Philosophers aren't just people that state possible facts about life.
A philosopher can just be a person that asks very deep questions.

Just look up recent philosophers and you'd see.

None takin, like i said, not my ball park



4. Thats how science works, you use scenarios to prove or disprove things (the word for it is evidence)
5. my original #5 was the same thing as #4
6. You cant just keep writing of evidence saying its "ranting" and claim that i have no evidence...
7.1 what happens in a scenario is EVIDENCE, it is a from of evidence that is used in something called debate

Edit: Hold on.... how is the fact that animals have or can learn languages because they do or have a scenario that i have created... ITS HAPPENED... same goes for alot of what i said...
God thanks man... now i feel dumb for even bothering to argue with ur lil conjecture argument... ur a buzz killer


This post was edited by DarkestLight on Sep 28 2009 05:39pm

LOL
you dont make up scenarios and say theyre evidence. you make OBSERVATIONS and call them evidence
stick to computers man

This post was edited by Kamikizzle on Sep 28 2009 05:49pm

As i just said

Edit: Hold on.... how is the fact that animals have or can learn languages because they do or have a scenario that i have created... ITS HAPPENED... same goes for alot of what i said...
God thanks man... now i feel dumb for even bothering to argue with ur lil conjecture argument... ur a buzz killer

Every animal can think, and every animal can learn languages.
Just cause you can't speak a language doesn't mean they don't know it.

You teach a dog to sit, so when you say sit, it sits. It learned a word from your language.

I dont see the point ur making, Im just saying that im not just using conjecture because evidence such as the fact that animals have language (witch is heavily denied by dumb asses) is not conjecture

youve gotten so far off track that you seem to have forgotten that i commented on this already. these communication skills are evidence that animals are capable of learning. but JUST because they are capable doesnt mean that humans arnt better at it, making our species unique. this was MY original point

Hold on arnt you getting off track here?
im showing that my EVIDENCE is not some shitty conjecture by listing an example of evidence i have used.

And ur original plan seems dumb because it says nothing other then there is evidence that humans are not special BUT im cocky as fuck so i think humans are better anyways.

this is the first thing i said. in my first topic.
at any rate. im through. ive made my points, and after thorough use of this forum, my experience has taught me once you recycle back to having to prove the point you had originally proven, its time to stop

Dude im proving a point u made wrong, you said i had no evidence so i listed evidence that i had stated already that you conveniently agreed with... its only time to stop because ur lacking an argument lol