Kastrup crybabies out of debate

[Scholar]

 

Oh man, complete twitteritis.
 

[Princess Arabia]

5 minutes ago, Scholar said:

 

Oh man, complete twitteritis.
 

This just came up on my YT feed cause I'm subscribed to Curt's Channel. 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Princess Arabia

[Sigrun]

I can't but wonder how socially inept one has to be to not expect a negative reaction from the person one just insinuated who's worldview is founded in "grotesque theoretical fantasies"

Whether Bernardo is right or not about Tim's worldview being grounded in grotesque theoretical fantasies, the fact that he threw a temper tantrum after Tim responded with "that was silly" really highlights Bernardo's social ineptitude.

[Leo Gura]

He should have said:

"How dare you! You physicalist rat!"

Edited October 4, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, Sigrun said:

"grotesque theoretical fantasies"

Best description of science I've ever heard.

[undeather]

That was a painful watch. 
Bernardo had tougher debates than someone saying "this was stupid" to his face.
Not the best performance of my man. 


 

Edited October 4, 2023 by undeather

[Leo Gura]

15 hours ago, undeather said:

Bernardo had tougher debates than someone saying "this was stupid" to his face.

Exact saying was: "That was silly."

Note to self: Think twice before calling Bernardo an idealist rat. He might cry.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Sigrun]

16 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Best description of science I've ever heard.

Be that as it may, how Bernardo behaved is equivalent to a kindergartner going up to another kindergartner and hitting him with a stick, and when he gets pushed away and falls on his butt, he starts throwing a temper tantrum crying injustice

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, Sigrun said:

Be that as it may, how Bernardo behaved is equivalent to a kindergartner going up to another kindergartner and hitting him with a stick, and when he gets pushed away and falls on his butt, he starts throwing a temper tantrum crying injustice

That's how fragile egos are.

[Juan]

  I cannot go to a war with someone who gets offended this easily. Recently I’ve been watching some comedy episodes of Kill Tony and if you know what’s up in there, you REALLY need to prepare your self-esteem cuz the roasting there is BRUTAL. 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Juan

[Leo Gura]

Curt's problem is that he's too nice!

Haha!

All that niceness will get you deluded, not Awake.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Jodistrict]

Bishop Berkeley  was able to take the heat even when things got physical.  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone

[UnbornTao]

Goes to show they're dealing with beliefs and assumptions and defending them.

Edited October 5, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

The New Yorker energy probably threw him off. It's not always what is being said, but how it's being said that can determine the perceived civility of the discussion. Bernardo said (after a long string of civil argumentation) "[...] willing to entertain sometimes grotesque theoretical fantasies [...]" in a very calm and laid-back tone, while Tim opened with "that's silly!" as if he had been coming off a sprint and went on to say things like "what do you even mean by physical realism?! ". Of course, on a purely analytical level and stripped from all contextual nuance, what Bernardo said in the beginning was pretty much equivalent to what Tim responded with. You can say that the pure substance of what was said by both was not civil (and that Bernardo started it), but the emotional tone and general presentation was completely different. Bernardo did of course get (overly) emotional in response, but that's because Tim was additionally not being civil in the emotional sense. A part of the point of being civil is to not create excess noise that clouds the underlying points, and the emotional tone is a big part of that.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Scholar]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The New Yorker energy probably threw him off. It's not always what is being said, but how it's being said that can determine the perceived civility of the discussion. Bernardo said (after a long string of civil argumentation) "[...] willing to entertain sometimes grotesque theoretical fantasies [...]" in a very calm and laid-back tone, while Tim opened with "that's silly!" as if he had been coming off a sprint and went on to say things like "what do you even mean by physical realism?! ". Of course, on a purely analytical level and stripped from all contextual nuance, what Bernardo said in the beginning was pretty much equivalent to what Tim responded with. You can say that the pure substance of what was said by both was not civil (and that Bernardo started it), but the emotional tone and general presentation was completely different. Bernardo did of course get (overly) emotional in response, but that's because Tim was additionally not being civil in the emotional sense. A part of the point of being civil is to not create excess noise that clouds the underlying points, and the emotional tone is a big part of that.

To be fair though, Bernardo has a passive aggressive arrogance about him that can be more infuriating than someone being openly mocking. It's mockery veiled as civility, pretending to be noble when it is just as demeaning.

[Sigrun]

59 minutes ago, Scholar said:

To be fair though, Bernardo has a passive aggressive arrogance about him that can be more infuriating than someone being openly mocking. It's mockery veiled as civility, pretending to be noble when it is just as demeaning.

I agree, however in my mind there is still the possibility that Bernardo is just so severely autistic that he doesn't even have an implicit understanding of what an insinuation is and that he is simply unaware that he just made a very mocking and demeaning insinuation, however I'd put my chips on him just being a passive aggressive asshole with a very fragile ego.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Sigrun

[jakee]

Bernardos reflections on the matter: https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2023/10/my-unfortunate-attempt-at-debating-tim.html

 

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Sigrun said:

I agree, however in my mind there is still the possibility that Bernardo is just so severely autistic that he doesn't even have an implicit understanding of what an insinuation is and that he is simply unaware that he just made a very mocking and demeaning insinuation, however I'd put my chips on him just being a passive aggressive asshole with a very fragile ego.

Actually, what Bernardo (usually) means by "theoretical fantasies" in the context of interpretations of QM, especially the many-worlds interpretation, is quite specific: they're based on zero empirical evidence. In other words, they're merely theoretical and not grounded in "reality" (empirical tests), and are thus "fantasies". So in this context, "theoretical fantasies" is not simply a blind dismissal or cheap insult, but it's rather descriptive of the problems with the theories. But of course, it can come off as insulting if you don't know what he is referring to.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Jodistrict]

The real lesson here is that philosophy won't get you to liberation.

[Sigrun]

@Carl-Richard What do you think "grotesque" means? As in, what context would you use it in, and what is it synonymous with in your mind?