[Archive] BFL trolling museum

[boonies4u]

Wow Josh, for someone who is supposed to be a BFL representative you sure fail at representing your company in a professional manner. You make BFL a joke each time you post with cussing and insults. Are you a child?

LOL so entertaining though to see you come here and STOMP your feet in rebuttal.

In BTC, I'm the authority.

And MPOE-PR is any better?

[1713452037]

1713452037

[1713452037]

1713452037

[greyhawk]

I'm sure she's been "on top" before,soooooooooo    Maybe that's the " authoritive postion" she's thinking of 

Please grow older than 18. Thank you.

[mobodick]

Wow Josh, for someone who is supposed to be a BFL representative you sure fail at representing your company in a professional manner. You make BFL a joke each time you post with cussing and insults. Are you a child?

LOL so entertaining though to see you come here and STOMP your feet in rebuttal.

In BTC, I'm the authority.

And MPOE-PR is any better?

It's like the pissing contest of titans,.. with blackjack.., and hookers.

[elux]

Ok... you do know that I asked for proof right?  What you've provided is you restating the same statements you've already made.  Proof requires an outside authority qualified to speak on the matter.

Stop. You are wrong. Your logical fallacy is: Appeal to Authority.
 

The misconception that knowledge needs authority to be genuine or reliable dates back to antiquity, and it still prevails. To this day, most courses in the philosophy of knowledge teach that knowledge is some form of justified, true belief, where ‘justified’ means designated as true (orat least ‘probable’) by reference to some authoritative source or touch­stone of knowledge. Thus ‘how do we know … ?’ is transformed into ‘by what authority do we claim … ?’ The latter question is a chimera that may well have wasted more philosophers’ time and effort than any other idea. It converts the quest for truth into a quest for certainty (a feeling) or for endorsement (a social status). This misconception is called justificationism.

-- The Beginning of Infinity - Chapter 1: The Reach of Explanations - pages 8-9.

[mobodick]

I'm sure she's been "on top" before,soooooooooo    Maybe that's the " authoritive postion" she's thinking of 

Please grow older than 18. Thank you.

My opinion of the whole thing was.. you grow older untill you get 18. Then it kindof reverts slowly untill you're a demented 110 year old.

[greyhawk]

I'm sure she's been "on top" before,soooooooooo    Maybe that's the " authoritive postion" she's thinking of 

Please grow older than 18. Thank you.

My opinion of the whole thing was.. you grow older untill you get 18. Then it kindof reverts slowly untill you're a demented 110 year old.

No, that's 30. Then you stagnate for 20 years, then you revert.

[boonies4u]

Ok... you do know that I asked for proof right?  What you've provided is you restating the same statements you've already made.  Proof requires an outside authority qualified to speak on the matter.

Your logical fallacy is: Appeal to Authority.
 

The misconception that knowledge needs authority to be genuine or reliable dates back to antiquity, and it still prevails. To this day, most courses in the philosophy of knowledge teach that knowledge is some form of justified, true belief, where ‘justified’ means designated as true (orat least ‘probable’) by reference to some authoritative source or touch­stone of knowledge. Thus ‘how do we know … ?’ is transformed into ‘by what authority do we claim … ?’ The latter question is a chimera that may well have wasted more philosophers’ time and effort than any other idea. It converts the quest for truth into a quest for certainty (a feeling) or for endorsement (a social status). This misconception is called justificationism.

-- The Beginning of Infinity - Chapter 1: The Reach of Explanations - pages 8-9.

Knowledge =/= Proof

[mobodick]

I'm sure she's been "on top" before,soooooooooo    Maybe that's the " authoritive postion" she's thinking of 

Please grow older than 18. Thank you.

My opinion of the whole thing was.. you grow older untill you get 18. Then it kindof reverts slowly untill you're a demented 110 year old.

No, that's 30. Then you stagnate for 20 years, then you revert.

No, that's you noticing it at 30.
But the decay started the moment you stopped growing physically.
From then on you only grow in 'character'

[greyhawk]

I'm sure she's been "on top" before,soooooooooo    Maybe that's the " authoritive postion" she's thinking of 

Please grow older than 18. Thank you.

My opinion of the whole thing was.. you grow older untill you get 18. Then it kindof reverts slowly untill you're a demented 110 year old.

No, that's 30. Then you stagnate for 20 years, then you revert.

No, that's you noticing it at 30.
But the decay started the moment you stopped growing physically.
From then on you only grow in 'character'

That might be frightenengly true. 

[elux]

Ok... you do know that I asked for proof right?  What you've provided is you restating the same statements you've already made.  Proof requires an outside authority qualified to speak on the matter.

Your logical fallacy is: Appeal to Authority.

Knowledge =/= Proof

Indeed. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Reasoning deals with evidence.

[organofcorti]

Ok... you do know that I asked for proof right?  What you've provided is you restating the same statements you've already made.  Proof requires an outside authority qualified to speak on the matter.

Stop. You are wrong. Your logical fallacy is: Appeal to Authority.
.......

Inaba's question could simply be rephrased as a request for external arbitration by an acknowledged expert in a field, who would need to provide provable conclusions. It's not an appeal to authority, which instead would be  a statement such as "Well, Stephen Hawking thinks you're wrong".

Would you want medical advice from an engineer, or engineering advice from a circus gymnast? Or an opinion about climate change from a geologist?

That's all. Please do continue.

[elux]

Ok... you do know that I asked for proof right?  What you've provided is you restating the same statements you've already made.  Proof requires an outside authority qualified to speak on the matter.

Stop. You are wrong. Your logical fallacy is: Appeal to Authority.
.......

Inaba's question could simply be rephrased as a request for external arbitration by an acknowledged expert in a field, who would need to provide provable conclusions. It's not an appeal to authority, which instead would be  a statement such as "Well, Stephen Hawking thinks you're wrong".

Would you want medical advice from an engineer, or engineering advice from a circus gymnast? Or an opinion about climate change from a geologist?

That's all. Please do continue.

You're Entitled to Arguments, But Not (That Particular) Proof

"Modern man is so committed to empirical knowledge, that he sets the standard for evidence higher than either side in his disputes can attain, thus suffering his disputes to be settled by philosophical arguments as to which party must be crushed under the burden of proof."
        -- Alan Crowe

There's a story - in accordance with Poe's Law, I have no idea whether it's a joke or it actually happened - about a creationist who was trying to claim a "gap" in the fossil record, two species without an intermediate fossil having been discovered.  When an intermediate species was discovered, the creationist responded, "Aha!  Now there are two gaps."

[...]

After all - in the absence of your unobtainable particular proof, there may be plenty of other arguments by which you can hope to figure out whether you live in a world where the hypothesis of interest is true, or alternatively false.  It takes work to provide you with those arguments.  It takes work to provide you with extrapolations of existing knowledge to prior probabilities, and items of evidence with which to update those prior probabilities, to form a prediction about the unseen.  Someone who does the work to provide those arguments is doing the best they can by you; throwing the arguments out the window is not just irrational, but logically rude.

And I emphasize this, because it seems to me that the underlying metaphor of demanding particular proof is to say as if, "You are supposed to provide me with a video of apes evolving into humans, I am entitled to see it with my own eyes, and it is your responsibility to make that happen; and if you do not provide me with that particular proof, you are deficient in your duties of argument, and I have no obligation to believe you."  And this is, in the first place, bad math as probability theory.  And it is, in the second place, an attitude of trying to be defensible rather than accurate, the attitude of someone who wants to be allowed to retain the beliefs they have, and not the attitude of someone who is honestly curious and trying to figure out which possible world they live in, by whatever signs are available.  But if these considerations do not move you, then even in terms of the original and flawed metaphor, you are in the wrong: you are entitled to arguments, but not that particular proof.

Ignoring someone's hard work to provide you with the arguments you need - the extrapolations from existing knowledge to make predictions about events not yet observed, the items of evidence that are suggestive even if not definite and that fit some possible worlds better than others - and instead demanding proof they can't possibly give you, proof they couldn't be expected to provide even if they were right - that is logically rude.  It is invalid as probability theory, foolish on the face of it, and logically rude.

And of course if you go so far as to act smug about the absence of an unobtainable proof, or chide the other for their credulity, then you have crossed the line into outright ordinary rudeness as well.

It is likewise a madness of decision theory to hold off pending positive proof until it's too late to do anything; the whole point of decision theory is to choose under conditions of uncertainty, and that is not how the expected value of information is likely to work out.  Or in terms of plain common sense:  There are signs and portents, smoke alarms and hot doorknobs, by which you can hope to determine whether your house is on fire before your face melts off your skull; and to delay leaving the house until after your face melts off, because only this is the positive and particular proof that you demand, is decision-theoretical insanity.  It doesn't matter if you cloak your demand for that unobtainable proof under the heading of scientific procedure, saying, "These are the proofs you could not obtain even if you were right, which I know you will not be able to obtain until the time for action has long passed, which surely any scientist would demand before confirming your proposition as a scientific truth."  It's still nuts.

[Inaba]

Well, Boonies and Organofcorti beat me to the punch.  Indeed, we aren't talking about philosophical knowledge, these are legal talking points and yes you need an recognized authority to make legal pronouncements.  Violating parlole?  It's not happening because you say it is... you need a judge (authority) to determine that fact.  Where is the decree that this has happened?  Where is the letter or statement from a parole officer stating they have not been contacted and are aware of it?  You can't just say these things are true and not provide the evidence to support your case... you need the people in a position of authority, who oversee these things, to declare them true or not true.  

Elux, it's a nice try with your logical fallacies... however they do not apply in this situation, since a very specific claim is being made which as a very specific form of proof.  This is not a gap in the fossil record, which is effectively proving a negative.  This is MPOE-PR claiming specifically that it is factual (in one instance) that probation is being violated.  This can be easily proven... yet no proof is forthcoming, ergo the statement of fact is false and the argument falls apart.  There is zero evidence that probation is being violated and there is circumstantial evidence that it is not being violated (knowledge of actions are (very) public, no one is in jail, etc...)

Is there some reason you have time to trade insults with MPOE-PR but haven't found time to make the update post yet Josh?

To answer this question:  Do you really want me to provide you an update like this?  It requires basically zero thought or effort to make MPOE-PR look stupid and I can do it in 5 minutes.  The update I want to put together requires some thought, effort and formatting, so I can provide useful information.  If you'd rather have a useless update post, I'll be happy to provide, however, be aware that when the throngs start complaining, I'm going to send them to you for an explanation, you good with that?

[boonies4u]

Ok... you do know that I asked for proof right?  What you've provided is you restating the same statements you've already made.  Proof requires an outside authority qualified to speak on the matter.

Your logical fallacy is: Appeal to Authority.

Knowledge =/= Proof

Indeed. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Reasoning deals with evidence.

Evidence of an occurrence is not the same as knowledge of said occurrence.

[lucif]

Inaba>> I'm going... I'll be happy... I want...

Please just do it: answer, where are the chips?

[nathanrees19]

Please just do it: answer, where are the chips?

From what I gather, they were delicious.

[crazyates]

In BTC, I'm the authority.

lol

My reaction as well. Really? I noticed the same thing Inaba did: all he did was repost his previous comments/accusations. And then this single statement is supposed to make someone take you seriously? Please.

[organofcorti]

Josh has so much time on his hands that he has the time to respond to many of the trolls on this forum.

Had he been busy enough with actual R&D of ASIC chips he would not have enough time to exchange insults with any trolls on this forum.

I didn't know he did actual ASIC R&D. Can source that for me please?

[Inaba]

Damn, I'm earning another degree in ASIC design just arguing on the internet!  Who knew this shit was that easy!  Hellz yeah!

[smoothie]

Damn, I'm earning another degree in ASIC design just arguing on the internet!  Who knew this shit was that easy!  Hellz yeah!

They pay you by the hour or the shit-covered quarters? lol