19, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Steve. I'm sorry I brought up that little bit about thermodynamics. I didn't think the law violated, because physicists would announce it, and religites proclaim it from the belfries. But it was fun to post it.

MPhil, where were you when I needed you? I had a discussion on my blog about synthetic a priori knowledge. I was was arguing that there isn't any, well, that the number 4 contains the number 2 in its idea (4 is the class of quadruples, 2 is the class of couples, to get to a quadruple, you need to go past 2, at least I think that's what I was arguing. I ended up confusing myself.) Do you have any links to how this theme is seen in modern philosophy? I'm still reading Hume, so am a bit behind.

38. Fleabytes

Comment #129985 by BAEOZ on February 19, 2008 at 9:00 pm

Steve, they really do seem belligerently angry. Like Dawkins cut off there treasured members, pickled them and fed them later to swine. Yet, Dawkins is calm, well researched and logical. Perhaps you and the RD have something in common. Neither sets out to offend.....

On your other point. If you understand science, you have no need for God, and some parts of the general God hypothesis are ruled out by science. I don't see how any honest appraisal makes them compatible.

39. Fleabytes

Comment #129976 by BAEOZ on February 19, 2008 at 8:44 pm

how DO I end up in such discussions

Genius I suppose. I end up in silly discussion through bloody mindedness and ignorance. Not something I'd accuse you of Steve.

40. Fleabytes

Comment #129967 by BAEOZ on February 19, 2008 at 8:27 pm

*gasp* W-H-A-T?
Ask Steve. Last week I was having a go at some religite with the 1st law of thermodynamics. Steve had some idea that got around it. Whether he was being mischievious or not I don't know. I am really not up with any advanced physics.

41. Fleabytes

Comment #129964 by BAEOZ on February 19, 2008 at 8:21 pm

On the Stenger matter. I read the book, found it insightful and forgot the part in which he says that his views aren't necessarily the standard interpretation. I'm glad you pointed this out to me a while back. I argue regularly that we need to take notice of what is the mainstream scientific view, and if it's not Stenger, then so be it. I just hope the mainstream scientific view is "goddidit" any day soon or I'll feel less affection for science.

Likewise that you pointed out the me that maybe the mind/soul can communicate with matter via some negative energy business (or was that a joke?) ;)

42. Fleabytes

Comment #129962 by BAEOZ on February 19, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Steve. You're criticisms are part of the reason we can claim to have thought about and reasoned our beliefs. We need to critically assess our own point of view just as much as to critique religious ideologies. Besides, I've never seen you be deliberately rude or cruel.

43. Fleabytes

Comment #129888 by BAEOZ on February 19, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Great work Paula. Kudos. That must've been so hard to undertake and still remain sane. :)

44. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128704 by BAEOZ on February 17, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Congrats Guys. Great news for both of you.
Yorker, you're a brave guy. I can't imagine what it would be like to watch your daughter die and deal with it the way you are.

I guess V will no longer be a New South Welshwomen?
Does this mean Russell and I have to fly to Scotland for the next Capac meeting?

45. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125673 by BAEOZ on February 11, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Magnus Magnusson

I'd say he's the great son of a great man.....(Magnus = great.)

46. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125672 by BAEOZ on February 11, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Why are these parties always so passionate about nationalism?


The nation is a modern day tribe tribe. Those who are nationalistic are members of the tribe, the rest are dangerous outsiders, probably out to destroy the nation. Like here, when anybody who does something not liked is termed unAustralian. Wankers. :D

47. Why Darwin matters

Comment #125059 by BAEOZ on February 10, 2008 at 9:01 pm

You have a hanky?

A sign! The holy hanky of Diacanu. Encrusted with the prophet's mucus! 'Tis a blessing.

48. Why Darwin matters

Comment #125057 by BAEOZ on February 10, 2008 at 8:52 pm

Diacanu, you'll forgive me for not believing in your pink bungadoo. At least you have first hand evidence of God's existence. You don't need faith.

49. Why Darwin matters

Comment #125052 by BAEOZ on February 10, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Wooter, have you by chance seen an animal being designed? Perhaps a mountain being designed? Even maybe a Planet? There's countless stars, perhaps you've seen the designing of a star. How about a universe? Surely you've seen the R & D of a universe. You must have, because you keep claiming a design. Where is this design that you've seen? It would be outrageously hubristic to claim to know the universe and everything in it has been designed if you've not observed the designer.

50. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124346 by BAEOZ on February 9, 2008 at 6:11 am

I just thought it important to suggest to him that he see a psychiatrist for good measure.

And I agree with that in totality. Hearing voices without there being another person present, and being convinced that the voice or those voices are real beings is an excellent sign that you need some professional (not confessional) advice. My point, stupid as it was, is that we all halucinate everyday of our lives. We shouldn't think it odd when we one of those "deja vu" moments or even feel like we're conversing with someone, especially a dead person we loved. If it becomes a regular occurrence, well, that a whole "nother can of beans."

More Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 | Next