The real topic. Not the fake poll. Poll will be created when the battle ends.

*slips into hyper arrogant bear suit*
*eyes glow red*

And what better anthem for the pain to be distrubuted with but the beautiful melodic sound of Asleep in the Back by Elbow.

I'll be honest, this does feel a little uneasy, because i'm generally dealing with a nice person... still, at least that's ALL you are, right? :)

*stretch* i think i'll go saw eva longoria's face off and freeze it in formaldehyde while i'm waiting for you to get things going.

*tilts head with loud crack,shakes wrists*

:evilwings:

But before you say any word,Duck...

I think insults are a bit passe.That's a pretty prehistorical and rude way to solve who's better,don'tcha think?What do you say we make rather a discussion of philosophical sort,eh?Judges would give the subject and we- struggle about different aspects of it (no need to be serious or snobby,unmaturity would be allowed).The one with more convincing arguments wins.Of course,if that way of playing this game doesn't fit you,we can go this pathetic,insulting way.But it would just expose your level of intelligence,which rather doesn't fit two Homo Sapiens (...I hope?).

ARBITER!!!!
Would you allow to let us play this round that way? :)

Yeah, sure. i actually prefer that way. I had a load of stuff planned but it was somewhat snidey, and didn't really excentuate your true awfulness as a human being :P

hehe, yeah we'll just go for philosophical i think. No need for insults this round. But i really don't mind, do what you like. :)

Tomorrow though, right now i'm going to play Counter Strike with Wose. :)

Okay,let's wait what judges would say about this change and their suggestion of the subject.

Still, one for the road, eh?

Tell me, how long have you been renting out that space between your ears?

Right, I knew this won't work with two such egocentric personalities :P Do what you intend to do - just don't forget that the watchers want to have fun, OK? :) Round one, fight!

Ye know,it's a hotel for brainy people only.Sorry,you can't book a room.
Still,there's a nice view on my artistic creativity,anyway. :D

I wonder,if YOUR body conditions are good enough to build a hotel there.

(Psst,have you decided how are wo going to battle yet?Seems like you prefer insults.No difference,you choose.)

Nah, like i said, that was just for fun. We'll battle for philosophy.

You'll battle for Philosophy? Does that mean however wins, wins philosophy? I don't get it... :huh:

But that's because I'm a "simpleton", don't mind me.

*grabs a bowl of popcorn*

*sigh* if there's no good idea on the subject,we can go the traditional way...Start insulting,Phil.

- Whether human beings are of greater value than animals.
- Whether human beings actually have free will.
- Whether life has any intrinsic value.
- If there's such a thing as absolute truth.
- If there's more to this world than can be explained by science.

ok,then pick a subject! :P

Heh, i don't mind. Incidentally, i can't really do this right now. I've got Rose staying over tonight, I've got a driving lesson tomorrow and I don't know when I'll really be able to make a good go of this. I will however, get as much in as i can. All I'm saying is that I'm quite busy and might not be able to respond immediately.

I think we should just do the traditional meaning of life, humanity and the universe philosophy. Sound good?

[quick peek in]

Nothing against you guys, but this is getting kinda boring and stuff. Now, you can go all silophosical on us, but get going already.

(Although we understand your deal, Ducky. get back soon.)

[leaves before the knives catch him]

Quiet, bitch. You can't rush art.

you can't rush it but you can speed it up a little bit ;) :P

Sjaak's right,after Sunday my freedom (winter holidays) end and I won't have much freetime then...Uhm,hurry a bit? ^^;

Start the discussion already!

One of you has to start, what are you... feeling pity for each other?

Ah yes, this is so sweet. :D

No,Phil's busy,as he said,I will be busy,when he will be able to start the battle...Geeze,it's Pure Nonsense ™ © ®!

he is scared now he noticed that insults, no matter how good they are, work against you. as it is a popularity contest, more than a battle.

let me give you the subject.

You can force Michel Ancel, and Ubisoft to work diligently on BGAE2. would it be wise to do so?(and explain why or why not)

You obviously haven't been paying attention. If you had, not only would you have noticed that i at no point implied anything of the sort, but (and i'm retyping this especially for you, so pay attention this time) that i don't care what you have to say unless you can be bothered to pay attention to what i have to say in the first place. Okay?

Anyway. We've already worked out the subject, and just to humour you all, i'll get started.

My initial view is as follows. To contemplate the meaning of life is to try and calculate the value of infinity. To us, infinity is equal to zero, because absolute values and the restrictions of physical matter prevent us from "calculating" any real value. This may go some way to explaining why many see life as meaningless; we live inside the bounds that we can experience; the restrictions of having a brain, the restrictions of our senses and our experiences.

Hume observes in detailing causation that we perceive cause and effect (a chain of thought that i have celebrated for it's matter-of-fact-ness and pure logic) through experience - not because we necessarily percieve a connection between the cause and the effect - but because we have experienced, in some form, that cause and effect beforehand. Upon reflection and in light of this phrase, the belief of C&E can be seen as flawed because we expect that something that happened before, will again happen in the future. For the Enter the Matrix players among you, this equates to the quote by Ghost that just because a stone falls to the floor once, does not mean that it will happen the next time; "it could float up to the ceiling." If what Hume says is the case, then it would limit our perceptions to those of things we have experienced in our lives.

Viewing the above two statements in a metaphilosophical context (viewing the philosophy of philosophy), it puts into context the idea of whether ontological philosophy can be debated. However, the fact that the comment is raised at all goes some way to unsettling the later of these two comments. How can we argue the abstract if all we know to base it on is the norm?

But that is indeed human nature, the ability to give argument the inexistant, to give value to emptiness, to quantify the irrational and to project opinion about it.

So does that mean to say that a certain extent of life is created inside people's minds? We know that people have the imagination to develop the most wonderous ideas, we know that people are capable of hillucinating; essentially because all of that is simply interpretations in your brain. We know that people believe in Gods; faceless, neverpresent entities upon whom the creation of the everything is gifted to... but where do we discern between what has come from experience, what has come from fact, what has come from influence and so on.

But to extract another cycle of thought, what if the idea of life isn't to contemplate it, but to experience it? Maybe we can't perceive infinity and matters beyond this life because we're not meant to do so yet. On the other hand, maybe it's part of our challenge before we die to have discovered something about the universe, and only those who have have the perserverance, intelligence and luck to understand the universe will die happy. Maybe life is meant to be debated over and over, who knows.

What with all this speculation, certainly, to me, metaphysics is the darkest, most ambiguous and most cyclic of philosophies, as it the least likely to come to a conclusion. But that is also what attracts me to it, the perfect orbital nature of any potential points; never able to truely settle with their parent as that will always be repelled by other satalites. It symbolised the purest nature of the universe; the atom.

I have still come into this unprepared, i would have liked a little more time to myself before starting this, but i think that this is still a pretty good effort. Enjoy.

wow...

I understood, like, three sentences in all of that. Way to start.

Congratulations! :)

Oooh, I wish I was the one debating you. I disagree with a lot of your predicates.

I would have prefered it if you had better organised your arguments into a complete thought, a single thesis; although perhaps that's not what you're going for -- simply philosophising all over the place. That's fine too. Of course, I have a tiny bit of parliamentary debate training, so my preference is obviously for clear, concise debates about much more constricted topics rather than general navel-gazing on a vast, ill-defined subject.

Of course, you shouldn't be bothered by what I think as I'm not one of the judges. :P

Eh, i wasn't ready. I was forced into started so that this lot could have a show. I can randomly philosophise about the most innane things with not the slightest quaver or pause, and i can compile some quite solid arguments towards a single thesis, but combining the two is not something i'm adept with... It's either rational debate or chain of thought philosophy.

I can respect that!

Philosophy eh. Can't say I find that too exciting, just cuz my only philosophy is: If it's there, loot it. :arr: :P But hey, battle of the words!

like John Dorian says "Philosophy is tricky"

This is taking way too long... <_<

Well, no kidding. There should be a rule against taking so long.

Though I'll admit I spent entire days before I started posting firecely in my battle, this is just too much.

What should be the course of action, Master-of-Ceremonies Fomorian? I am losing ticket money!

I think we should party in this thread, and then maybe Phil and Alexa will start insulting us for disrupting a philosophical debate and we can vote on that.

First, I'll PM Alexa and ask whether she wants to continue. If she won't reply, I'll wait till weekend (she probably will have more time then). If she won't post on Saturday or Sunday, I'll have to announce Phuck's (couldn't help myself :P) victory by walk-over :(

EDIT: That's another way we can do this, Jagori :P

Works for me!

EVERYBODY DOWN TO THE ARENA AND PAR-TY!

[parties]

... we need some rum. And some sake.

I second that! Also: "Damn you, Karma" :P

As for the party part... I'm all in!

*brings the sake*

*takes over the dancefloor with some slick dance moves*

*wonders where he learned to dance like that*

can't we just start another batlle? :huh: . I like to party of course but i can't wait to see some action :D :P

I second that! Also: "Damn you, Karma" :P

As for the party part... I'm all in!

*brings the sake*

*takes over the dancefloor with some slick dance moves*

*wonders where he learned to dance like that*

here is a tricky philosophical question, if reaper posts the exact same post twice, but it was somehow devided by a post from another user, would it still be a double post?

The concept of a double post does require that the two posts be after each other, not that the content is the same. A person can double post by posting a quoted responce to one thing, then adding an ammendment by posting again on top of the post he already made - the posts don't actually have to have the same content.

Two posts containing the same or similar content would in fact be a duplicate post, not a double post.

However, if Reaper did it, then i think i would call it a double post just to piss him off :P.

Incidentally, the reason why this thread died is because i was waiting for Alexa to respond... It's a bit unfair if i go ahead and make a new post before she gets a chance to respond to the first one.