SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If you had big plans this weekend, David Meade regrets to inform you that the world will be ending Saturday.
Meade, a Christian numerologist and self-described "researcher," says Sept. 23 is foretold in the Bible's Book of Revelation as the day a series of catastrophic events will begin, and as a result, "a major part of the world will not be the same," the Washington Post reports.
The Bible prophecies a woman "clothed with the sun" and a "crown of 12 stars" giving birth to a boy who will "rule all the nations" while she fights off a seven-headed dragon. The woman, Meade says, is the constellation Virgo, which on Saturday will be positioned under nine stars and three planets, per Popular Mechanics.
The baby boy will be the planet Jupiter, which will be moving out of Virgo on that night.
According to Meade, who says he studied astronomy at an unspecified university in Kentucky, the great change in our world will be the result of the arrival of Nibiru, a planet famous in conspiracy circles but which astronomers say doesn't exist.
http://wnep.com/2017/09/20/researcher-says-this-saturday-will-be-the-end-of-the-world/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/09/17/the-world-as-we-know-it-is-about-to-end-again-if-you-believe-this-biblical-doomsday-claim/ (soft paywalled)
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday September 22 2017, @10:19PM (6 children)
Snowflake alert! I only regret, khallow, that you cannot default mod my posts any lower than you can. Unfortunately, you may end up reading some of what I write. Oh, you do not know what "empirical" means, in an epistemological sense.
Except, my dear and fluffy khallow, some do know it is true, and the evil genie that has gotten ahold of your thinkings is the Vienna Circle. There really is only one question, khallow, "What is the Matrix?" Empirical, you say? Interesting.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 23 2017, @12:09AM (5 children)
And one of your other well-used fallacies, argument by assertion. Your reasoning is and always has been deeply broken. Hence, my earlier call for a study of basic rhetoric.
The obvious rebuttal is that you don't know what you can't know.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday September 23 2017, @12:21AM (4 children)
I know you are, but what am I?
Ad hominem is all you got? khallow, I am deeply disappointed in you. And basic rhetoric? You do know I am Greek? We invented rhetoric, rhetoric is a Greek word, in fact. You are failing to convince even yourself here.
Oh, great, now people will have to start drinking. Does the use of your signature phrase mean you have been triggered? Well the obvious rejoinder is that just because you don't know something, that does not entail that you cannot know it. A little effort, eh. Like this concept of "property" and the notion of "desert", where do these come from? But, I can see you are tired, and a bit miffed. So take a break, khallow. You do not have to answer every post that points out your ideological intentional ignorance.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 23 2017, @01:33AM (3 children)
That's a case of the straw man fallacy. I didn't make such a claim. Recall that you asserted people "know" things without having a basis for that knowledge. I am of the opinion that such a basis can only be obtained from either internal reasoning or external observation of reality.
Our attempts to make sense of the world. This is knowledge you can know, because you can observe both the usage of the terms and the situations that the terms are employed in. And in the real world, that's how children learn the use of these terms. Further, this is an example of the red herring fallacy since these concepts are irrelevant to my post about evil deities faking reality, a scenario which is not made more or less likely, for example, by our use of the term, "desert" or the eating traditions that "desert" labels.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Accusing someone without a shred of evidence is weaker than "pointing out". A Perl script which happens to post accusations of "ideological intentional ignorance" of random people on SN would have just as much information content as your posts do and be as useful.
This is also an example of fallacy of presupposition since as noted above, you haven't bothered, ever, to establish a basis for the accusation. Notice the pattern here - three fallacies in a small post.
I use this term to indicate that someone has ignored something obvious. Hence, the "obvious rebuttal" which you should have seen coming. A real philosopher would anticipate it rather than come up with yet more logical and rhetorical fallacies after the fact. Sure, the term is insulting, but it is deserved in this case.
I am continually reminded of the tragedy/farce here. Someone who went through the effort of choosing a name of a philosopher they apparently admired, yet they can't do rudimentary philosophical debate. It has to be one of the larger anti-climaxes of SN.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday September 23 2017, @08:55AM (2 children)
C'mon, khallow! Thou dost protest too much!
I am bothered that you doubt my claim to be the actual aristarchus of Samos, with no evidence at all. Your claim of empiricism fails you. And the "obvious rebuttal" has become a meme here on SoylentNews precisely because it is khallow bringing up something that is by no means obvious. Do you think we would all be playing drinking games based on your intellectual tics, if we thought they were at all well founded?
But here is where it truly hurts:
Continually, eh? Then you should be able to cite the locus originalis of this saying! Ah, it was a famous philosopher, German, and you accuse me of being a fake? I am sorry, khallow, but the more you carry on these discussions, the more you expose yourself as an intellectual fraud. You do not know what you are talking about, and it has become more than apparent to everyone but yourself that you have no idea what I am talking about. But, you know, I am willing to continue the dialogue. I will call you names, but only deserved ones.
And, it does not matter what you say about me, because it really is simply obvious to everyone that you are not familiar with the pertinent documents of western, or any, civilization. So, Descartes, Mediations,
That is just the beginning. Meditate upon it, if you have the time or the ability.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 23 2017, @12:53PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday September 25 2017, @09:09AM
Let's not, and instead mediate on the nature of property rights. Are they features of the nature world that we can perceive and verify empirically? Or are the fictions of law, where we have to go to court to find out where they lie? And in either case, are they part of what it means to be a sovereign individual self-consciousness, or are they only allocated to serve the greater good? Really, when Marx has a commodity spin about on its head claiming it possesses intrinsic worth, well, that is not far from saying property rights are god, or nature, given. But of course, there is no such thing as property, there is only tax liability.