Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[Razer]

On 10/05/2016 04:14 PM, juan wrote:

> Even unicorns. They exist as fantasy creatures

Excuuuuse Me? Unicorns are real!

They just found work and aren't hanging around the corner 'shooting the
shit' quite as often as the good ol' days.

Example of a gainfully employed unicorn today >
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTuL_M4HDdc

Rr


> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 22:18:19 -0000
> xorcist at sigaint.org wrote:
> 
>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 21:04:32 -0000
>>
>>>> No, one simply denies them. But, even if one HAD to USE them, that
>>>> would not prove them. I might use several axioms to derive a
>>>> contradiction.
>>>
>>> 	So one or more of your 'axioms' are not true and not really
>>> 	axioms. The method is called reductio ad absurdum.
>>
>> No, it just means the axioms are incompatible.
>>
>> And, reductio ad absurdum is quite a  bit more general  than proof by
>> contradiction, but I won't quibble.
>>
>>>> But this all began not with a disagreement over the law of
>>>> identity, but over the law of non-contradiction.
>>>
>>>
>>> 	Which are closely related. And no, this all began with you
>>> 	being a cheap charlantan who can't write a semi consistent
>>> rant. Since your  rants are laughably inconsistent you embarked
>>> 	in even more stupid rants trying to 'prove'...who knows what
>>> 	about the 'logical' status of contradictory nonsense.
>>
>> But, since you're familiar with reductio ad absurdum, perhaps you'd
>> also like to read up on examples of ad hominems as well.
> 
> 
> 	As used as a colloquial (and snobbish) synonym for insult? It's
> 	not the same thing as the 'informal fallacy' you know...
> 
> 	Showing that Mr Smith is wrong and then calling him an asshole
> 	is not an 'ad hominem'...
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Are they related? Yes, they are among the three classical laws of
>> logic. That is their relation. Other than that, they do not depend on
>> each other whatsoever.
>>
>> Holding to them as in some way objective is a matter of tradition,
>> convenience, and little more than that.
>>
>>>
>>> 	I am well aware that you ignored my reply to your
>>> nonsensical example with iran and nukes for instance, So fuck off.
>>
>> I did ignore it. Because replying was futile with someone who doesn't
>> even have a grasp of axioms, and proof. But, if you insist:
> 
> 	No I don't. 
> 
>>
>> From the USA/Iran's individual points of view, it is logical and
>> rational to pursue the stated goals. It is rational for USA to
>> prevent Iran from obtaining a nuke.
> 
> 
> 	And you are still not addressing my reply. You first ignored
> 	my reply and now you are repeating your same stupid bullshit. 
> 
> 	"But if an axiom that Iran is operating by is that sooner or
> 	later, given USA's historical performance in the region, they
> 	WILL get invaded regardless," 
> 
> 	That is NOT an axiom. But hey, keep redefining words,
> 	equivocating and the like. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>>> The principle of
>>>> non-contradiction IS denied, by example, in the philosophical
>>>> school of dialetheism.
>>>
>>> 	Nonsense.
>>
>> What is nonsense? The philosophical school of dialetheism? Fine, that
>> is your opinion. I'll wager you couldn't argue against any of it,
>> successfully though.
> 
> 
> 	LMAO! Oh, but that would be 'false' according to my 'axioms'
> 	and 'true' according to 'your' axioms. 
> 
> 	Or perhaps the other way around? Or any combination of
> 	combinatorial nonsense that your alpha superpowers could
> 	conjure? Or that a fucking intellectual fraud and charlatan
> 	could come up with.
>  
> 
> 
>> But in any case, it is TRUE that this school of
>> thought exists.
> 
> 	Of course. Jew-kkkristianity also 'exists'. And JESUS! And santa
> 	claws. Even unicorns. They exist as fantasy creatures or
> 	mental vomits in the case of jew-kkkristian religion. Et cetera.
> 
> 
>> And it is TRUE that they reject the classical
>> principle of non-contradiction; at least within certain bounds.
> 
> 
> 	Pussies. They don't even have the balls to completely reject
> 	it? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
> 
>>
>> You can use quite simple mathematics -- nothing more than algebra, to
>> characterize an audio amplifier, and an audio microphone. Under the
>> right conditions, those components will generate feedback -- and at
>> that point, algebra is entirely insufficient to characterize the
>> system's performance.
> 
> 	
>         a1 = 1       a2 = 0
>         v = 0
>         p = 0
>         k_r = -0.01
>         
> 	data=[]
>    
>         for c in range(0, 1000):            
>             a2 = p * k_r
>             at = a1 + a2
>             v = v + at
>             p = p + v
>             data.append(p)
> 
> 
> 
> So, what does the 1000 points figure in data[] look like? Why, it's a
> sine (or cosine, whatever). So, combine (sum up or 'integrate') a bunch
> of linear operations and you get a curve. Recursive corner cutting is
> also a nice example of this. And what of it? The curve is STILL ruled
> by the 'linear' 'logic' used to create it. 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> In the same way, with governments, social systems, and so on where
>> emergent behavior and feedback are at play, one needs a wider view
>> than merely the algebraic philosophical notions that gave rise to a
>> government, or simple economic modeling only according to one view,
>> and so on.
> 
> 
> 	bla bla bla and oh more bla bla bla
> 	
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't either. I've explained several times that axioms are
>>>> assumptions,
>>>
>>> 	There you go again...Axioms are NOT suppositions.
>>
>> Wait for it...
>>
>>>> r if you prefer, propositions, and are not subjected to
>>>> PROOF. You disagreed, so I quoted sources.
>>
>> There we go.. right. So PROPOSITIONS, then. Statements that ARE
>> REGARDED (but not necessarily) as self-evidently true.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Oh yes, I then realized that your 'definition' was POORLY worded
> 	by some subjectivist retard. Big deal.
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Not subject to proof, as you claimed. Let's just be clear about that.
>> You claimed that axioms can be proven. They cannot.
> 
> 
> 	OK, let play your game. THey can't be proven. Are they still
> 	true?  How THE FUCK do you know they are true? 
> 
>  
>> There ARE different systems of logic, with different axioms. The
>> axioms cannot be PROVEN, and therefore it is a matter of CHOICE which
>> system you're using. That choice may be for any reason, 
> 
> 	So truth is a matter of choice? And Party 'Agreement' of course!
> 
> 	You are still got getting O'Brien's quote huh.
> 
> 	And of course, since you don't believe in really proving
> 	anything, you just vomit nonsense and believe or 'assume' it's
> 	'self-evident' in some deranged mental universe or other. Cool.
> 
> 
> 
>> really.
>> Utility 
> 
> 	Utiliy is just an arbitrary linguistic construction that exists 
> 	in your collective mind. Created by the dialectical
> 	structures of post-capitalism and patriarchy deprivation. With
> 	influence from pre-semiotical sub-cultural displacements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>>> Your statement about axioms was quite wrong. They are not subject
>>>> to proof. You're now trying to walk  that back and play a different
>>>> angle -- one that I handed to you -- that of self-evidence.
>>>
>>> 	Don't make up stuff . I provided my version (correct) and
>>> even went with your defination.
>>
>> Denial #1.
>>
>>>> And in any case, in philosophy, and informal logic, axioms cannot
>>>> be proven, as you have stated.
>>>
>>>
>>> 	I didn't state that. But it's beside the point
>>> anyway.
>>
>> Denial #2.
>>
>> Refutation:
>>
>> On Wed, October 5, 2016 6:11 am, YOU said:
>>>        Again, truth is NOT a matter of agreement. And axioms are not
>>>        to be 'agreed' upon. Also, AXIOMS CAN BE PROVEN. If axioms
>>>        couldn't be proven then any statement based on them would
>>>        be...unproven, meaningless, useless, et cetera.
>>
>> Emphasis mine.
> 
> 
> 	Yes, I STATED that AXIOMS CNA BE PROVEN. So far so good?
> 
> 	You then commented "And in any case, in philosophy, and
> 	informal logic, axioms cannotbe proven, as you have stated." 
> 
> 	So what you actually meant is that axioms cannot be proven in
> 	the way I suggested they can be proven?  I'd say that your
> 	remark was poorly worded and ambiguous, but hey. this shitty
> 	imperial language is not my native language. 
> 
> 	This would have been better : 
> 
> 	"And in any case, in philosophy, and informal logic, axioms
> 	cannotbe proven, CONTRARY TO WHAT you have stated." 
> 
> 
> 	Of course, I 'disagree'. Bu then, it is self-evident that you
> 	are dishonest charlatan, willing to play the 'subjective'
> 	bullshit card whenever he feels like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>