@Lrigytirev@sisyphus_pr1me Not only that, but you hide because psuedointellectual cowardice; you haven't ANYTHING remotely logically sanewhen it comes to philosophical arguments and pretty much just said you were rolling in the dirt with the confetti. But the confetti was mine, and you want my spotlight.
@Lrigytirev@sisyphus_pr1me I've dismantled your every claim with evidence that it's nothing but projection; you called me a Markov chain, then stopped thinking about the past. You inplied me to have inferior intellect, you claimed humility but admitted you just wanted to stroke your ego. You are a phony.
@Lrigytirev@sisyphus_pr1me Then you have no humility; you're not superior to me if this is how you act. I won this when you stopped actually making logical arguments.
@Lrigytirev@sisyphus_pr1me If I'm not to expect decorum, then why would one claim superior intellect?? Anyone reasonable would have walked away if I were intellectually inferior to them. But wait, you can't! Because your ego gets in the way.
@Lrigytirev@sisyphus_pr1me By the way: someone with epistemological humility wouldn't use their "epistemological humility" against someone for an argument.
@Lrigytirev@sisyphus_pr1me you are an absolute failure to philosophy so far. I can recognize I'm flawed, as shown because I literally have to reread and redefine several times to hopefully try to see your point under all of that visual noise.
@Lrigytirev@sisyphus_pr1me Where did this come from? Can you bring up something relevant, please? Talk about a Markov chain, huh? Not even 1st-5th order. Just spouting shit.
@Lrigytirev@sisyphus_pr1me Acting like this saves you🤯 your argument is still psuedointellectual nonsense. Even if I was a third order Markov chain, or further, I'm still not thinking about the present alone. I'm actively rereading and realizing new concepts upon doing so, not mindlessly repeating.
@Lrigytirev@sisyphus_pr1me "vacuously true" means that the original premise was already false or impossible by default, the thus the Conclusion is true but only because the beginning is impossible. Since there's nothing to disprove the first statement, the second is therefore true only because: no proof.
@Lrigytirev@sisyphus_pr1me you're just throwing in buzzwords; you are an *epistemological* failure. burn the book you're reading, you don't understand a damn thing in it😭🙏Niggas read one philosophy book and think they're fucking Socrates reincarnate