Atheism and agnosticism

[stromboli]

[drunkenshoe]

[mauricio]

That's the Holywood movie definition of semantics I am talking about. I tried to talk about Sprachkritik as much as I could do it which was rejected as 'bullshit'. This is a very hard, long subject with a huge scholarship noone actually has a full grasp of considering the scope. This doesn't have an end and can't. It's about thinking on it, reading pieces, messing up with it and producing ideas, angles. Not to mention it is the basics of written cultural heritage of the Western civilisation. Which we rely on by the way if he didn't notice.   

If he thinks that is a 'pointless semantic discussion' or that his ideas and opinions exist out of it, he is pretty much out of it. Whatever I say I am the bad guy here as usual.

How pathetic is that trying hard to look down on a discussion or a topic -doesn't matter how it goes- that includes knowledge in it; forces people to think. This is not 'how did Noah build the ark?' ffs.

It's basically "I don't get it and I don't like it, then it is bullshit!" Why that sounds so familiar? Hmmm 

Myeh...

i don't understand you. Why would you refer to my observation as something based on a "hollywood version"  of semantics which i guess means superficial. Don't you see how a semantic discussion can indeed be pointless if it takes the form of what i described? Now whether that applies to your recent endevours I cannot say, but i have seen many discussions delve into nonsense due to the inhability to agree on definitions or to exteriorize the underlaying semantic reasoning which dictates said definitions. If your purpose is NOT to debate semantics and you already understand the meaning of your opponent statements you are missing the point by continuing debating semantics. Thats what i call a pointless semantic discussion. And i think that is what the other user meant by saying that semantics are not a good argument.

[drunkenshoe]

i don't understand you. Why would you refer to my observation as something based on a "hollywood version"  of semantics which i guess means superficial. Don't you see how a semantic discussion can indeed be pointless if it takes the form of what i described? Now whether that applies to your recent endevours I cannot say, but i have seen many discussions delve into nonsense due to the inhability to agree on definitions or to exteriorize the underlaying semantic reasoning which dictates said definitions. If your purpose is NOT to debate semantics and you already understand the meaning of your opponent statements you are missing the point by continuing debating semantics. Thats what i call a pointless semantic discussion. And i think that is what the other user meant by saying that semantics are not a good argument.

You didn't read the thread. You felt the need (!) to explain another poster to me. I said, 'then this is it as what happened here'. And now you are trying to make me accept something you think I should, in a discussion I haven't had with the exact definition I made for the conversation above.

And I am 'sending' you back to holywood just for using the word 'opponent'. It seems you people can't think outside of it. If you are calling people 'opponents', you are not in a place to judge their expressions as superficial, esp. if you don't understand what they are talking about.

I shouldn't have answered to your post. You came back and the same bullshit began. You are just randomly posting to mess up with so you can get an opportunity pour down a specific anger which I have a good idea what it is. Nice, I guess. Do it with someone else. I'm guessing you are around 20. Until you grow out of that 'teenage angst' it's not worth it, waste of time and energy.

[aitm]

[drunkenshoe]

[mauricio]

You didn't read the thread. You felt the need (!) to explain another poster to me. I said, 'then this is it as what happened here'. And now you are trying to make me accept something you think I should, in a discussion I haven't had with the exact definition I made for the conversation above.

And I am 'sending' you back to holywood just for using the word 'opponent'. It seems you people can't think outside of it. If you are calling people 'opponents', you are not in a place to judge their expressions as superficial, esp. if you don't understand what they are talking about.

I shouldn't have answered to your post. You came back and the same bullshit began. You are just randomly posting to mess up with so you can get an opportunity pour down a specific anger which I have a good idea what it is. Nice, I guess. Do it with someone else. I'm guessing you are around 20. Until you grow out of that 'teenage angst' it's not worth it, waste of time and energy.

Lol what are you even talking about. What do you think im trying to make you accept exactly? Im not talking about what happened in this thread previously, i was just trying to give my interpretation of a sentence which me and you had different interpretations of. Also what did i judge as superficial? I only was trying to understand what you mean by "hollywood version", I thought you meant superficial version, a watered down or distorted view of the actual thing. The word opponent can carry many connotations i just used it in a neutral way to mean the person you are arguing against in an argument. The opposite position, not an enemy. I do not think you understand my motivations or even my text at all.