Pentium M vs Pentium 4 - Page 12

another two times and the score was close to 6K. Don't think I was drunk at the time of the 10K score, but could have been

Ok Ok, can we still have the Delta and his clan VS EDR. Its going to rock

Ahem! Some of us live in Texas btw... No rodeo analogies please!

To further reiterate my point that the *argument*:

Quote:

"Arguments follow a chain of reasoning - A happens because of B, B happens because of C. If we agree on C, then you have to agree on A. If you don't agree on C, however, then you can disagree on A. Therefore, if we can agree to C, then we can argue about how we can get to B and A."

... is flawed when applied in the context of a non-mathematical human argument:

Hypothetically (these are not my views, in total, per se):

A. We do NOT agree about gay marriage.

B. We do agree that a gay couple can adopt children - as a stable income family may be beneficial to the child.

C. We do agree that being gay is acceptable, two people can choose to engage in whatever sexual orientation they desire - their choice.

In the real life majority of our country - A happened because of B. And, B happened because of C. We agreed on C as the basis (as per Texas ruling, the majority, and even commonly accepted T.V. shows like Will & Grace and many others), but still cannot agree on A (gay marriage), and by the sounds of it, most likely will never agree on gay marriage. Thus, A should be an "agree", because of C, as the natural evolution, but is not. Maybe someday it will be, but it looks pretty dim.

Many states, and congress are trying to limit gay marriage even though a Texas court about a year or two ago said two men can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home.

In human non-mathematical terms - if it were that simple of a solution, we wouldn't have state supreme courts and other entities *arguing* over this issue at nauseam.

I stand by my original stance - you guys are overly logical, to the point of being blinded on many issues - to your detriment!

There are so many more complexities to human nature, metaphysics, the human mind, and all of that related stuff, that supercede simple IF THEN ELSE math, that it's not applicable to our arguments with respect to linguisitics involving human nature, philosophy and skepticism.

To argue, in human terms, is generally negative, thus, as previously stated, how a positive can be established up front seems completely illogical! Minus absolute value ABS (a mathematical term) a negative is a negative, and a positive is a positive - period. I associated arguing with negative. It's defined that way in the dictionary and I think most *reasonable* people would agree that arguing in the truest sense of the word is negative - it's negative energy, in general. How we get an initial positive out of that via *common gound* is definitely contradictory and would immediately disipate any need for arguing.

Delta: Yes, last but not least, I noticed that you love to use the word "empirical" in a condescending tone:

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4 : of or relating to empiricism
- em·pir·i·cal·ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb

As "observation and experience" are the predominant themes, I must say that I agree with your assumptions - many of my writings are based on *actual* experiences which man cannot yet explain in IF THEN ELSE terminology. Therefore, I believe there is validity and superiority to human experience (or human sensation), as most of it cannot be explained by man in terms of 1+1=2 formulas.

I continually stand by my original assessment (based on the data presented, no pun intended) that you and your group are overly logical - to your detriment - you limit yourselves and your future potential for growth, whether spiritual or even in terms of strict knowledge. You are CLOSE-minded and ego driven to the point of stagnation and unecessarily slowed/delayed advancement.

To state with absolute certainty (as you have clearly suggested) that because someone's knowledge is based predominately on emperical knowledge, and therefore, must be flawed, is flawed in itself. I'm really doing my best to give merit to your *arguments* with all truth and honesty, and even with such an open mind I cannot find truth anywhere in your extreme one-sided arguments.

Sweet merciful christ.....

I could get all shakespearian with this point, as seems the nature of the thread thus far, but ill just get to my point.

SHUT UP! PM vs P4!

Agreed! P4!

indeed, shut up about ur whole logic-watever bs u can dig up EDR, your just taking ppl's sentence structure instead of their meaning.

balh, balh, balh, 10.7-yr-old Chinese boy! At least with Delta, X and others there is a reaonsably interesting sharing of verbose. With you, it's a joke. You mean nothing, say nothing, and effect nothing. Keep trying Chow-Ling-Wa!

P.S. And, if you were paying attention you'd realize that this *argument* has to do with the *rules* and *models* associated with inidividual word meanings, which is an entirely different topic than complete sentence structure, the meaning of an entire sentence, and even from *a phrase* of words.

/pees on kindling

ha, and u actually took me so seriously that you really thought i was a 10.7 year old kid. Well, fyi, not all of us here like to debate English structures and make insults based upon ones grammatical usage. So please focus more on something that is actually debatable, not some washy religion or whatever you seemed to be so perfect at.

At least with Delta, X, and others, they do too share the same exact thought of "SHUTUP and talk about PM vs P4, not some English major who failed all his math classes or some Chinese boy ranting."

So you and i should both shut up thats my point.

EDR, I seriously doubt that you have any experience with philosophy. Your statements contradict the very cornerstones of Western thought. First of all, something have to be made very clear: you can either follow the standard model of communication and of reasoning, or you can remain quiet. For if you do not follow those models, there is no point in speaking at all. If the people who are hearing you do not follow the same models as you, there exists no conversation. The second thing: you cannot escape logic. You, like everyone else, is confined by the logical and linguistic patterns common to western culture. For you to prove anything or to deny anything, you must use logic that is universal to us in the process. That is exactly what you are doing. "Overly logical" do not make any sense. Thirdly, bringing up dictionary definitions of words are of no value to this conversation. The study of philosophy requires the following: every concept that you include in an argument must be defined in a clear and incontrovertible manner. To do so you may either define every single concept (concepts include words) every time you speak, or you can use the definitions already established by philosophers that came before you. For us to argue, we acknowledge common definitions of universal concepts that are established by other philosophers. Then there are even more fundamental concepts that are not defined, but must be accepted: truth, reasoning, intuition, beauty, etc. Even you cannot doubt these concepts, for the very act of you putting concepts into words means that you are following these fundamental concepts. Without accepting the ideas previously established by philosophers past, we could do nothing at all. The famous Pythagorean paradox, for example, established that in mathematics reasoning must be followed over intuition. Without that already established, one could not even carry on 1 + 1 = 2. Lastly, every study of philosophy follows strict logic. I have already established that without logic no thought exist. You seem to have an incorrect idea of philosophy when you brought up your understanding of metaphysics. Yet metaphysics, though dealing with the nature of being underlying objects, still deals with very strict of logic. Your mistaken understanding of metaphysics and of empiricism forces me to bring up this very fundamental idea: to establish a truth, one start from a truth already established, then make synthetic a priori judgements to arrive at another. A priori means by using pure logic not influenced by experience. Whereas empiricism, the word that I kept on mentioning, is a posteriori, and is not an accepted way of arriving at truths in philosophy. Every branch of philosophy follow this model of reasoning. For one to not agree on this fundamental concepts, one can do nothing but to remain quiet.

It's hard to argue if both parties aren't talking about the same thing...

It's so frustrating to argue with the likes of EDR...he knows so little, and makes absurd claims and tries to use things he came up with against you, firmly believing in his ridiculous theory...

Actually, he reminds me a lot of myself...if I had been in his place I would have made very similar claims...interesting...

I wouldn't exactly call it arguing...it was more like an exchange of words that have no impact on either party.

Can you send me some of that liquor you were indulging in while obtaining the 10k score? (I mean this in a good way)

According to PC Gamer, a Velocity Micro system with P4EE 3.2GHz, 1GB Ram, Radeon 9800XT, WD 2x36GB 10k RPM drive in RAID0, all components overclocked, get a 6487 score in 3dmark03.

You are 100% wrong, as you have been throughout most of this discussion. As I previously stated (a theme you will see throughout this post, since you do not read and comprehend), when I think about philosphy, I think about various religions, theology and theory, and the various backgrounds, principles of fate or freewill?

You apparently, think about how 1+1=2. You're still not getting it, are you? That's what I thought.

You just don't comprehend! ANYTHING can be done in excess. Any particular thought process can be put into an obsessive compulsive context, as you have been doing. You are, without any doubt, overly logical!

That truly is probably the most idiotic statement you've made throughout all of this. The fact that you have clearly stated that precise words need to be defined and agreed upon up front, and yet now you denounce my attempt to look at specific words to make sure we can define them correctly continues to undermine any credibility you think you have during such feable attempts to save face!

You say it's not relevant, but part of my argument, has repeatedly been and remains that your dream of a perfect world where there is no linguistic barries or room for interpretation and variance, is a farce! Hence, the dictionary is extremely appropriate in that context, and by using the correct medium for this argument, you couldn't handle it, so completely denounced the dictionary.

You so desperately hate to lose any argument that you will go to an extreme to state something like, "We need to define the words exactly, but looking in a dictionary is of no value." Gees, get some help!

Hello, is there an echo in the house? Once again, you just contradicted yourself. We *can* agree, but we *cannot* look up words in the dictionary to make sure we are all using them correctly, together? Oh, that's right, the dictionary is wrong anyway, you are right, right?

No pun intended but how do we get from point A to point B? If B is the "clear, defined and incotrovertible manner", what is A - specific words and a dictionary? Maybe you can think better when presented in that manner, Mr. Overly Logical!

Man, you really are a brick wall, who doesn't read or comprehend anything anyone else says. You are so extremely close-minded, you are much worse than overly logical! I've repreatedly stated that even in philosophy, even those that *came before us* have texts that are INTERPRETED differently by different people throughout the ages, including philosophers that succeed the original and re-define the concept.

As time progressed and different philosophers got ahold of the same topic and redefined it in their terms (another issue of interpretation and linguistics), which philosopher do I follow now? Who's definition is correct, the last one to define it, the first one? All preceded me (your stated critera), but each one defined it differently. You know the answer, right?

For example, you went through the progression of skepticism, with three different entities and ended with Hume. All of them came before us, so do I use philosopher A,B or C's definition? I can't use the dictionary, but I can only use how an ancient philosopher defined it?

Let's see getting back from point A to point B. B is the defined words, but A has four potentially *cancelling* variables:

1. Cannot use dictionary for word definition, huh?
2. Original definition provided by the first philosopher to discuss topic X
3. Modified definition provided by Philosopher 2 about topic X
4. Modified definition provided by Philopsoher 3 (Hume) about topic X

Ok, in your terminology, what is the RULE in this case? Do we use the original definition, or the most recent modified interpretation of the original? You haven't even thought that far, have you? You don't have any RULE yet (yet you preach so strongly about rules and models), but I'm sure you'll make one up with another eager attempt to save face in this one.

Are you getting any of this? Do you see where I'm headed - there are no absolutes! THAT you cannot yet comprehend!

Before YOU enter into any discussions, YOU should post YOUR rules and YOUR definitions for the *common ground* so that everyone understands your obscure BullS*** from the getgo, and can forego hours of trying to get through a brick wall.

When and where did I specifically *define* metaphysics for you? In what way did I provide my understanding?

Talking to someone who puts words in people's mouths, attempts to interpret and define their commentary for them, uses incorrect statements and feels the need to drop names of other people who support them to feed their own ego and undermine the opponent, is a sad, sad individual!

You've done neither; agreed, or remained quiet! You are a bundle of contradictions that understands the dictionary better than its authors, who doesn't address a direct question, who routinely changes his tune, and who feeds inaccurate psycho-babble-jargon to weasel out of being wrong. Did I write, *sad* once before?

Hmmm...the discussion as it stands is truly pointless. Let us establish some common ground first.

Do you believe in the universality of logic?

Im' not surprised by your response, which once again totally avoids excellent questions posed directly to you. Yes, trying to get through to you is truly pointless! You are driven solely by your ego, and you are not on any quest to truly learn or to even broaden your horizons with varying ideas!

I think we already *tried* to establish common ground, but when it involved you *giving in* on some points, or *compromising* you couldn't give a centimeter, so denounced completely valid issues and changed the *rules* as you went along. For that, I see no need to continue any kind of intellectual conversation with you, as it likely has *the odds* of maintaining the same outcome.

You can keep believing that the earth is flat. We will find no commonality there. You get my point!