psyonide argument

* Now talking on #hypno_drama
<Psyonide> Hi.
* Psyonide gives channel operator status to GCatAurQuillia Nycto{Siouxsie}
<Psyonide> Such is my hospitality.
* Psyonide has changed the topic to: Anything to debate.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Right, so let's finish your debate point.
<Psyonide> I'm human.
<Psyonide> Humans are capable of anything.
<GCatAurQuillia> anything?
<Psyonide> I'm not specifically and specially unlimited in a way others are not.
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: Anything. :V
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> No no, ;ets start it from point one, so that it's all logged.
* Suff[Yunifer] ([email protected]) has joined
<Psyonide> Which point do you consider to be point #1.
<Psyonide> ?
<GCatAurQuillia> Could humans take the form of a jelly donut and float around in the sun, 1 billion years ago?
* Porceline ([email protected]) has joined
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> No no no
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> from the very begining
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> your debatable point was "I am flawless"
<GCatAurQuillia> What's the very very beginning?
<Psyonide> Fair enough.
<GCatAurQuillia> Okay. That depends on one's definition of flawed.
<Psyonide> I'll accept that claim, no matter how you choose to define "flaw."
<Psyonide> I am without flaw, under any definition of the term.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> And you defined flawless as "having no limitation" and then said that "I am human, and therefore since humans are capable of anything, therefore I have no limitations, therefore I am flawless"
<GCatAurQuillia> If you consider that the universe doesn't denote anything as flawed or flawless, and it's only a human construct, and the default state is flawless unless there is a flaw specifically defined, then that statement is technically true.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> GCatAurQuillia, you said you wanted to moderate, not participate.
<GCatAurQuillia> Hehe, oh, we're doing that? ok.
<Psyonide> No, that's not true; if you want to define limitations as flaws, fine. But that's not how I constructed by definitions.
* GCatAurQuillia puts on her moderating hat.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You can participate if you want, but you gotta figure out which one.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: okay, I'm giving you the opportunity to rephrase exactly what you meant.
<GCatAurQuillia> Also, Psyonide why do you have two of yourself in here? :p
<Psyonide> I said exactly what I meant. I will not rephrase. If I am to be quoted; so be it.
<Psyonide> Porceline for logs.
<GCatAurQuillia> Okay. Nycto{Siouxsie} can you find the exact statement Psyonide made?
<Psyonide> (You can also make us +h instead of +o if you prefer; for moderation purposes.)
<GCatAurQuillia> Not sure what that is.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Whelp, can't do it, because the conversation went on so far.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: do you have logs of what you said?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So, I guess he will have to restate it.
<Psyonide> I'll just restate: I am without flaw because I am without aspect.
<Psyonide> I claim to be nothing.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You just claimed to be human, so ok. We'll go with the new statement.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Make the connection between not claiming to be something to not actually being something, and how being without aspect makes you without flaw, and what a flaw actually is.
<Psyonide> There is a human body in which I obtain habitation, but this aspect is not one of myself; it is one that the universe itself elects to engage in the manifestation of.
<Psyonide> I am something; I am that which has no aspect: Nothing, as you define it.
<Psyonide> (You = humanity.)
<Psyonide> (Or, the English speaking subset of it.)
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Please define your terms and the connections.
<Psyonide> Nothing means anything; all connotations.
<Psyonide> Meaning cannot exist in isolation, thus: "Nothing," on its own, has no meaning.
<GCatAurQuillia> Debate is pointless if we're going to dive into nihilism or existentialism or reductionism or something like that
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Thank you.
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: I disagree, but, as moderator, not sure what you're trying to say.
<GCatAurQuillia> You can't have a debate in english unless you're willing to try to define your concepts in english
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You are not defining your terms, you need to do so for this to be a debate.
<Psyonide> Right, but, I'm debating from a state of undefinition; make any claim you will about me.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You are not showing your connections, which is also needed.
<Psyonide> It won't be true unless it's accurate.
<GCatAurQuillia> i.e. you've found one of the only topics that you can't debate because it's not possible to debate.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So you can't define your terms, and you can't make the connections to those terms to get to your conclusion. Therefore, your point is completely invalid and you are false.
<GCatAurQuillia> because debate requires common terms with well defined meanings..
<Psyonide> Which connections am I not showing? Don't claim I'm not doing it; show me the flaw in my argument, please.
<GCatAurQuillia> You can wax poetic about your feelings and theories, but you can't debate these particular ones unless you're wiling to provide a well defined, discrete definition of your terms
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> ^
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Define your terms and show the connection of your terms to how you got to your conclusion.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: there is no flaw in your argument because your argument is not well defined and discrete for comprehension by humans.
* Psyonide nods
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> There is no flaw in your argument because you have not made an argument
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> That's like saying there is no flaw in your car when you have no car.
<Psyonide> Then allow me to define myself; beyond nothing, nothing means anything, and this has manifested into a physical universe.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> While technically true, one can also say your argument has nothing right with it, either.
<Psyonide> "Anything" means, as some call it, "Chaos."
<Psyonide> Primordial chaos, even.
<Psyonide> The very stuff of creation.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: so you are only primodial chaos but not anything else?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> That is not a cohesive definition of your self. There is contradiction in it. Please try again, and then maybe we can get to the OTHER terms you need to define.
<Psyonide> No, I'm both of those things; neither and both. It depends on my will.
<GCatAurQuillia> Is it possible to debate a paradox?
<Psyonide> This... Textured, physical universe, gives me much to define myself with.
<Psyonide> But this is an illusion; I am not and cannot be defined.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> A paradox is logically unsound, therefore means that the debate is over, as the premise is unsound.
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: It is, yes.
<Psyonide> You can, in fact, infinitely debate a paradox.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Stop with the bullshit and define your terms already, if you please.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Because this is a fallacy of obfuscation. iirc.
<Psyonide> This is not a flaw in my eyes, but a feature; infinite debate is pretty fucking awesome.
<Psyonide> However, define it how you will.
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: I know it may be frustrating, but let's keep it professional, please
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You are not debating, you are failing to do the exact thing one needs to do in a debate.
<Psyonide> I make the claim that you cannot maintain self-consistency while finding a flaw in me.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Then please call Psyonide out on this fallacy.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> And please make him actually define the terms so that we can actually have a debate.
<Psyonide> I make the claim that you cannot maintain self-consistency while finding a flaw in me.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: I agree with the obfuscation thing. There is probably a better way to explain your argument, and we can't be expected to try to understand it in it's current state
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> No, that's another claim, not the original point you were trying to make. please stay focused.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You cannot make new claims when the first is not dealt with.
<Psyonide> You definition of "flaw" will be inconsistent; either contradictory to your behavior, making you a hypocrite, contradictory to your statements, making your thought incoherent, contradictory with what you actually believe, making you a liar, or else contradictory with physical reality; making you wrong.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> For reference, in case you forgot: Your claim was "I am without flaw because I am without aspect." I asked you to "Make the connection between not claiming to be something to not actually being something, and how being without aspect makes you without flaw, and what a flaw actually is."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I do not define what flaw is, you do.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> That's how this works.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Define your terms.
<Psyonide> My definition of flaw is any you can come up with.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: you need to pick one
<Psyonide> Okay then I define flaw as the unwillingness to debate.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "I am without flaw because I am without aspect." You need to define what a flaw is, and what you mean by without aspect. You need to make the connection to not having an aspect to yourself, and how not having an aspect means that something is flawless.
<Psyonide> Aspect is attachment.
<GCatAurQuillia> Not acceptible, that definition differs from any dictionary definition too much. Use a different term for what you're trying to convey than 'flaw'
<Psyonide> Property, characteristic, definition, meaning.
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: Hmm.
<Psyonide> Fair enough.
<Psyonide> I defer to wiktionary.
<Psyonide> All of the definition wiktionary lists: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/flaw
* Suff[Yunifer] is now known as Yunifer
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You will use all terms from wiktionary?
<GCatAurQuillia> Flaw: A defect, fault, or imperfection, especially one that is hidden.
<Psyonide> Anything that wasn't added in an edit after I posted that link, yes.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> let's have you state them, specifically, here. For the logs.
<GCatAurQuillia> Yes, please.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Define flaw, define aspect.
<Psyonide> Okay.
<Psyonide> Upon closer inspection, I retract the usage of any definition from the page.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Then define your terms please.
<Psyonide> Specifically, the ones under "verb."
<Psyonide> I am.
<Psyonide> Hmm.
<Psyonide> Let's go with 5: A defect or error in a contract or other document which may make the document invalid.
<Psyonide> "a flaw in a will, in a deed, or in a statute"
<GCatAurQuillia> You are not a contract or a document
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> ^
<GCatAurQuillia> The only valid definition is #4
<Psyonide> Hmm.
<GCatAurQuillia> Also, someone just edited the page
<GCatAurQuillia> >nigger dick
<GCatAurQuillia> Nice one.
<Psyonide> That'll result in synonym nonsense; the English language cannot express terms as discrete as the one you are attempting to have me define.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I did not edit it. fyi.
<GCatAurQuillia> Whoever did that, have fun being IP banned from wikitionary :p
* Psyonide guesses Yunifer
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Psyonide, that's an excuse. If you know what you mean, you can express it.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Define your terms please.
<Psyonide> I like the example text, though: "a flaw in a will, in a deed, or in a statute"
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: we're debating in english you have to define your terms in english as best as you can or we can't debate.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Seriously, it's a definition. There's more dictionaries out there. Pick one.
<Psyonide> I know what I mean, it's just that defining it will take eons and can only ever approximate my meaning if you demand we use modern English nearly-as-the-dictionary-defines-it.
<GCatAurQuillia> This will be so much easier when we have tehcnological telepathy.
<Psyonide> Yes it will. :V
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> That's a fallacy Psyonide.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> And an excuse.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Define your terms.
<Psyonide> But, it will also disable the things that caused this debate to occur.
<GCatAurQuillia> the english language is broad, there may be a better term or set of well defined terms.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Also, a distraction. Define your terms or change them.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Please let's keep focused.
<Psyonide> Nycto{Siouxsie}: It is neither fallacy nor excuse; make an argument, not an accusation.
<Psyonide> Oh, I'll change it.
<Psyonide> I am enlightened.
<Psyonide> Happy?
<Psyonide> I think that is a /very/ debatable claim.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: the debate cannot proceed until you define your terms and/or rephrase your claim.
<GCatAurQuillia> Oh, your claim is "I am enlightened" ?
<GCatAurQuillia> that is sufficient
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I want to know if that is the new claim, or if it is not, for sure.
<Psyonide> Yes.
<Psyonide> It is.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Because I have had experiences where I was talking about a new topic and old ones were brought up.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> ok.
<GCatAurQuillia> "1. educated or informed 2. Made aware of something 3. Freed from illusion 4. Exceedingly wise"
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Define enlightened, and then show the connection between you and enlightened.
<GCatAurQuillia> Whic definitions do you claim?
<GCatAurQuillia> which*
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> No mod, the person making the claim must define terms, not you.
<Psyonide> I define enlightenment as holding the perspective that there is no difference between enlightened and unenlightened individuals.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> That hints at bias.
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: I just took the definition from wikitionary.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You can't use the same word in the definition.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Still, not your responcibility to help Psyonide or me.
<GCatAurQuillia> Ok.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You just keep things civil and logical.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> And anyway
<Psyonide> 1, 2, 3, & 4 from the mode are symptoms of being enlightened, yes.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You can't use the word in the definition. Please redefine.
<Psyonide> mod*
<Psyonide> Then you are defining that I can't define my word.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I am saying that you have not defined your word.
<Psyonide> You are restricting me to a mode of definition that results in inconsistency.
<Psyonide> I have.
<GCatAurQuillia> Circular definitions are invalid because they're the same as a paradox.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> and a tautology
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: Which is congruent with my previous claim.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Define cat: A cat
<Psyonide> Yes, it is a tautology.
<Psyonide> In greater terms, a definition.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So it's not a definition.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> it's not a definition
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> so redefine it.
<Psyonide> A definition that undefines itself upon being fully comprehended.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Define Enlightened
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> and then make the connection between enlightned and yourself.
<GCatAurQuillia> Sorry, circular definitions are non-halting, infinitely recursive, and therefore are https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question
<Psyonide> I define enlightenment as holding the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty.
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: Precisely.
<Psyonide> Circular logic is not a fallacy of argument, but of fact; whether the claim is true or not is independent of any fact.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> actually, circular logic is by definition a fallacy
<Psyonide> No, only if you define it as such.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> but back to the subject.
<GCatAurQuillia> Anyway, those terms seem debatable to me, have at it.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> yeah, the definition of what a fallacy IS states that circular logic is fallacious thinking
<Psyonide> Then define "fallacy."
* Isatis ([email protected]) has joined
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Ok. While I feel that "enlightenment" is not actually holding a specific opinion, if you choose to use that word as a placeholder for that, we can use it.
<Psyonide> Yes.
<Psyonide> Provided you aren't going to attempt to accuse me of things by claiming they are opinions, yes.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So, if "enlightenment" means that you believe that people have no difference in cognitive faculty, this means you believe that everyone is the same level of intellect.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Everyone is as smart as everyone else.
<Psyonide> Capacitive intelligent, yes.
<Psyonide> However, not everyone uses their intellect, or is aware that they have it.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I would like you to prove that you have this opinion.
<Psyonide> An enlightened being, by definition, is.
<Psyonide> I do not hold this opinion.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> An enlightened being does not have to use all of their intellect, but simply hold that opinion.
* Ashlynn ([email protected]) has joined
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So you disagree with your own claim.
<Psyonide> No, you're attempting to use the cyclical definition again.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I am using your definition
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> the one you used.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> the one you gave me.
<Psyonide> You're trying to get me to say I have an opinion so it will disagree with /your/ conception of enlightenment.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Let me spell it out for you.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Please do not interrupt.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Claim: "I am enlightened." Definition for enlightenment- "I define enlightenment as holding the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty."
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: has 3 minutes to type uninterrupted.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Therefore, your claim is "I have the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> This perspective is the opinion that everyone is the same level of intellect. You agreed to this.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Everyone is as smart as everyone else.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Psyonide> Capacitive intelligent, yes.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Psyonide> However, not everyone uses their intellect, or is aware that they have it."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I asked you to prove that you held that opinion, and you said you did not.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I would like you to prove that you have this opinion. " "definition, is.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Psyonide> I do not hold this opinion."
<GCatAurQuillia> Thank you Nycto{Siouxsie}, Psyonide has 3 minutes to respond.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> therefore, you said that you do NOT hold the opinion that everyone has the same level of intellect, and are therefore by your definition of enlightened, not enlightened.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> sorry, finished.
<Psyonide> I hold a perspective, not an opinion.
<Psyonide> I do not define the terms the same way you do.
<Psyonide> Simple as that, really.
<Psyonide> You glossed it over as an opinion when I called it a perspective.
<Psyonide> The perspective itself is important; it is the reason I draw the distinction so heavily.
<Psyonide> The claim, in more accurate terms, is that I believe everyone has the capacity to think.
<Psyonide> Belief is not opinion, in my definition of the terms.
<Psyonide> That's all.
<GCatAurQuillia> If you finish before your three minutes, you may say so.
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: you have 3 minutes
<Psyonide> Finished.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "I hold a perspective, not an opinion." You agreed to it earlier, and now you contradict yourself.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "I do not define the terms the same way you do." I was using your own terms, so that's a contradiction.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "You glossed it over as an opinion when I called it a perspective." Again, you agreed to this.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "The claim, in more accurate terms, is that I believe everyone has the capacity to think." This goes against the terms that you defined them as.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "Belief is not opinion, in my definition of the terms." You did not define belief, or opinion.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> However, since they are not falsifiable or testable, that means that they are not facts.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You have also not proven that your perspective is entirely true.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Also you are not taking into account people with brain damage, which immediately makes your perspective incorrect and not all encompassing.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So by your own definitions, you contradicted yourself multiple times, int he argument and in your claim.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Thus, your claim to being enlightened, by your OWN TERMS, is incorrect.
<GCatAurQuillia> Thank you Nycto{Siouxsie}, Psyonide you have 3 minutes.
<GCatAurQuillia> Please try to focus on the main arguments guys to prevent too much branching
<Psyonide> "You agreed to it earlier," I did not, you misinterpreted my words.
<Psyonide> Well, my meaning.
<Psyonide> In general, you're doing nothing but misinterpreting my meaning.
<Psyonide> You are claiming that I contradicted myself without making the evidence of contradiction clear.
<Psyonide> I objected vocally to your assertion of opinion, and the fact that I have no defined a term that you used is ad-hominem to my claim.
<Psyonide> not*
<GCatAurQuillia> Thank you Psyonide, Nycto{Siouxsie}, you have 3 minutes
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "You are claiming that I contradicted myself without making the evidence of contradiction clear." I did, multiple times. I would like the mod to confirm this.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "I objected vocally to your assertion of opinion, and the fact that I have no defined a term that you used is ad-hominem to my claim." This is not an ad homonym, and I would like the mod to confirm this.
<GCatAurQuillia> pause, time.
<GCatAurQuillia> paste where you provided evidence of contradiction
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> one moment.
<GCatAurQuillia> Also, Psyonide, paste where you claim Nycto{Siouxsie} did ad hominem, i.e. an attack on your personal character
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "Nycto{Siouxsie}> Ok. While I feel that "enlightenment" is not actually holding a specific opinion, if you choose to use that word as a placeholder for that, we can use it.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Psyonide> Yes." This is where Psyonide agreed to the use of "opinion".
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So, if "enlightenment" means that you believe that people have no difference in cognitive faculty, this means you believe that everyone is the same level of intellect.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Nycto{Siouxsie}> Everyone is as smart as everyone else.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Psyonide> Capacitive intelligent, yes." This is where Psyonide agreed to the term Belief.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I would like you to prove that you have this opinion.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Psyonide> An enlightened being, by definition, is.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Psyonide> I do not hold this opinion."
<Psyonide> Oh, sorry. I misspoke. I retract the claim of ad-hominem in relation to his statement about not having defined terms.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> This is where Psyonide claimed to not hold the opinion, which Psyonide agreed was what defined someone as enlightened.
<Psyonide> Nycto{Siouxsie}: Please respond to the moderator's request rather than making your argument.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I showed these between 1:46 and 1:48
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Just did.
<GCatAurQuillia> So, no, Ad Hominem
<Psyonide> I want the mod to confirm or fail to confirm what you asked them to confirm, not to give their opinion on the debate.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I was stating the examples for clarity of what I was proving, and then showed the timestamp of when I did these.
<Psyonide> In other words, I don't want to have to read your arguments twice; your conversation with the moderator is none of my concern.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> If you want that, then...
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "Nycto{Siouxsie}> Therefore, your claim is "I have the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Nycto{Siouxsie}> This perspective is the opinion that everyone is the same level of intellect. You agreed to this.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Nycto{Siouxsie}> "<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Everyone is as smart as everyone else.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Psyonide> Capacitive intelligent, yes.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Psyonide> However, not everyone uses their intellect, or is aware that they have it."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Nycto{Siouxsie}> I asked you to prove that you held that opinion, and you said you did not.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Nycto{Siouxsie}> "<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I would like you to prove that you have this opinion. " "definition, is.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Psyonide> I do not hold this opinion."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <GCatAurQuillia> Thank you Nycto{Siouxsie}, Psyonide has 3 minutes to respond.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Nycto{Siouxsie}> therefore, you said that you do NOT hold the opinion that everyone has the same level of intellect, and are therefore by your definition of enlightened, not enlightened"
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide did agree to the term of opinion and belief, by agreeing to the statements and not arguing against any terms.
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: Which statements did I agree to?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I thought you didn't want to re-read everything, I just posted it like, twice.
<GCatAurQuillia> "Ok. While I feel that "enlightenment" is not actually holding a specific opinion, if you choose to use that word as a placeholder for that, we can use it."
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: "Yes."
<Psyonide> Yes, I agreed that his conception of enlightenment seemed to be accurate.
<GCatAurQuillia> Then you have to state that. Yes. means you agree that the entire statement is true.
<Psyonide> Well, seemed to be an accurate description from his own terms.
<Psyonide> I do.
<Psyonide> Wait.
<Psyonide> Yes, I agree that enlightenment means not holding a specific opinion, but, opinion is as-of-yet undefined.
<Psyonide> I do not agree that it is the same as holding a perspective, and I do not feel anything I've said can be accurately construed that way.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> That's changing your terms mid argument. That's not allowed.
<Psyonide> You are not the mod.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I can still point out fallacies when I see them.
<Psyonide> "Opinion" had not been defined by either of us.
<Psyonide> I don't see any changing of terms.
<Psyonide> Or else I missed the definition. :V
<GCatAurQuillia> If necessary we can backtrack the debate to that point where the terms are rectified, but it's highly frowned upon.
<Psyonide> [22:48:19] Psyonide I hold a perspective, not an opinion.
<GCatAurQuillia> i.e. if this happens again, you concede your point to the other person
<Psyonide> Would this be an acceptable rewind?
<GCatAurQuillia> So state your corrected argument including all the new terms and definitions and corrections.
<Psyonide> Well, not rewind, but, cleaning up of cluttered unrelated arguments.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Yeah, we kind of have to start over.
<Psyonide> Am I restating my argument or my claim?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> or, we can use your original definition of enlightened, but you have to define perspective.
<Psyonide> My claim is fine by me as-is.
<GCatAurQuillia> All we've really done is refine definitions, so restate your original claim, with updated definitions and terms
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> May I say something though
<Psyonide> I'd like Nycto to tell me exactly what his counter-argument to my claim is, as it is unclear to me.
<GCatAurQuillia> Depends.
<Psyonide> My claim is fine as-is.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You must update your definition of enlightenment as one that is similar to what you said, or else you are claiming something else entirely.
<GCatAurQuillia> Also, either way, Psyonide, please restate it for the record.
<Psyonide> [22:39:25] Psyonide I define enlightenment as holding the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I can't get to the counter argument if you can't define the terms I am arguing against.
<Psyonide> Er...
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Do you wish to keep this definition?
<Psyonide> I am enlightened.
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: is the new claim sufficient?
<Psyonide> Lemme fix it.
<GCatAurQuillia> Hehe, progress
<Psyonide> I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> The new claim is the old claim, he is just changing the definition, but if the definition does not include the cognative faccility...
<Psyonide> Enlightenment, I'm not sure if the concept has any place in the debate any longer, having been defined.
<Psyonide> Well, I claim that I hold the perspective.
<Psyonide> To be specific about what the claim is.
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: Psyonide changed his claim. this is frowned upon, and this is the final time he is able to do so.
<Psyonide> I have not changed my claim.
<Psyonide> I merely restarted it for the record.
<Psyonide> restated*
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So we're throwing the word enlightenment out? Good. I thought it was an inaccurate definition of the word anyway.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So.
<Psyonide> "I am enlightened," is equivalent to the claim to holding a perspective.
<Psyonide> As Nycto pointed out.
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: what happened was enlightenment was replaced with the actual meaning of what Psyonide defines enlightenment to be.
<Psyonide> I had meant to quote his rephrase of the claim when restating for the record.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> (Nah, just throwing out there that his definition of enlightenment is wrong, but hey, that's another argument. Let's stay on point.)
<GCatAurQuillia> Please refrain from off topic statements.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So you claim to have the perspective that everyone has the same cognitive facility.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Please provide proof that you hold this perspective.
<GCatAurQuillia> Moving on. Do you agree or disagree with Psyonide's claim "I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> No.
<GCatAurQuillia> Sorry, you had already started by the time I sent this message.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I disagree.
<GCatAurQuillia> Ok.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> heh, no problem.
<Psyonide> Why?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Why doesn't matter. I would like you to prove that you hold this perspective.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You made the claim, you defend it.
<Psyonide> No.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> That's how debates work.
<Psyonide> You're strawmanning.
<GCatAurQuillia> So keep in mind we're debating whether Psyonide holds this perspective, not whether the perspective is true or not.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> No, I am not, and that's not what strawmanning means.
<Psyonide> My claim is only that I hold a perspective.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Yes
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> and I would like you to prove it.
<Psyonide> If you disagree with the claim, please explain why you disagree with it.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I don't have to explain why.
<Psyonide> I can't provide evidence of undefined characteristics.
<Psyonide> You do.
<Psyonide> Otherwise, it's not a debate.
<Psyonide> You're just being indignant about the claim.
<GCatAurQuillia> Pause
<GCatAurQuillia> Technically the debate of whether someone holds a perspective or not is unprovable without fMRI or advanced psychological tests, so it's not really debatable at the moment.
<GCatAurQuillia> unpause
<Psyonide> Indignation is not an argument, so this is not a debate.
<Psyonide> I've made a claim.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> If it is not provable, then the claim is not applicable for debate.
<Psyonide> It is provable.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Then do so.
<Psyonide> That's a separate claim.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Prove you hold the perspective if you can prove it tonight.
<GCatAurQuillia> i.e. we have two options. 1) psyonide's claim is not debatable 2) we have to assume psyonide's claim that he holds a perspective is true, and then the only option left to depate is truth of the perspective
<Psyonide> For now we are debating whether or not I hold the perspective, and I should like to hear your argument for why you disagree with the claim.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> That's a different argument, in both cases.
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: yes
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Psyonide made a claim, and I am debating that SPECIFIC claim.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Not a different topic.
<Psyonide> Right, so: I'd like to hear you /argument/ for disagreeing with the claim.
<GCatAurQuillia> It is not possible to prove or disprove that psyonide hold any perspective, unless you have fMRI or Psychologists on hand, so it is not debatable
<GCatAurQuillia> holds*
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Now, I could also try to prove that psyonide does not have this perspective. That might also work, if he is unable to prove that he has this perspective.
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: It is debatable, just not in the classical sense.
<Psyonide> I'll need to make a psychological argument that demonstrates I hold the claim.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Nah, let's do this.
<Psyonide> Should I find a party willing to dispute the claim.
<GCatAurQuillia> Verywell, proceed.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Psyonide, are people who are brain dead still people?
<Psyonide> Before I answer that, which I am willing to explain my perspective on, do you agree or disagree with my claim that I hold a perspective?
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: that is what Nycto{Siouxsie} is trying to determine, I presume.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> That is a side question, please stay focused.
<Psyonide> He's trying to determine whether or not he agrees?
<GCatAurQuillia> No, whether or not you hold the perspective.
<Psyonide> Right, that's the claim he either agrees or disagrees with, or is undecided about.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Please stay focused and answer my question.
<GCatAurQuillia> Right.
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}'s question is on topic. please answer it.
<Psyonide> I do not see how your question is relevant to my claim.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty." Is your claim.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So please answer my question.
<Psyonide> Oh, I see.
<Psyonide> You're attempting to experimentally verify the consistency of my perspective.
<Psyonide> Yes?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Mod, please make Psyonide answer my question instead of dodging it.
<GCatAurQuillia> It appears that way.
<GCatAurQuillia> Please answer the question.
<GCatAurQuillia> , Psyonide*
<Psyonide> I'm trying to figure his entire reasoning.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Does not matter. Answer the question.
<GCatAurQuillia> You have 1 minute to begin to answer the question or you concede the point.
<Psyonide> Not all people who are brain damaged are incapable of abstract thought.
<Psyonide> Some people are still easily capable.
<Psyonide> Stephen Hawking, to use a notable example.
<Psyonide> His cognitive faculties are not impeded by damage in other regions of his brain.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> This is now answering my question.
<GCatAurQuillia> "Psyonide, are people who are brain dead still people?"
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> *not
<Psyonide> Oh.
<Psyonide> I misread.
<Psyonide> I apologize, I thought we were discussing brain damage, not definitions.
<Psyonide> I don't know if people who are brain dead can be resuscitated or not.
<Psyonide> Whether or not they are people is off-topic to by claim.
<GCatAurQuillia> Not it's not.
<GCatAurQuillia> No*
<Psyonide> I thought brain damage may have been on-topic and a potentially valid counter-argument to my /perspective/ that I *claim* to hold.
<Psyonide> What do coma patients have to do with either my perspective or my claim?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> No, it is on topic, and no, people who are brain dead cannot be revived. Their body stays alive, but their thinking functions are all gone. Your brain damage argument is irrelevant to my question.
<GCatAurQuillia> I'm calling it. The question is valid. Please answer the question. "Are people who are brain dead still people?"
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Also, my question was a yes or no question, so either of those will suffice.
<GCatAurQuillia> I'll accept, yes or no, with a short explanation.
<Psyonide> If they cannot be revived, no, they are no longer people. The person has left their head.
* Yunifer has quit (Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client)
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> New question- Is someone who is developmentally and intellectually retarded a person?
<Psyonide> A metabolic corpse is not a person, no.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Mentally handicapped for shot.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> *short.
<Psyonide> It might depend on their level of damage.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> These are people who are, from birth, unable to think as well as others.
<Psyonide> How so?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Genetics.
<Psyonide> That is neither evidence, explanation, or argument.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> No, it's a question.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So are retarded people, people?
<Psyonide> If they are people, they are people. I consider the definition of "person" irrelevant to my claim, and if it is relevant to my perspective, I should like to make it clear which is being discussed.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Answer the question please. Yes or no.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> For clairty's sake.
<Psyonide> Are we discussing my claim to holding a perspective, or whether or not my perspective is valid?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> clarity*
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Answer the question please.
<Psyonide> Are we debating the thing I want to debate or the thing you want to debate?
<GCatAurQuillia> "I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Or else I will take that as a yes.
<GCatAurQuillia> I believe we're debating whether or not you hold that perspective
<Psyonide> Right, my claim is that I hold a perspective/am enlightened.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Enlightened is not a term we are using in this current form of the argument.
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: Then I do not believe Nycto{Siouxsie} is being geniune.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> If you will answer my question... or else I take that as a yes?
<Psyonide> We is /stating/ he disagrees with the fact that I hold my perspective without making it clear why he disagrees.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Can I give you a minute to pick?
<Psyonide> He is distracting from my debate topic by attempting to debate the perspective itself.
<GCatAurQuillia> pause
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "why" I disagree is irrelevant, and if you would stay on topic and focused, you would know.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> sorry, didn't see pause.

<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Sorry, disconnected.
<Psyonide> Nycto{Siouxsie}: What did you see last?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Nycto{Siouxsie}> sorry, didn't see pause.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <GCatAurQuillia> I'm going to have to allow Nycto{Siouxsie} on this one. This debate has changed into something more akin to a court of law. Nycto{Siouxsie} is using questions to determine whether or not you hold the perspective you claim to, because there is no other way besides fMRI or psychologist. If you do not concede to these questions, then the claim that you hold the perspective you
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> say you do is not debatable or provable.
<GCatAurQuillia> http://pastebin.com/CE7RBxcB
<Psyonide> I'll paste in PM.
<Psyonide> Oh.
<Psyonide> NM.
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: Psyonide believes they can argue the claim that they have a perspective
<GCatAurQuillia> "GCatAurQuillia: It is debatable, just not in the classical sense. [2:22am] <Psyonide>
<GCatAurQuillia> I'll need to make a psychological argument that demonstrates I hold the claim."
* Ashlynn is now known as Ashlynn|Away
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I would like to finish my line of reasoning first.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So we stay focused.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> And not dodge things like questions.
<Psyonide> On what?
<Psyonide> STay focused on what?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> My line of reasoning.
<Psyonide> The argument I came to make or your argument?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Which is where we were at before, so let's stay on that. You can try to prove it when I am done.
<Psyonide> Done with what?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I asked a question, and you sort of said yes.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> my line of reasoning.
<Psyonide> What topic is your line of reasoning in relation to?
<Psyonide> My claim, or your argument?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> when we are finished with this line of reasoning, if I have not disproved your claim, then you can try to prove your claim.
<Psyonide> So you are attempting to use the debate floor to gain evidence of your disagreement with my claim?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> GCatAurQuillia, can I finish my line of reasoning? <Nycto{Siouxsie}> Sorry, disconnected.
<Psyonide> Nycto{Siouxsie}: What did you see last?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Nycto{Siouxsie}> sorry, didn't see pause.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <GCatAurQuillia> I'm going to have to allow Nycto{Siouxsie} on this one. This debate has changed into something more akin to a court of law. Nycto{Siouxsie} is using questions to determine whether or not you hold the perspective you claim to, because there is no other way besides fMRI or psychologist. If you do not concede to these questions, then the claim that you hold the perspective you
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> say you do is not debatable or provable.
<GCatAurQuillia> http://pastebin.com/CE7RBxcB
<Psyonide> I'll paste in PM.
<Psyonide> Oh.
<Psyonide> NM.
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: Psyonide believes they can argue the claim that they have a perspective
<GCatAurQuillia> "GCatAurQuillia: It is debatable, just not in the classical sense. [2:22am] <Psyonide>
<GCatAurQuillia> I'll need to make a psychological argument that demonstrates I hold the claim."
* Ashlynn is now known as Ashlynn|Away
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I would like to finish my line of reasoning first.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So we stay focused.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> And not dodge things like questions.
<Psyonide> On what?
<Psyonide> STay focused on what?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> My line of reasoning.
<Psyonide> The argument I came to make or your argument?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Which is where we were at before, so let's stay on that. You can try to prove it when I am done.
<Psyonide> Done with what?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I asked a question, and you sort of said yes.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> my line of reasoning.
<Psyonide> What topic is your line of reasoning in relation to?
<Psyonide> My claim, or your argument?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> when we are finished with this line of reasoning, if I have not disproved your claim, then you can try to prove your claim.
<Psyonide> So you are attempting to use the debate floor to gain evidence of your disagreement with my claim?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> GCatAurQuillia, can I finish my line of reasoning?
<Psyonide> I have no objection to engaging with your attempt to produce evidence.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: that's why I said it was more like a court, you're now a 'witness' because that's the only way to externally prove you have a perspective.
<Psyonide> So long as it is acknowledge it is not directly related to the claim and argument I wish to make.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So I take it you answered "yes" to my question the way you phrased your answer. Should I take it you said Yes?
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: Correct.
* Ashlynn|Away is now known as Ashlynn
<Psyonide> For me to claim I hold the perspective would be an appeal to the authority of myself.
<GCatAurQuillia> Okay, Nycto{Siouxsie} gets to proceed with their questioning, I'll stop it if it gets out of hand
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Psyonide, please stay focused.
<GCatAurQuillia> Afterward, you make make your case, Psyonide
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So I take it you answered "yes" to my question the way you phrased your answer. Should I take it you said Yes?
<GCatAurQuillia> may*
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: please restate the question
<Psyonide> Please restate any question you wish me to answer in regards to my perspective insofar as it helps you collective evidence about my perspective.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> (we also have like, only a few minutes, so we will have to keep it quick.)
<Psyonide> collect*
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "Is someone who is developmentally and intellectually retarded a person?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}>  Mentally handicapped for short. These are people who are, from birth, unable to think as well as others.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}>  are retarded people, people?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "
<Psyonide> The question is loaded as fuck.
<Psyonide> This will not help you understand my perspective.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You said "If they are people, they are people. I consider the definition of "person" irrelevant to my claim, and if it is relevant to my perspective, I should like to make it clear which is being discussed.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: I believe that questions systematically disproves Psyonide's claim by definition of the term developmentally and intellectually retarded.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Which I am taking as a yes, from the first scentence.
<GCatAurQuillia> question*
<GCatAurQuillia> So, yes, based on what we're debating, that is a loaded question.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> One moment please, GCatAurQuillia. It hasn't quite.
<Psyonide> You are willfully attempting to skew my words in order to indulge the reasoning you are using to help you collective evidence about my perspective.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> It is not a loaded question, it is incredibly relevent.
<Psyonide> collect*
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: relevance and whether it is loaded are two different things.
<GCatAurQuillia> It is loaded because the term developmentally and intellecually retarded contradicts, psyonide's claim by definition of the word.
<GCatAurQuillia> words*
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Either a) you do not consider retarded people to be people, which means that they do not count for what you claimed. This means that your perspective has not been disproven. or b) If people who are inherantly unable to think as well as others are, indeed, people, and you hold this perspective, then you do NOT hold the perspective that everyone is the same cognatively.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> This contradicts nothing of what the definition and the claims were laid out
<Psyonide> I didn't say people were cognitively the same.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> AND if he said yes (which he did) this shows his PERSPECTIVE of the world, not if people are all the same or not
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> semantics.
<Psyonide> You are loading the questions for reasons the mod has pointed out.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Fine, you said they are all inherantly cognatively equal, but these people are not inherantly equal to others in their mental condition, by the ever definition of who they are.
<Psyonide> You are attempting to shove my reasoning into a false dichotomy by ignoring my actual perspective.
<GCatAurQuillia> I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty.
<GCatAurQuillia> "*
<Psyonide> Cognitive faculty.
<GCatAurQuillia> Copy it into a text file or something.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I defined the term for what a retarded person is. It is a common definition, not one that I skewed or made up. If I did skew the definition to something else, then yes, it would be loaded. but it was not, so it is not a loaded question.
<Psyonide> There were two distinct classes of people you asked about:
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> No, there was not. I shortened it, and explained it.
<Psyonide> Those with *intellectual* deficiency, and those with "developmental" deficiency.
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: we're arguing whether or not Psyonide holds a perspective, not whether or not the perspective is correct.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> People born with their brains not working as well as other people.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Exactly, GCatAurQuillia.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> And if there is a point where his absolute perspective is not the case, then he does not, in fact, hold that perspective.
<Psyonide> Developmental deficiency that does not remove cognitive faculty produces a disabled person.
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: is it not true that even if your line of reasoning proves successful, it will not prove whether psyonide actually holds the perspective or not?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> If he held the perspective that all circles were blue, and then admitted to knowing about a red circle, then he does not, in fact, think all circles are blue.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> If he holds the perspective that all X are Y, but admits to a case where an X is not Y, then he does not have the perspective that ALL x are Y.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide?
<Psyonide> Intellectual deficiency, while something I am familiar with, is something that /also/ bleeds the definition of person; if they can't think, are they really a person?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> If he admits that there are people who do NOT have the quality he stated, then he does not, in fact, hold that perspective.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> and retarded people are a prime example of that
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> unless retarded people aren't actually people
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: are you claiming that if something can't think, it is not a person?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> but Psyonide admitted that they were.
<Psyonide> I am not aware of any developmental condition that removes the capacity to think without removing the person themselves.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> There is the capacity to think, and the capacity to think *as well as everyone else does*
<Psyonide> Yes, cognitive faculties.
<GCatAurQuillia> Ooh, I wish I weren't moderating right now :p
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty."
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: Too bad. :P
<Psyonide> THIS TIME IT'S PERSONAL!
<GCatAurQuillia> lel
<Psyonide> Nycto{Siouxsie}: I see.
<Psyonide> So, you're arguing retardation is an inherent difference?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> And yet there is a case where there is an INHERENT DIFFERENCE in COGNATIVE FACULTY.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Yes, people are born with it. That's pretty damned inherent, by the definition of what inherent means.
* Psyonide nods
<Psyonide> I don't believe that.
<Psyonide> I'm not up-to-date on all the literature about every type of developmental disability.
<Psyonide> My perspective might be wrong, and might some day be corrected.
<Psyonide> But right now, I do hold it.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Some people are born without the ability to think well.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> They are inherently unable to do so.
<Psyonide> Okay, and, if that claim is true, it would counter my perspective without countering my claim.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> It is a permanent state.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Ah, see, here's the deal
<Psyonide> Right, but, I've never met someone who was born retarded.
<Psyonide> I have no first-hand experience seeing the type of birth occur.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> IF you agree my claim is true (which you did) that means you also hold that perspective, which means that you do not hold your claim to be true
<Psyonide> I lack evidence that the thing you are claiming to exist, actually exists.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> again, the colored circles.
* GCatAurQuillia grabs popcorn
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You have never met a retarded person, fine, while I find that unlikely, it is possible. However, they exist, and you know that they do.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> And these are people who are born that way, not developed into it.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So.
<Psyonide> I don't and never did agree that your claim about the existence of in-born mental retardation is true.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> ""Is someone who is developmentally and intellectually retarded a person?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> <Nycto{Siouxsie}>  Mentally handicapped for short. These are people who are, from birth, unable to think as well as others.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}>  are retarded people, people?" "If they are people, they are people"
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You said so yourself.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Retarded people are people
<Psyonide> Yes, if someone is a person, they are a person.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> retarded people do not have the inherant cognative ability of others.
<Psyonide> You're nitpicking the perspective I claim to hold.
<Psyonide> I don't actually believe in in-born retardation.
<GCatAurQuillia> Again, the debate is about whether Psyonide holds a perspective, not whether the perspective is true
<Psyonide> I literally believe that, if it happens, which I don't believe it does, the difference is not "inherent."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> If there is an example where a person does not have the inherant cognative ability of others, and you hold that perspective to be true (which you just admitted to twice) this means that you do not, in fact, believe that ALL people share this trait.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> That's how Psyonide does not hold this perspective.
<GCatAurQuillia> what trait?
<Psyonide> My claim has nothing to do with the definition of "person."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> All people share the same trait of cognative faculty.
<Psyonide> And even if my /perspective/ had something to do with the definition of person (which it /might/, I admit), I don't actually believe in birth defects.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: you said you were going to do some sort of wizardry to prove you have that perspective. You may do so now.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You don't believe in birth defects.
<Psyonide> I believe "birth defects" are an illusion cast by a malicious thoughtform, and probably, really, earnestly, might not actually exist at all.
<Psyonide> I've heard /rumors/ of the things you claim.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> If A then B. I showed an example where A did not mean B. Therefore, you do not believe that A means B.
<Psyonide> I lack evidence of it.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_disability
<Psyonide> Rumors.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: are you going to state your proof that you have that perspective?
<Psyonide> Wikipedia does not change my beliefs.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> http://www.democracynow.org/images/story/82/22782/splash/Iraq-Birth_Defects-2.jpg?201412191618
<GCatAurQuillia> beliefs != perspectives.
<Psyonide> It is a collective rumor, but a rumor nonetheless, in my mind.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You literally don't believe in retarded people.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> or birth defects.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> http://sharing.turnto23.com/sharewrtv/photo/2013/02/21/twins_birth_defect_1361451372975_377137_ver1.0_640_480.jpg
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> like that
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: Yes, once Nycto{Siouxsie} makes his argument for why I don't hold that perspective, using quotes of things I said that aren't willful misinterpretation.
<Psyonide> My statements become the evidence to debate the interpretation of.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> They aren't misinterpretation, they are YOUR OWN OPINIONS AND STATEMENTS.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You agreed to something which directly contradicts the perspective you claim.
<Psyonide> The meaning of all my prior statements is up for debate, and Nycto and I act as witnesses to what my words might have meant.
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: stay on topic. Your goal is to prove whether or not Psyonide has a certain perspective.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> And now are claiming that birth defects aren't a thing.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I did! He agreed to something which proved he did not hold the perspective!
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Again.
<GCatAurQuillia> which was?
<Psyonide> Nycto{Siouxsie}: Quote me, with context or without, and how you interpreted my meaning.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> ffs
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> ok
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Claim.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> This means ALL PEOPLE have the SAME LEVEL of cognative faculty.
<Psyonide> No.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> From the inherant standpoint
<Psyonide> It means most people.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> they might lose that cognative ability, but when they atart out, inherantly, they ALL have the same cognative ability
<Psyonide> However "person" ends up defined.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> All people start out with the same cognative faculty.
<Psyonide> I don't define "people" for the purposes of the claim, and I don't feel it is relevant to my claim.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> If they do not start out with the same cognative faculty, then they are inherantly different.
<Psyonide> I think you are strawmanning the claimant's perspective and intended meaning.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You wanted to see how I disproved you, so please be quiet.
<Psyonide> He didn't mean to say every genetic organism with a human genome.
<Psyonide> As you seem to be willfully and forcefully interpreting his claim to mean.
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: you have 1 minute to speak
<Psyonide> I feel three is more applicable.
<Psyonide> One minute is kind of short to type. :/
<GCatAurQuillia> Ok,
<GCatAurQuillia> you have 2 more minutes, Nycto{Siouxsie}
* Psyonide gives channel half-operator status to Psyonide
* Psyonide removes channel operator status from Psyonide
<Psyonide> Actually, I feel this is an important argument to make, and I want to give him as much time as possible to construct and convey his reasoning.
<Psyonide> And I kind of need to get some food. :V
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty." means that people start off with the same ability to think. They INHERENTLY have the SAME COGNATIVE ABILITY. But I pointed out a situation where people are INHERANTLY NOT HAVING THE SAME COGNATIVE FACULTY. You agreed that these people counted as people. This means that you AGREED TO SOMETHING WHICH CONTRADICTS Y
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> OUR CLAIM. This means that you do not, in fact hold this perspective, because you also hold true something that CONTRADICTS this perspective. If people, then they start out with the same cognative ability. I gave an example where they were people (and you said that they were, twice) and these people do NOT inherantly have the same cognative ability. Therefore, AGREED that your perspective was wrong and thus AGREED THA
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> T YOU DID NOT HOLD THIS PERSPECTIVE.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> If people then start out same. You also say some people not start out same. This mean you not think what you say you think.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> If I get you to disprove your own perspective, and admit to holding a perspective that disagrees with the perspective you claim to have, this proves you do not, in fact, have the perspective you claim to have.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide? 3 minutes
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I do not know how I can phrase that in any other way.
<Psyonide> Yeah.
<Psyonide> "I pointed out a situation where people are INHERANTLY NOT HAVING THE SAME COGNATIVE FACULTY."
<Psyonide> The claimant did not say anything that indicated they believe that situation actually happens, to my reading.
<Psyonide> Thus, in point of fact, if they don't not believe that type of situation exists, their perspective is factual in their eyes, and it is valid to claim it.
<Psyonide> do not*
<Psyonide> The claimant was speaking in hypothetical; "If they exist, they exist."
<Psyonide> It was a logical tautology.
<Psyonide> I disagree with its reading as an admission of fact.
<Psyonide> Done.
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I presented terms, and you agreed to them twice. Now you are backtracking, and trying to claim that these people don't exist, when clearly they do.
<GCatAurQuillia> people are people is a logical tautology.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I mean, you can't seriously be trying to claim that there are no people who are born out there with mental defects or physical problems that keep them from thinking as well as other people.
<GCatAurQuillia> it was not a claim related to the previous statement.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Where did I say people are people?
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: said it.
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: I can debate for myself, please.
<GCatAurQuillia> sure.
<Psyonide> I was waiting for him to convey his full argument.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Psyonide gave his claim as an absolute, and claimed to believe in that absolute. I gave an example where that absolute was not true, and Psyonide agreed to it twice. Therefore, he does not believe in that absolute, and thus, does not have that perspective. The attempt to say that retarded people do not exist is... laughable.
<Psyonide> You're repeating yourself.
<Psyonide> Is that all?
<GCatAurQuillia> I feel this debate is missing the core subject because psyonide included an inprovable clause in his claim and this whole time has been spend trying to prove or disprove an unprovable clause.
<GCatAurQuillia> spent*
<Psyonide> I believe I can argue that the claimant legitimately holds the perspective they claim to have.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> That's pretty much it. I used pure logic on you, disproved your claim, and now you are clinging to the only thing that could possibly make what I said untrue, which is so ludicrous in a claim that it's completely unbelievable.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> you're saying retarded people are only rumors.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I proved you wrong, and you know it.
<Psyonide> I disagree with your interpretation of the claimant's words.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I should have gone to bed over an hour ago.
* GCatAurQuillia wonders why Psyonide is talking in the third person now
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> At least I have logs. This should be a fun read for people. Especially where you say that retarded people don't exist.
<Psyonide> At no point do I see the claimant saying ANYTHING that can be interpreted as an admission that in-born retardation is something that physically exists.
<Psyonide> Nycto{Siouxsie}: What lines that the claimant said do you feel were an admission that retarded people factually exist?
<Psyonide> Nycto{Siouxsie}: What lines that the claimant said do you feel were an admission that retarded people factually exist?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Well, apparently you think they don't exist.
<GCatAurQuillia> You guys are both saying the same thing
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So, you know, fun. You're ignorant of things in the world, yea.
<Psyonide> I know, but the claim of backtracking is separate to the interpretation of the claimant's existing words.
<Psyonide> I'm trying to determine why you think he admitted something.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> So, if you legitimately believe that retarded people don't exist, then like I said, you could conceivably have that perspective/opinion.
<Psyonide> Okay, so you agree that he might not have said anything that was an admission that in-born retardation exists?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Which means we will have to talk about this LATER, because I need to go to sleep.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: please stop speaking in the third person, or change your nick.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Yeah, but this means that you have to admit that retarded people don't exist for the rest of your life.
<Psyonide> No.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> pretty much.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You said they were "rumors"
<Psyonide> That belief does not appear to me to be related to the original claim.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide used confuse. It's super effective!
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> ffs
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I made the connection to retarded people and your claim
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> multiple times
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> in multiple ways
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> even really simple ones.
<Psyonide> It appears to me that, if I should ever learn about the existence of the rumor your brought up, my claim is as easily fixed as adding "most."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> yeah, and changing it to fit in "most" means that you changed your perspective.
<Psyonide> When I can fix my belief by adding a single term that defies the notion of ubiquity that you are nitpicking about, your claim is semantic.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> and also means that you would kind of lose this debate.
<Psyonide> Your entire argument is semantic.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Your claim is absolute.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Therefore, any example where it is false means your claim is incorrect.
<Psyonide> You're not debating whether or not I hold the perspective, you're debating the meaning of my claim.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> If I provide an example where you hold a perspective that is contradictory to the one you claim to have, then yes, I disprove you having the perspective you claimed to have.
<Psyonide> You are willfully pushing the interpretation that the perspective claims was intended to be entirely and mathematically ubiquitous into the debate.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> And I did.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: hyperbole, a single word can have a drastic effect on a claim.
<Psyonide> You are attacking a straw man.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> No, I am attacking your claim
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Directly
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> by providing an example
<Psyonide> I do not see ANY evidence to believe the claim was meant to be entirely ubiquitous to "people."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> of where you do not hold that perspective
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> to be true
<Psyonide> You seem to have willfully injected "ALL" people into the claim.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You did by your own claim.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Read that.
<Psyonide> You are arguing a strawman of the actual claim, which I see no evidence to think was intended to be ubiquitous.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Read.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> If there is NO DIFFERENCE, that means ALL PEOPLE are the same.
<Psyonide> Yes, I don't see the word "all" there.
<Psyonide> You do.
<Psyonide> Why do you think the claim was meant to be ubiquitous?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Because that's how your wrote it
<Psyonide> Why do you feel that is an accurate portrayal of the claim?
<Psyonide> No.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> your claim logically means ALL people
<Psyonide> I lacks the word "all."
<Psyonide> No.
<Psyonide> It does not.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> It doesn't have to say all to make it an absolute.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> GCatAurQuillia, is this claim absolute or not?
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie: "I hold the perspective" that is the important part. It prevents the use of all logic because it's impossible to prove if someone holds a perspective without fMRI.
<Psyonide> If it lacked the word, "all," you need to argue that it was a purely logical implication on your part and not one massive strawman of a distraction.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> You keep using that word without knowing what it means
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> anyway
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty."
<Psyonide> You need to argue I was allowing the distraction to occur and not debating honestly.
<GCatAurQuillia> What word?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> strawman
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> anyway
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> look at that
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> there is no inherent difference
<Psyonide> You need to argue that you did NOT attempt to use the moderator for indulge in your distraction.
<Psyonide> to*
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Is this claim absolute or not?
<GCatAurQuillia> "The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition."
<Psyonide> I was cooperating with the debate and the moderator because I was forced to for the sake of discussing that which you thought was a valid argument.
<Psyonide> I attempted to determine the nature of your argument in advance.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Yeah, it's making a false example and arguing against it, instead of the point.
<Psyonide> I was prevented from doing so by the moderator.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty." GCatAurQuillia, is that an absolute statement or not?
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: I gave you a chance to explain your proof but you did not respond.
<Psyonide> You used the moderator against me to attempt to inject "all" into my claim and use that strawman as a basis to attack me.
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: I have been, as far as I know.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> That is false.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: then don't bring me into this
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: Oh.
<Psyonide> No, you did a fine job as a moderator.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> GCatAurQuillia, please answer my question.
<Psyonide> I'm saying Nycto was the one doing the distracting.
<GCatAurQuillia> I don't understand your question, Nycto{Siouxsie}
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> "I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between people in terms of cognitive faculty."
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Does this statement mean that all people have the same inherent level of cognative faculty?
<Psyonide> Nycto{Siouxsie}: No, the claim was not intended to be absolute in the manner you were attacking it in.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> since there is no difference between people.
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: I thought you both were pretty on-point. though you both kept straying off topic.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> If there is no difference, they are all the same.
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: Yeah. :V
<GCatAurQuillia> Nycto{Siouxsie}: no, it means that they have THE PERSPECTIVE that there is no inherent difference between people (which in this case implies all) in terms of cognitive faculty.
<Psyonide> Nycto{Siouxsie}: Okay, you are arguing the claim is logically and inherently equivalent to, "I hold the perspective that there is no inherent difference between ALL people in terms of cognitive faculty."
<Psyonide> Yes?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Yes, because that is what you said.
<Psyonide> Okay.
<Psyonide> That's a valid argument.
<Psyonide> It's a rational premise.
<Psyonide> But it is wrong.
<GCatAurQuillia> It's funny because you're missing the whole reason why you're grinding your gears and not able to move forward in this debate.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> If there is a difference between people, then that means that you do not think that there is "no difference"
<Psyonide> I respectfully disagree with your reading of the claim.
<GCatAurQuillia> AND THIS HAS BEEN GOING FOR 2 GODDAMN HOURS.
<GCatAurQuillia> PERSPECTIVE
<GCatAurQuillia> FUCKING PERSPECTIVE
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> also, for FUCKS SAKE.
<GCatAurQuillia> IS THE REASON WHY YOU CAN'T PROVE IT
<GCatAurQuillia> GODDAMNIT
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I HAVE ARGUED AGAINST THE FUCKING PERSPECTIVE AND PROVED THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE THAT PERSPECTIVE.
<Psyonide> Nycto{Siouxsie}: Would you like to hear my counter-argument to your reading of the claim?
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> NO
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I WANT TO GO TO BED.
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: I can.
<Psyonide> Okay.
<GCatAurQuillia> It's not possible to prove someon has a perspective
<Psyonide> THen we can pick up tomorrow.
<Psyonide> With or without GCatAurQuillia.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> i JUST DID
<GCatAurQuillia> if philosophers for thousands of years can't prove it, you can't prove it.
<Psyonide> I can prove my claim does not mean the strawman you cast it as.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I FUCKING DID BECAUSE I SHOWED THAT HE HAD A PERSPECTIVE WHICH WAS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE SAID HSIPERSPECTIVE WAS
<GCatAurQuillia> Anywhom, I'm done raging now.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> HE SAID ONE THING THEN SAID SOMETHING WHICH WAS NOT THE THING HE SAID HE HELD.
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: Wait until you hear my argument, please. :P
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> THIS MEANS HE DOES NOT HOLD THAT PERSPECTIVE
<GCatAurQuillia> Psyonide: spit it out
<Psyonide> I can prove my claim does not mean the strawman you cast it as.
<GCatAurQuillia> Spit it out.
<Psyonide> GCatAurQuillia: He wants to go to bed. :V
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I am going to bed. I am keeping logs.
<Psyonide> I don't want to prolong this. We can discuss it tomorrow.
<GCatAurQuillia> Night, good chat guys. Pretty solid etiquette on both sides
<GCatAurQuillia> except for the moderator, what an asshole.
<Psyonide> Yes, up until he refused to hear my counterargument.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> idk, they seemed pretty biased towards Psyonide, but tried at least to play fair.
<Psyonide> But I will not accuse his of conceding.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> BECAUSE I HAVE WORK TOMORROW.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> I NEEDED TO GO TO SLEEP.
<Psyonide> Well do it. >:I
<Psyonide> We can argue semantics later.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> Quit bitching and be grateful.
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> goodnight.
<Psyonide> Yes, thank you.
<GCatAurQuillia> Night. Have a good sleep!
<Psyonide> <3
<Nycto{Siouxsie}> also fuck you retarded people are real.