Two things. First of all, you contradicted yourself when you said that Ronnie was as wide as Dorian. When you failed to prove it, you changed your argument to saying that Ronnie looks as wide. This is a contradictions. It's either or. You can either prove that their lats measured the same, or you can't. I don't give a flying f**k whether you think he's just as wide; I want to see the measurements. Secondly, the burden of proof lies with those you make the claim. I never said that Dorian was wider, only that it is reasonable to expect this. You said that Ronnie was just as wide. Since this is in the imperative, I wasnt to see your proof. You haven't proven anything.
'
And yet, I keep owning you. You said I wouldn't argue with you because you would crush me intellectually. Then I wrote a long, concise explanation for why your theory is bullshit and you just ignored it. I am far more intelligent than you, and you're in shock that you're unable to respond my critique, because you know that I will crush you.
Duh! I never said my argument was the same as his. Dumbass.
How does this make my argument irrelevant? My argument is that you two are wrong for different reasons. Logic does not require any explantion, dumbass, for the same reason that numbers do not require mathematics to justify themselves. Logic is just an axiomatically-bound perception of the interaction between propoerties in a given system. You can call it universes, or relaities, or whatever.
By no means. I stand by what I said: Ronnie's brachialis were pathetic in relation to his biceps and triceps.
I'll do it if you present a rational explantion for how it is possible to accurately asses lat width with a few pics where the bodybuilders are at different angles, at different distances from the cameras, etc. Let's see, retard. I made you feel stupid by demonstrating the foolishness of your bodybuyilding as well as metaphysical knowledge as well as deductive capacity, and you now are desperately trying to say face. I think it's funny that several people, even those who are not partisand to either Dorian or Ronnie, have quoted my replies to you and wrote "owned", but I'm yet to see anyone quote your replies to em and write the same. Owned.
Get ready to get owned again. It doesen't matter, you retarded stool, because the inner and meidal triceps heads are not as visible in most shots as the lateral one. Which triceps head is visible when the bodybuilders are standing relaxed? The lateral one. In the back double biceps? The lateral one. 
The other two heads are only visible when flexing the arms freom the front, which barely matters.
Owned 
SUCKMYMUSCLE
SUCKMYMUSCLE, I posted this back on page 652 or something in response to one of your posts- you may have missed it.
Cool post, SUCKMYMUSCLE, although I really disagree with a few points. Here are some of my thoughts:
- It’s not so much that logic does not need to justify itself, rather simply logic is not able to justify itself. Something cannot justify itself, as I think you might have touched on earlier in the thread. However, the distinction- whilst it might appear trivial- is worth drawing, as talk of needs (the need to justify) seems to edge towards subjectivisation. I’m not saying that that’s necessarily a bad - and it appears as if you might be arguing down that line further in your post anyway- but it’s a distinction worth clarifying. So, do you mean to say that logic does not need to justify itself, because it can’t, or simply that logic cannot justify itself- with no attention given to needs (the need to justify is only something relative to our perception of it; justification is a process intrinsic within conscious, perceiving subjects- an external system’s behaviour does not need to be- and isn’t- justified in order to behave)? Put simply, if it’s right, then it’s right. So, I wouldn’t even bother replying to claims that logic needs to justify itself from a justification-based perspective.
- There’s another problem with asserting that something needs to be justified in order to be true (is this what NeoSeminole is arguing?). If you have a system which purports to explain basic meta-interactions, and if you hold that it needs to be justified by another system (say, a meta-system, such as the meta-logic you spoke of earlier) in order to be true, or accurate- or a weaker claim, justified in order for us to incorporate it as knowledge- then it is impossible to have a system of knowledge so long as the concept of knowledge incorporates truth, for the simple fact that it will never be justified. The system (logic) will need to be justified by the meta-system (meta-logic), which in turn will need to be justified by the meta-meta-system (meta-meta-logic) and so on, ad infinitum. Of course the end result of this is that we can never interpret the external world in such a fashion that we can arrive at a claim which we can hold to be knowledge, and an application of this claim is that we can never know the answer to this thread- was Dorian ’95/’93 better than Ronnie ‘99/’03/’01ASC?- and so anyone pushing this claim, on the one hand, and on the other, asserting that one was better than the other, has a massive global contradiction in their system of beliefs. As I said before, if logic is right, then it’s right- without it needing to be justified.
- ‘The explanation is that description only exists with defintion, and thus, you cannot describe how a system will interact if you don't define the arbitrary pattern of interactions if you don't define a priori rules that the system must follow’
I guess that description- talk about the world- can only occur with definition- and of course, as you rightly point out, descriptions of external interactions cannot exist without definitions of concepts. It does not necessarily follow, however, that these definitions (or at least some) need be arbitrary- that is, that the attitude taken is that a priori rules need be conventionalist. One could alternatively hold that the a priori rules of the universe are inherent within all of us- such as a Kantian system of beliefs- and that we don’t need to create arbitrary systems of language/logic, as the a priori axioms are, ‘known,’ to us by virtue of us being human, and all we need do is build a system from there. Possibly, one doesn’t even have to adopt this (rather extreme) view to hold that axiomatic rules are not arbitrary. It’s possible to state that there are basic laws which govern interactions in the external reality, and it is possible to know these by discovering them. These basic laws form axioms in a system of description. That is, you could deny that the axiomatic laws of the external universe are knowable a priori. In fact- you seem to conflating a priori with arbitrariness, when the two are really contradictory concepts. Perhaps you meant axiomatic?
Again, one doesn’t need to hold that logic explains things in an arbitrary manner- that is; you don’t need to say that the axioms upon which the system of logic is formed are arbitrary. You could adopt the view that they exist in the external reality as basic laws governing the behaviour of things, and that they form the axioms of the systems of descriptive language when we discover their existence and form. How do we interpret them and order them in to a system of language without arbitrariness? I have no idea, I’ll think about it.
- So, "outside" logic there is only pure abstrate an infinte potential, and the infinite possible logics that arise from that are arbitrarilly determined "perceptions" of how these potentials interact.
What do you mean by this? What is abstrate, and potential in this context?
You could adopt the view that cause/effect does exist outside its explanatory system, only in a real, non-abstract form. That is, we use language to build the concept of the law of cause and effect which describes interactions which exist outside of our heads. So, cause and effect might very well be a basic law of the universe governing the behaviour of the interactions of things; the law of cause and effect is our attempt to interpret and describe it- but the basic law occurred long before our formulation of it in to words, and will exist long after.
- So cause and effect does not really exist axcept as an arbitrary, a priori created language that describes these patterns of interactions, which are nonp-arbitrary "inside" the systmes that it rules, but which is arbitrary to meta-logic.
If I’m reading this correctly, this is a very strange sentence. How can a language be both arbitrary and a priori? The definition of a priori is that it is knowable before sense-perception (I’m sure you know this). How can we formulate a system of language which is both arbitrary, and knowable before sense perception? One needs sense perception in order to form conventions and arrive at an arbitrary system. It’s like saying that mathematics is built on a system of a priori truths; this means that they are universal laws which we are able to know before sense perception. Yet, if it is also arbitrary, then it implies that it is conventionalised- simply agreed upon and arrived at.
Further, cause and effect might well exist outside of any system of logic, meta-logic or language- it might be ‘real’. So, perhaps you should clarify whether you mean cause and effect in the sense of our definition of it, or of some objective, external concept?
- Just because no one knows what the essence of reality is (what on earth does this mean, anyway?), doesn’t logically imply that it isn’t possible to know.
- If we embrass my theory, we could simply define the smallest particle possible as a "potential", and the infinte patterns of arbitrary interactions between these potential give rise to infinte realities, governed by infinite rules, or by no rules at all
Way out of sequence, I don’t think this logically follows at all. What you’re saying is that the amount of realities hinges upon some infinite amount of possible arbitrary interpretations- idealism at its most naked. You should explain your theory more extensively, so we can see what it implies, and upon what it is based.
- logic = language = description = perception = defintion.
Are you giving an order to this, or merely equating them? Obviously, they are all not the same thing, so I assume you use ‘=’ in place of ‘implies.’ If this is the case, then this is a gross generalisation and once applied to context, doesn’t hold in many situations.
- And why is it even relevant, since, at the basest level, we could simply define the sammles particel possible as "potential", or, better yet, "definition”
I agree that we don’t need to know where it ends to postulate a smallest possible particle called a potential, yet what do you mean by equating this with definition? This is grossly conflating the subjective and objective components of perception. The potential exists, independent from any definition of its existence.
- it doesen't matter, because at the end it's all a matter of definition and perception: reality exists because there is a lowest, unknown definition of the potentials that create it, and infinte possible realities that transcend logic.
What’s all a matter of definition and perception? Reality exists because reality exists, and because it came in to existence, end of story. Again, just because something is unknown, does not imply that it cannot be known. Further, reality does not exist because there are infinite possible realities that transcend logic. The fact that there are infinite possible realities is merely a consequence of reality existing.
- The answer is that the cause-and-effect rule that governs our physical reality is an arbitrary "perception" of potentials that are governed by meta-logic
Weird- perception isn’t arbitrary.
- I don’t think that you’ve demonstrated that logic is an illusion, or arbitrary at all. I gave some possible alternatives above.
Let me leave you with a question- do you acknowledge that the system you are attempting to build is quite a blatant form of idealism? I’m not using this offensively of course- idealism isn’t a dirty word. But I’d just like to know how you see your system so I can understand it better.
