The Second Titanic Will Apparently Be Built

Yeah, but then I play to win, not fairly.

There's no real substitute for the term, though "theory of argument" comes close.

Yeah, that's true, but the function of truth isn't as black and white as that statement makes it seem.

Worth is, of course, subjective, and the claim made by Mosh was (on and off again) about worth, but there are also factually/logically invalid claims he's made. There are some things that we can establish as certainties, and one of them is that all people who have lived have necessarily lived in order for the world to exist as it does.

If I tried to remember every time that someone called me arrogant, I'd have no room left for anything else.

It's completely relevant.

How?
@Kali, guess I got my answer.

If you acknowledge that any one of those famous figures not existing would leave us in a completely different situation today than we are currently, then you agree the butterfly effect is real.

I've already agreed the butterfly effect is most likely real. However, its still a theory, and in the end THIS is the present, and it doesn't matter what could have happened, because it didn't happen.

If that was genuinely sarcasm, which I seriously doubt, then it was wildly inappropriate and couldn't have aided you in any way.

Even Ler realized the disgusting and incorrect nature of your argument.

That's not true at all. I've heard your ridiculous nonsense plenty of times; but generally speaking the only people who talk about "world unity" or discuss how they think they've stumbled across some unique, new worldview when they spout "babby's first nihilism" are children. Nothing is new about anything you've said. Nothing about it is surprising.

It's juvenile, and extremely annoying. I look at the kind of thing you said earlier and don't even know where to begin critiquing it, because engaging in that kind of critique requires educating you on so many other topics and correcting so many flawed ideas that it's damn near unfathomable.

Instead of trying to correct every absurd thing that you, in your youthful ignorance, have simply assumed to be right, I work from the ground up. Establish that the fundamental premises on which you base your worldview are incorrect, and the rest should happen on its own. What I failed to realize, and continue to forget, is that you don't care about the validity of the fundamental premises on which you base your worldview, or perhaps you're just too ignorant to know better.

Fixing you is out of the question, especially for someone like me. Hopefully the school system can, no doubt with considerable effort, drill the smallest modicum of sense into your brain. But as for me, I'll content myself with pointing out your stupidity where I see fit and otherwise leave you to wallow in your ignorance.

Yeah, you would make an excellent politician, and you would at least be somewhat competent and bearable compared to other politicians in the US.

Sometimes we(or at least I) have to simplify reality in order to make it possible to write down. This is what I generally believe, though their may be exceptions.

Couldn't agree more.

Well that's somewhat disturbing, but probably not far from the truth.

Ahem, like I said, it's actually quite important to look at what might have been/happened if certain events had not taken place or altered, in order to understand our world and current situation and in order to avoid seemingly small mistakes that turned out to be catastrophic.

Thank you for your always insightful and flawless opinion. I once again am left speechless and you have reinforced my opinion that you are, in fact, god in disguise.

Impostor.

In a legitimate response to your post, I'm sorry if I made it sound like I discovered some new world view, I know that's not true. Its really not a world view, its just my personal beliefs and ideals. EVERYONE has personal beliefs and ideals, and in fact it was you, Shaw, and Demondaze that convinced me more to follow my views than search for a "label". I still say my ECONOMIC beliefs are in state socialism, but my moral and ethical views are my own.
@Warburg, I'll respond to your post when I get back on the forums, in like a couple hours. I kept meaning to get to it but I haven't yet.

Meh.

And like I said, you can think about it, sure. Thinking about it should be encouraged. But thinking too much into it, thinking "Hey if I had done this thing or passed this test would I be a millionaire right now?" can drive you crazy. Sure, other things could have happened. The key word there is COULD HAVE. But, they didn't. So why should I try to analyze what might have been. Instead, I'll say "Well, I should have passed that test, oh well, I will next time" and move on from it. I've learned from my mistake, but I haven't tortured myself thinking that I have all of a sudden changed the world, because we shouldn't think like that. You live, and you die. What you need to do is think about what you are doing, and what you plan to do. If you waste away all your time contemplating what you could do, before you know it you will pass away and not accomplish anything major.
Sure, we as humans effect the world, but how do we know how we effect the world? NOW is the present. We will never know what could have happened, we will never know how different are lives are in some alternate reality. What we do know is what we are now, what we have now, who we are now. We know what we want to do at this moment in time. And we should think about that, instead of thinking about what may have been.

Everything in moderation. If you do anything too much, you're eventually going to get a bit wierd.
You are indeed repeating yourself a lot.(over the posts)
I don't really care anymore, because Kali has pretty much countered better than me, and anything I say from here on would just be repeating and rather boring.

Repetition happens to be very important in arguments. It drives the point home. And its hard not to repeat myself when you ask virtually the same questions every time.

You would get along well with CG.

Who? I know who CG is, I mean who would get along well with him?

Both you and CG seem to have this thing against speculating about what could have happened.

I enjoy speculation. I don't use the theory in an argument.

Yes, but there is a difference between driving your argument home and repeating yourself more obviously. Listeners(or in this case readers) will often become less receptive when you repeat yourself too often, because it will seem like you aren't moving along with the development of the argument and only have a couple of points(or whatever you call it) to back up your claim. I do actually know about the theories behind argumentation, though I loathe to tie myself to it/them when arguing with a person.

Its impossible not to repeat myself when you keep asking the same questions....none of us have anything knew to add to this debate besides ad hominem, which Kali seems an expert at.