762 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 23 previous comments
- Your previous comments seemed intelligent. Now it's just gibberish… You can't prove the existence of god(s). It's impossible.
And π is not equal to 3.14.
I wish you good health…18w
- Where did I write that π equals 3.14? If you stopped for a minute assuming the persons facing you don't know what you (believe you) know, your communications might become bearable.
Besides, you shouldn't claim to jokes if you refuse to show any sense of humor.18w
- Hey,, I looked up and Google-translated your profile to have an idea of where such an impossible interlocutor was talking from.
This makes me regret not having made the remark I was repeatedly tempted to make during the thread, that your use of the first person plural "we" or "us" is in essence religious.
Also, what I called "pointless sprawling lectures" are really sermons.
Also, your defensiveness about Gods=0 tells of your Polish environment. Your country is notorious for record religiosity in Europe, and at once for having been the country of the Pope for half a lifetime.
I am absolutely not representative of such an environment.
It's ironic -- but a thing at once almost inevitable and regularly observable from people of similar situation -- that your antagonism to an overly religious environment would lead you to borrow and propagate some of its forms while filling them with adversary content.18w
- You wrote: "1.57 is half of 3.14 alluding π/2". Don't you?
I know from my experience, that when my interlocutor, instead of using substantive arguments, starts attacking me personally – its is obvious sign of the end of the conversation. The art of discussion teaches, that the arguments ad personam mean no arguments at all…
Have a nice day :-)18w
- > You wrote: "1.57 is half of 3.14 alluding to π/2".
// Right. Now explain why Americans celebrate π day on March 14 if 3.14 doesn't allude to π. Or are you going to continue claiming that allusion equals equation?
> I know from my experience, that when my interlocutor, instead of using substantive arguments, starts attacking me
// I don't see I've attacked you. Is it because I used the word "impossible"? In general and also in context, "impossible" told to an interlocutor, describes not the person, but the experience of the current interaction. And the simple fact of continuing to engage, proves it's not meant literally/definitively, since the only appropriate attitude if meant literally is to dismiss the other person.
> its is obvious sign of the end of the conversation.
// "camouflaging a performative as a observation". I will try to remember it if I ever compile a list of the forms of bad faith.
> The art of discussion teaches, that the arguments ad personam mean no arguments at all…
// le tout n'est pas de le dire, encore faut-il le mesurer.18w