MyAnimeList.net

katsucats's Anime List | katsucats's Manga List
katsucats's Profile

katsucats's Details
Yesterday, 5:22 PM
Male
Los Angeles, California
katsureview.wordpress...
October 25, 2012
Member
4,000
381
146
10,398 (Find All)
Last List Updates
Fate/stay night: Unlimited Blade Works (TV) add
Completed at 12 of 12
Fate/stay night: Unlimited Blade Works (TV) - Prologue add
Completed at 1 of 1
Shigatsu wa Kimi no Uso add
Completed at 22 of 22

Anime Stats

Time (Days) 129.6
 
Watching 22
 
Completed 385
 
On Hold 15
 
Dropped 36
 
Plan to Watch 13
 
Total Entries 471
 

Anime compatibility with katsucats is:
Unknown :(
 %

katsucats's Random Anime

Manga Stats

Time (Days) 0.0
 
Reading 0
 
Completed 0
 
On Hold 0
 
Dropped 0
 
Plan to Read 0
 
Total Entries 0
 

Manga compatibility with katsucats is:
Unknown :(
 %

katsucats's Random Manga
No manga to randomly pick.

About katsucats
Well, there's nothing more annoying than huge blank spaces where ads are supposed to be all over the forums. I guess that was the nail in the coffin. Surely, they can find web developers who aren't holdovers from the era of black hat porn/warez sites that plaster ads all over the fucking screen. I guess not. I guess that's why I'm studying to be a computer scientist/engineer. Easy fucking money. You could be incompetent and still make bank.






katsucats's Comments
Displaying 15 of 265 Comments
PoeticJustice | 03-11-15, 12:26 AM
Wow dude, you're amazing.

MiniSiets | 01-07-15, 4:18 PM
Do you cringe as much as I do every time someone makes a remark like, "I rate 60% based on quality and 40% based on enjoyment."

SuperHands | 12-24-14, 5:10 PM
Happy Christmas my intellectual G, Katsucats.

Cream | 12-06-14, 8:52 PM
Rape is bad. Be ashamed.

Cream | 12-06-14, 12:55 AM
Why do you like Roberto?

Autocrat | 11-02-14, 9:54 AM
We have reached a mutual understanding. I no longer consider myself a theist. I consider myself an atheist, and I assert that no God exists.

Autocrat | 11-01-14, 3:58 PM
It's a different ball game when we assert that no God exists. So, we are focusing on the conception of God commonly conceived of by Western religions. Rejecting their claim is natural when there is no demonstrable evidence for their claim, but now we must provide demonstrable evidence ourselves to be taken seriously. If we assert that the conception of God that these believers hold is false, then the axiomatic evidence we can provide allows us to assume that their God does not exist as in accord with our current understanding of the universe.

But if we take away the context that religions ascribe to these metaphysical entities that supposedly have power over nature or human fortunes and look at this definition of their God in itself, and then try to assert the non-existence of said entities, how would you proceed? Is there still sufficient evidence?

Autocrat | 11-01-14, 5:05 AM
Indeed.

Your intersubjective sandbox analogy was quite effective in conveying how mutual understanding can only be met through a common ground. We each stand to see different angles of the nature of reality, subject to the experiences that we hold independently. These unsupported exchanges of rhetoric and opinion do not help ascertain the nature of the subject for both parties, but rather, either exhaust peoples' attempts to communicate their opinions or end up convincing the other party groundlessly - both being results that make a mockery of logic and reasoning.

It is when a person initiates a discussion with the intention of furthering their understanding through communication, and yet ends up challenging the assertions of others whilst not backing up their own claims, that a contradiction is created between the intention of the person and effects of their actions. The actions they choose should be consistent with their intention, otherwise the act is contradictory; the logic does not follow. And it is there, that the irony is found.

I got it wrong. The burden of proof isn't a logical principle, it is a scientific principle - a way to methodically construct the advancement of claims when we cannot place precedence on any unsupported assertion in itself. By looking at what the assertion lacks or has in terms of evidence as backing, we can make a more informed judgment regrading its projected truth-value. Just from writing and thinking about this I am seeing more sense to it.

I also watched this video on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN2Kc6NZOsw

I am also seeing a lot of silliness in being a theist. I have no way to measure or demonstrate the credibility of theism, all I have is a subjective opinion that holds no scientific reliability. I don't claim there is no God, but I reject the claim that there is no God and ask for evidence of a theist's claim, there. If they cannot proceed in this line of reasoning except to throw out fallacious reasoning then there is no discursive and scientific value of examining their claim. We will proceed with skepticism, improving our scientific model, but despite the dead-end that is often hit with theists, we must also consider the social implications of these individuals' unscientific thinking that threatens the the strength of our scientific model we use to operate in advancing our understanding of things; the most effective we know. If we can avoid needless problems due to faulty understandings of the world, then I must say I commend the maturity of some of the atheists out there for attempting to give order to all people - people that science's wings provide and exist for.


How was that?

Autocrat | 10-31-14, 4:16 PM
Hi. I thought I would ask you about the burden of proof, as I've been struggling to see its due credibility. I don't think it merits a thread, and you were always keen about your logic.

It seems really arbitrary to me. It's as if the idea was put out there just to give order and law to debates, having no real reason for its rightness. It doesn't seem fallacious to go against the burden of proof. We can understand how claiming an aspect of a person's character discredits their argument is irrelevant and fallacious, but where is the clear-cut logic in the burden of proof?

Really, I've not 'researched this to death' - maybe I could be said to be lazy, there - but I'd appreciate some clarity on the nature of this logical principle.

Cheers man.

Amia | 10-27-14, 9:38 AM
katsucats said:
(..)He should just stay still, and let nihilism lead him to inevitable demise (suicide by inaction), or until he gets a goal.


That first part wasn't very motivating (for him), haha.

M_F_M | 09-02-14, 3:59 AM
Dont you mean under the bed? ._.

midnightblade | 09-01-14, 5:16 PM
What did you think of High School Dx D? I have not watched that anime, but I find the OP/ED very...ahem... O.O

Anmoly97 | 08-26-14, 9:47 AM
god damn mate, your forum avatar got me. I thought there was a new forum position or something.

IlluminatLi | 08-25-14, 1:59 AM
Wow, thank you very much for sharing that!
It is another perspective. You have given me so many new approaches to this, I might need some time to digest it and to build up some new ideas on that as a fundament.

Having read your text made me think that it's maybe really just a vicious circle and that there are really no goals in philosophy.
This is a rather personal question: If you already know of the stage of mental paralysis resulting from nihilism, how have you managed to evade that state? Maybe it's just my personal problem, but it seems pretty much impossible to get out of that once you're in.

DerpHole | 08-19-14, 5:41 AM
I see your avatar is switching between fonts on the "forum antagonist" thing.

From skimming through the code, it seems the site uses Verdana & Arial fonts. Arial looks like the one you want.

Write a Comment
Advertising     FAQ     About     Contact     Terms     Privacy