Oxymorons

[vicente]

Oxymoron: contradictions or direct oppositions within a single phrase

Positive Belief
Present Time
real energy
Religious Tolerance
Transcendental God
Unconditional belief
Here and Now
Natural theology
Knowledge of the past was once the present

[sylph]

Holy war

[rich]

sweet and sour
bittersweet
:unsure:

[Hellas-goldie]

Another greek compound word.
Oxymoron =Ïîýìùñï (with greek letters)
It is consisted of two words : Oxis=Sharp and Moros=fool
So the exact meaning is something like sharp foolishness, a phrase that carries a clever message through its ostensible silliness.
A most common oxymoron used here is the ''Run slowly'' :D

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Hellas-goldie@Dec 2 2003, 02:18 AM
So the exact meaning is something like sharp foolishness, a phrase that carries a clever message through its ostensible silliness.
A most common oxymoron used here is the ''Run slowly'' :D
Goes to show that any 'thang', even 'oxymorons', may be either 'appreciated' or 'reviled' depending on how it is 'subjectively' viewed and related to. Strikes me as being a personal 'choice': whether to 'see' the 'liquid' in the glass as being 'good' (or 'plenty') or 'bad' or (or 'not enough') to love-joyfully drink.

Still electing to be a 'reviler', aye, vicente? Given that 'mood' affects 'perception', my thought is something which you personally (subjectively) ex·peer·ience[d] as 'terrible' has put/left you in a very 'bad' mood, buddy. Must have been a really awful ex·peer·ience.

Hey, let it go, man. Wipe off that scowl, and c'mon in. The water's really wine, and there's a great party happenin' ! :lol:

The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to . . ., another to ...: And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:2-14)

I hope you don't get hung up on the 'painful' stuff in the quote. Take care of yourself - your wedding garment sucks, bro ...

[vicente]

Once again DavidS, instead of discussing the message, it's kill the messenger. I do sometimes wonder what a Republican type, that is, someone into truth suppression, is doing on this board. Of course, your reply here, by itself, could be clinically considered schizophrenic,...I mean, what does your post possibly have in common with the oxymorons presented?

It's almost as if I can hear your prayers at night:
"I saw a man upon the stair
a little man who was not there
he wasn't there again today
gee, I wish he go away"

As for Bible quotes, as a once Religious Studies major, I quite enjoy them. Of course, me being a bastard, I've already been thrown into the outer darkness, without chance of parole, because of parents (Deu 23:2), which is probably a good thing, because, as in Gen 38:9-10, your god would have killed me for spilling my seed years ago.

Republican Techniques for Truth Suppression (guidelines taught at NRP sponsored Right-wing workshops)

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press.

Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "leftist", "commie", "kook," "crackpot", and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

Dismiss the charges as "old news."

Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

:)

[zygoat]

JUMBO SHRIMP
COLD AS HELL
TRUE LIES
CIVIL WAR
SAME DIFFERENCE
PRETTY UGLY
GOOD GRIEF
ICY HOT
ONE HUNDRED AND TEN PERCENT
RANDOM ORDER
and the ever popular
ISLAM IS A PEACEFUL RELIGION

[sonrisa]

So Random, r u orderly? :P

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Dec 2 2003, 10:10 AM
what does your post possibly have in common with the oxymorons presented?
It's the 'tone' or 'nature' of your fault-finding and fault-carping 'spirit' which I was giving you feedback on, dude - that (spirit) 'sucks' as a 'wedding'-celebration garment - it looks-n-feels like you're just about always 'raining' an other-denigrating 'black cloud' label-shower on an endless series of 'faulty' attention-'targets'. A real curmudgeon 'character' who apparently likes and enjoys and wants nothing more than to continue to be such a curmudgeon, you (i my 'view') are.
:)

[a random hack]

nope, but i am an aussie moron ;)

[sonrisa]

an Aussie, true, but I wouldn't consider you a moron.....however.....
:D I will defer to your superior knowledge of yourself :D

ps, happy b'day mate!
(jic I forget to post it tomorrow!)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by vicente@Dec 2 2003, 12:10 PM
Of course, your reply here, by itself, could be clinically considered schizophrenic,...I mean, what does your post possibly have in common with the oxymorons presented?


Vicente, perhaps the post itself is the oxymoron.... B)

[Kya]

If I could just say about the subtitle for this thread, that contradictions do not veil reality.

Perhaps even that nothing veils reality.

. . . that two apparently "true" things existing at the same time is quite "real."

. . . that all is paradox.

. . . that mathematics is beautiful, but unanswerable for everything. at least it is listening to the music of the spheres.

Fans of metaphysics and veil-dancing Maya will no doubt un-appreciate this.

[vicente]

Fans of metaphysics and veil-dancing Maya will no doubt un-appreciate this.

Actually, I'm not quite sure what was in that post to appreciate, or unappreciate.

Yes, contradictions do veil reality,...that's a no brainer.

. . . that two apparently "true" things existing at the same time is quite "real."

That is a false statement. It is impossible for two true things to exist at the same time.

Nor would I call mathematics,...that is, a belief in numbers, be beautiful?

Music does not exist outside the nature of things,...and as nature is not real, why waste one's attention on it?

Perhaps mathematicians will no doubt un-appreciate that,...but that's what denial does.

Vicente
:)

[sahyo]

. . . that all is paradox.

"paradox" not

:)

[Kya]

Yes, contradictions do veil reality,...that's a no brainer.


. . . and that, I see as deeply simplistic. But then our human craving (to crave and not crave) for order and meaning/no meaning shall always have us to simplify.

It is impossible for two true things to exist at the same time.

The Tao Teh Ching is full of these. Bend, my friend, and you will be whole. :)

Actually the World is full of these things, but there is no use pointing them out if nature itself is considered "illusion" (. . . and so "illusion" may be considered illusion as well!)

Music does not exist outside the nature of things,...and as nature is not real, why waste one's attention on it?


. . . and here is the "un-appreciation" I spoke of regarding fans of metaphysics and veil-dancing Maya . . . .

I have been to the "east," so to speak and back again. I think maybe this is too gentle a place of one-liners, one-hand-clappings and gentle buddhas for me. You are all fine people. Some "awakenings" are very sleepy indeed! There's paradox for you :)

[sahyo]

There's paradox for you

when kya thinking'about' ceases, thinkingparadox will cease

:)

[Kya]

There's paradox for you
when kya thinking'about' ceases, thinkingparadox will cease


Nothing paradoxical about that, asheera. That's the basic math of annhilation.

[vicente]

There are, from a conceptual point of view, two maths,...a sciential math, based on the idea that objects are real, which is insanely fearful of Zero; and sapiential math, which is Zero.

Duality, the domain of sciential math, arises from the idea of One and Many. To have One, there must be a Many; just like to have a Center there must be an Edge.

Truth is Changeless. There is no truth in time. Time is not Changeless. Not only is it "impossible for two true things to exist at the same time", it is impossible for one true thing to exist in time. Truth is in the Now, and there is no Now in time,...time is always moving-spinning. That is very frightful to mathematicians. Their logic is based on 1; yet 1 is a concept within the illusion; within the Dream.

Wholeness is not 1. Oneness defines its reality by whats around it. Thus, no matter how hard mathematicians try, Wholeness will never be realized. Wholeness is not a union of opposites, nor in any way accessed through 1.

Yes,...some awakenings are very sleepy indeed.

Yet as John DeRuiter said:

Waking up is not necessarily pleasant:
you get to see
why all this time,
you chose to sleep.

When you wake up
the first thing you will see is
Reality does not exist for you,
you exist for it.

Shocking as it is
when you let it in,
there is rest.

You do not have to labor anymore
to hold together a reality
that does not exist;
forcing something to be real
that is not real.

You and this life you have been living
are not real ...
In letting it in,
even through the shock... pain... shattering,
there is rest.

Reality is when
all you want to know is
what is true ...
just so that you can
let it in
and be true.

Reality is not a safe place for you -
the you that you have created.
It is the only place where
you would die;
where there is no room for
your hopes, your dreams.

Once you have let it in,
once you begin to re-awaken;
to let Reality wake you up,
nothing can get it out.

That is the beginning of your end.
Waking up can be much more painful
than the agony of your dream,
but waking up is real ...
And there will be integration:
a merging of Reality and you.

John de Ruiter
February, 2000
Edmonton, Canada

[sahyo]

Originally posted by Kya@Jan 2 2004, 09:21 AM



There's paradox for you

when kya thinking'about' ceases, thinkingparadox will cease


Nothing paradoxical about that, asheera. That's the basic math of annhilation.



did response "when kya thinking'about' ceases, thinkingparadox will cease" say was paradox?

how can "annhilation" which not?

[sonrisa]

perhaps reality is the ultimate illusion after all....

[slayer]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Jan 23 2004, 07:00 PM
perhaps reality is the ultimate illusion after all....


There are some things one shouldn't let go unpunished.

How can reality be an illusion? I think you need to check your closest Webster's.

Perhaps if you start a sentence with "perhaps" you can claim any ridiculous thing, because then, of course, no one can hold you accountable for making a laughably ignorant claim.

Although "perhaps" doesn't save you, Sonrisa, because your claim is self-contradictory, with or without "perhaps." Why? Because "perhaps" means "well, it might be at least possible", but unfortunately for you it's not even possible that reality is an illusion, just like it's impossible to imagine a square-circle.

Perhaps Santa Claus is real,

slayer

[sonrisa]

yeah, so's tooth fairy.

[slayer]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Jan 29 2004, 11:14 AM
yeah, so's tooth fairy.

Although this post is of no philosophical significance, I thought it would be worthwhile to post just because this might mark the first time someone was so painfully intellectually disrobed that her only response available was bad sarcasm.

Thank you, Sonrisa, for making public your embarrassment.

Reality by definition is not illusion.

Illusion by definition is not reality.

Hence, "perhaps reality is the ultimate illusion" is the epitome of nonsense.

It would be refreshing if people would respond to the attack made upon their claims. The obvious reason why this doesn't happen often on this site is because people have poor reasons, which would be exposed as such, for their positions.

Uhmmmm, I have nothing intelligent to say so I'll just say, "yeah, so's the tooth fairy",

slayer



slayer

[sonrisa]

:lol: I'm sposed to be embarrassed?!!? B) Funny I don't feel embarrassed. :think:

but then I'm not the one posting obnoxious insults to everybody else who posts on this site. So did it ever occur to you that perhaps folx are doing the polite thing & ignoring you & your specious remarks? No wait, you're not polite, are you? Why I bet you don't even know the meaning of the word! As for me, I think you're fun, if a bit crude & shallow. But don't worry, when you start to become more tedious than amusing, I'll start ignoring you too. :)

ta! :ph34r:

[slayer]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Jan 29 2004, 04:21 PM
:lol: I'm sposed to be embarrassed?!!? B) Funny I don't feel embarrassed. :think:

but then I'm not the one posting obnoxious insults to everybody else who posts on this site. So did it ever occur to you that perhaps folx are doing the polite thing & ignoring you & your specious remarks? No wait, you're not polite, are you? Why I bet you don't even know the meaning of the word! As for me, I think you're fun, if a bit crude & shallow. But don't worry, when you start to become more tedious than amusing, I'll start ignoring you too. :)

ta! :ph34r:

No, actually, what did occur to me was that most people who post here aren't very bright and can't hold their own.

I'm sorry for calling a stupid claim stupid. I'm sorry for calling an obvious anti-American mind an anti-American. I'm sorry if you think me calling you simple or stupid seems more offensive to you than someone who tries to bad-mouth America, especially with poor arguments. I find your opinions offensive and dangerous. This is why I respond to them, to expose the stupidity inherent in them and to expose your anti-American leaning.

You're wrong about no one responding to my posts; I've had several replies. I've also had a private reply from Jao, who was trying to defend your moroning "perhaps reality is the ultimate illusion" claim. Don't worry, I set him straight.

Of course he didn't respond in the public forum. I won't speculate why. You have attempted to argue with me, and you've done absolutely nothing in the way of supporting any of the claims you've made. All you do is say "you're not polite" and "you're obnoxious" and whah whah whah.

Here, I'll give you reason to never respond to me again. That way no one will ever wonder: Hell, why don't they just take this idiot on and show everyone how wrong he is? Well, we both know why you especially don't do this -- because you can't.

Oh, here's what I was in the middle of promising you: You're an idiot. You have no grasp on reality, even now after I've explained the word to you. You couldn't put a philosophical thought on paper to save your life. I highly doubt you can contribute anything worth considering. All you've supplied on this site are bad opinions with worse support.

You have an open invitation to challenge absolutely any philosophical claim I've made. I'll leave this site forever if you can manage to win one point.

Here forever,

slayer

PS. I suggest you just simply ignore me though, you'll save face that way.

[Thomas Knierim]

Slayer: Reality by definition is not illusion. Illusion by definition is not reality.

Although this probably sounds sensible to most people, the problem is really that the word 'reality' has no universally accepted definition, certainly not in philosophy. Solipsism, for example, has little use for the term at all because an objective outside world is inaccessible to the solipsist premises. A classical idealist would also think quite differently about 'reality', since for her, the only acceptable reality is conceptual. The reality-is-illusion paradigm perhaps comes closest to the vedic conception of 'maya' which is drawn IMO with greatest clarity in the advaita vedanta branch of Indian philosophy. But even in Western science, the idea of an noetic objective reality has been crumbling with the introduction of relativity and quantum mechanics. After all, what is real and what is not has always been debated.

Thomas

[slayer]

Thomas,

First I want to say, thank you for your contribution. Although I disagree with what you're saying (and I'll soon explain why), you at least are making a claim, one of philosophical relevance.

You say that Solipcism has no use for 'reality,' but you acknowledge correctly that a solipcist would hold that there is an outside world. And it's this outside world that a solipcist would call reality -- nevermind if it's inaccessible to us or if there's a barrier between the solipcist (or an individual) and the rest of the world and other beings.

I freely admit I know nothing about the other "philosophical" systems you mentioned, so I want to concede and deny nothing with regards to them.

My point was that if you have the term "illusion" in your vocabulary and it means something like 'not real', then that term can only exist in relation to another term which one must have in their vocabulary, that term being "reality." My point isn't even a philosophical one, it's a semantical one. The terms 'reality' and 'illusion' are mutually exclusive.

Quantum physics has indeed presented new problems for us. One important problem is that general relativity doesn't seem to apply on the macro level. In fact, general relativity's laws appear to get broken on the macro level. But even all this is irrelevant. However you want to imagine the world as being, it is a certain way. I don't care if you say it's indeterminate, it's still a certain way, and that then is reality.

Gott Lob?

slayer

[sonrisa]

Slayer, what makes you think I want you to leave the forum? Why if you did that I couldn't very well dangle your sorry no account butt on a string, then, could I? :)

ps, you're over doing the idiot thing. Can't get any more creative than that? TEDIUM!! :nono:

[Thomas Knierim]

Slayer: My point was that if you have the term "illusion" in your vocabulary and it means something like 'not real', then that term can only exist in relation to another term which one must have in their vocabulary, that term being "reality." My point isn't even a philosophical one, it's a semantical one. The terms 'reality' and 'illusion' are mutually exclusive.

I agree that in common language the terms 'illusionary' and 'real' are antithetic and that most philosophers actually do use them in that antithetic sense. But, as previously mentioned there are exceptions. I suspect that Sonrisa's initial statement was an allusion to the Indian concept of 'maya'. I suspect that this is the case, because this board has a general tendency towards Eastern thought. In vedic philosophy, maya is the illusion of physical reality. It is the veil of existence in which consciousness becomes ensnared. Hence, reality = illusion. The advaita vedanta school assumes that there is a deeper (non-dualistic) level of reality beyond physical reality; the latter is merely illusory.

Slayer: However you want to imagine the world as being, it is a certain way. I don't care if you say it's indeterminate, it's still a certain way, and that then is reality.

Certainly. We cannot seem to get by without some concept of reality, even if we say that it is unknowable. Not even the advaita vedanta can do without 'real reality', which it calls non-dualism.

Thomas

[slayer]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Jan 30 2004, 04:53 AM
I suspect that Sonrisa's initial statement was an allusion to the Indian concept of 'maya'. I suspect that this is the case, because this board has a general tendency towards Eastern thought. In vedic philosophy, maya is the illusion of physical reality. It is the veil of existence in which consciousness becomes ensnared. Hence, reality = illusion. The advaita vedanta school assumes that there is a deeper (non-dualistic) level of reality beyond physical reality; the latter is merely illusory.

Certainly we cannot seem to get by without some concept of reality, even if we say that it is unknowable. Not even the advaita vedanta can do without 'real reality', which it calls non-dualism.





Thomas,

Let me first say that my original point was a semantical one; nevertheless, it will hold water as a philosophical point. If Sonrisa was making a point as you've described it (and I'd like to point out that she didn't defend this claim or clarify her claim, as you have done for her) , then there still are problems with what you're saying.

If there is a "deeper (non-dualistic) level of reality beyond physical reality", then this deeper reality is reality and the physical reality which most of us think is "reality" is an illusion.

What then is she referring to by "reality" and "illusion" in her original claim? If you say "reality" refers to physical reality, then since physical reality = illusion, she's just saying illusion is illusion.

If by "reality" she's referring to that deeper reality, then that isn't illusory; that is, not an illusion.

Yes, I get what you're saying, that she intended something like...the physical world which we take to be reality is really illusory, and in fact there's a deeper level which we can't access, and this deeper level is (true) reality.

But is it my fault that she talks in ways that are loose and literally self-contradictory? My main point was she is a sloppy talker and this leads to convoluted thinking. I never doubted that she could qualify her claim, as you have done for her. Of course she didn't do this. I suspect that she can't. And this is one of my beefs against most people on this site, they say things without justification; that is, they themselves lack the reasons for ever justifying their belief in whatever opinion they hold.

slayer

[sonrisa]

Well, well, so you can post in a civil manner after all. :o

HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.....

Course you are posting to Thomas. Could you be posting nice becuz you know that if Thomas decides you're getting obnoxious, he can kick your sorry butt off his site?

Now I finally discover that I've been subjected to your abuse becuz I happened to post an oxymoron that went straight over what apparantly passes for your pin-head (how many angels can dance on it, btw? just asking! :)) Hey it's not my fault if I post something that is beyond what passes for your limited comprehension. Same goes for everybody else who posts at this site. Fyi, this ain't kindergarten, jethro.

So you don't like the the way I talk. Tough. Like I really care what you think, for lack of a better word. But guess what? I don't much care for the way you express yourself either. From what I have been reading, nobody who posts here has done anything towards you to deserve the abuse you've been heaping on us. That said, I don't have to defend/justify/qualify anything to the likes of your no account butt. Why should I want to anyhow?

As for clarification, if you don't understand something somebody has posted, how about asking them about it in a proper civilized manner instead of belittling that person?

As for the oxymoron that got you so bent out of shape, well that happens to be the name of this topic- Oxymorons- contradictions that veil reality. Asheera & Kya were dicussing reality, so I jumped in with my oxymoron. Reality & illusion are contradictory terms, you see. And yes, it was also a veiled reference to maya.

Now is there any part of this post you don't understand?

oh yeah, this is good-

here forever

slayer

yeah, right. Everybody dies eventually.

Bite me, dweeb-boy

:ph34r:

[slayer]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Feb 2 2004, 02:13 AM
(1)* Course you are posting to Thomas. Could you be posting nice becuz you know that if Thomas decides you're getting obnoxious, he can kick your sorry butt off his site?

(2)* Now I finally discover that I've been subjected to your abuse becuz I happened to post an oxymoron that went straight over what apparantly passes for your pin-head....*

(3)* So you don't like the the way I talk. Tough. Like I really care what you think, for lack of a better word.*

(4)* From what I have been reading, nobody who posts here has done anything towards you to deserve the abuse you've been heaping on us.

(5)* That said, I don't have to defend/justify/qualify anything to the likes of your no account butt.

(6)* Why should I want to anyhow?

(7)* As for clarification, if you don't understand something somebody has posted, how about asking them about it in a proper civilized manner instead of belittling that person?

(8)* Bite me, dweeb-boy*



Oh Sonrisa,

You do so amuse me. I especially love the image I get of you straining to form grammatically correct English sentences that also convey the message you want to put forth. I applaud you for almost being articulate.

But let me respond to a few of the things you say. This is fun indeed.

re (1): Think of "Could you be" as "Perhaps" and then read what I said to you about "Perhaps" in an earlier post. Oh Joy

re (2): If you'll notice, in one of my responses to Thomas, I state in clearer terms than you'll probably ever be capable of the meaning you intended in reference to Maya. You'll also notice that I state very clearly what your words literally mean in another post. So, no, it's not that the oxymoron part went over my head, it's that I didn't know you intended it as an oxymoron. I'll explain the difference if you need. Simply Delightful!

re (3): It's not that I don't like the way you talk. It's that something contradictory was claimed and I responded to it. I thought your claim (a.k.a., your oxymoron) was rather well-phrased in fact. Glee!

re (4): You're wrong, whenever someone posts malicious falsehoods, unsupported attacks, and nonsensical drivel that is supposed to pass off as philosophy, then that is an offense to me, to the pursuit of knowledge, and to mankind in general. Exalting!

re (5): You don't have to, but you keep on qualifying nonetheless. I'm in Ecstacy!

re (6): Hmmm, because you love me? Sweet Satisfaction!

re (7): Let's go over this one more time. It's not that I didn't understand what you wrote. My point was that what you said was self-contradictory. And I was explicit in what I thought nonsensical about: "perhaps reality is the ultimate illusion...." You intended it as an oxymoron you say. Fine. Why, pray tell, wasn't this your initial reply? That would have cleared up a misunderstanding. Mind you, the misunderstanding wasn't that I didn't understand what you said. What you said was exactly the contradiction you say you intended in writing an oxymoron, which was my charge -- that what you said was self-contradictory. So, if anything, you should have concluded that I did understand your reply as being an oxymoron. Fun fun fun!

re (8): Show me where. Yummy!

The Climactic End,

slayer

PS. I can't point out the rightful conclusions you should be drawing forever, you know; oneday I'll eventually die.

[sonrisa]

What happened to Mr Niceguy Everybody's Friend? Awww, does this mean I'm no longer your Fair Lady ? :( I should point out that I was rather chagrinned when wrote my last post becuz I just found out I've been on the receiving end of your venom over something you misunderstood, & I hadn't seen your nice post in Plato yet. But no matter- men are like busses, wait around 15 or 20 minutes & another one comes along. At least you're being somewhat civil.


Oh Sonrisa,

You do so amuse me. I especially love the image I get of you straining to form grammatically correct English sentences that also convey the message you want to put forth. I applaud you for almost being articulate.

I have a mental image of you too, & no it ain't Rex Harrison. Try Harold from up at the Possum Lodge. :)



re (1): Think of "Could you be" as "Perhaps" and then read what I said to you about "Perhaps" in an earlier post. Oh Joy

I'm guessing that includes "maybe", "I suppose", & of course, "I'm guessing"?



re (2): If you'll notice, in one of my responses to Thomas, I state in clearer terms than you'll probably ever be capable of the meaning you intended in reference to Maya. You'll also notice that I state very clearly what your words literally mean in another post. So, no, it's not that the oxymoron part went over my head, it's that I didn't know you intended it as an oxymoron. I'll explain the difference if you need. Simply Delightful!

if you say so. You still haven't told me how many angels can dance on your pin-head.



re (3): It's not that I don't like the way you talk. It's that something contradictory was claimed and I responded to it. I thought your claim (a.k.a., your oxymoron) was rather well-phrased in fact. Glee!

Am I actually reading a compliment here? :o



re (4): You're wrong, whenever someone posts malicious falsehoods, unsupported attacks, and nonsensical drivel that is supposed to pass off as philosophy, then that is an offense to me, to the pursuit of knowledge, and to mankind in general. Exalting!

uh, the operative words in my post are "towards you". Nobody had said anything malicious or hurtful towards you or attacked you personally, except maybe for Fu commenting on what makes you stupid. But that was after you had spread around more than enough malicious & nonsensical drivvel yourself. We use this site to do alot of venting here, especially about current events, but we don't insult each other. Sometimes people throw things out for discussion. Doesn't necessarily mean they believe it themselves.
Another thing, this isn't the Mensa site. You're not gonna find one pearl of wisdom after another here. If somebody's post strikes you as less than brilliant, you don't have to belittle them. Simply move on without comment to a post that you consider to be more intelligent.



re (5): You don't have to, but you keep on qualifying nonetheless. I'm in Ecstacy!

careful that stuff can kill you.



re (6): Hmmm, because you love me? Sweet Satisfaction!

oh please! don't flatter yourself, Harold



re (7): Let's go over this one more time. It's not that I didn't understand what you wrote. My point was that what you said was self-contradictory. And I was explicit in what I thought nonsensical about: "perhaps reality is the ultimate illusion...." You intended it as an oxymoron you say. Fine. Why, pray tell, wasn't this your initial reply?

you didn't ask nice. Infact, you didn't even ask. You unleashed a bunch of insults instead. When somebody does that to me, I consider it open season to jack that person around.



That would have cleared up a misunderstanding. Mind you, the misunderstanding wasn't that I didn't understand what you said. What you said was exactly the contradiction you say you intended in writing an oxymoron, which was my charge -- that what you said was self-contradictory. So, if anything, you should have concluded that I did understand your reply as being an oxymoron. Fun fun fun!

I don't think you wanna hear my conclusions.....


re (8): Show me where. Yummy!

you're sick, dweebo


The Climactic End,

so was it good for you? Did you have a cigarette afterward?


PS. I can't point out the rightful conclusions you should be drawing forever, you know; one day I'll eventually die.

yes, & in that case, I suppose your "here forever" remark could be considered an oxymoron. :)

[slayer]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Feb 2 2004, 04:11 PM
(1) I'm guessing that includes "maybe", "I suppose", & of course, "I'm guessing"?

(2) if you say so. You still haven't told me how many angels can dance on your pin-head.

(3) uh, the operative words in my post are "towards you". Nobody had said anything malicious or hurtful towards you or attacked you personally, except maybe for Fu commenting on what makes you stupid. But that was after you had spread around more than enough malicious & nonsensical drivvel yourself.

(4) We use this site to do alot of venting here, especially about current events, but we don't insult each other. Sometimes people throw things out for discussion. Doesn't necessarily mean they believe it themselves.

(5) Another thing, this isn't the Mensa site. You're not gonna find one pearl of wisdom after another here.

(6) If somebody's post strikes you as less than brilliant, you don't have to belittle them. Simply move on without comment to a post that you consider to be more intelligent.

(7) you didn't ask nice. Infact, you didn't even ask. You unleashed a bunch of insults instead. When somebody does that to me, I consider it open season to jack that person around.

(8) so was it good for you? Did you have a cigarette afterward?

Sonrisa,

re (1): "I suppose" and "I'm guessing" are legitimate. "Maybe" and "Perhaps" and "Could it be" are more likely to be abused to make unsubstantiated or poorly argued cliams.

re (2): I think the official Vatican response was 9 (or 16). My memory is failing me.

re (3): I understand what 'towards you' means. I was trying to make the point that a comment needn't be directed at someone for that someone to be offended.

With regards to Fu, I exposed his poor assumptions behind his attack on me, which is why you have seen no follow up to his eggregious, embarrassingly wrong charge that I was an idiot. I think everyone on this site will testify to my genius.

re (4): Oh really! Thomas, your site is for venting? I was under the impression that it was for debating.

Well, unless people make explicit that their playing devil's advocate, which would be the proper thing to do, then it's right that we assume they believe the things they say.

re (5): You're wrong. If you just read everything I've written, you'll indeed find that string of pearls you alluded to.

re (6): I disagree. I won't ignore ignorant claims. I think it's everyone's duty to challenge such claims.

re (7): Wait! Let me think of a super duper clever response to this. I know! Uhm, funny, I don't feel jacked.

re (8): I'm not a smoker.

yours truly,

slayer

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by slayer@Feb 2 2004, 08:26 PM

Sonrisa,

re (1): "I suppose" and "I'm guessing" are legitimate. "Maybe" and "Perhaps" and "Could it be" are more likely to be abused to make unsubstantiated or poorly argued cliams.

whatever. I'm not into this type of word game.



re (2): I think the official Vatican response was 9 (or 16). My memory is failing me.

2 words: gingko biloba
only 9-16? you must have the xtra-small size then.



re (3): I understand what 'towards you' means. I was trying to make the point that a comment needn't be directed at someone for that someone to be offended.

Tough. Grow a thicker skin. You'll need it around here.



With regards to Fu, I exposed his poor assumptions behind his attack on me, which is why you have seen no follow up to his eggregious, embarrassingly wrong charge that I was an idiot. I think everyone on this site will testify to my genius.

Fu posts irregularly & may or may not have seen your so-called exposé. If so, probably decided it's not worth trifling with. What makes you think Fu's a he?



re (4): Oh really! Thomas, your site is for venting? I was under the impression that it was for debating.

Well, unless people make explicit that their playing devil's advocate, which would be the proper thing to do, then it's right that we assume they believe the things they say.

well maybe, but it wouldn't be as much fun.



re (5): You're wrong. If you just read everything I've written, you'll indeed find that string of pearls you alluded to.

since when do pearls stink? since when are they an ugly off-brown? & since when do they come out of bull's behinds? I happen to be a jeweler's daughter, Harold. Try again.



re (6): I disagree. I won't ignore ignorant claims. I think it's everyone's duty to challenge such claims.

so long as you play nice.



re (7): Wait! Let me think of a super duper clever response to this. I know! Uhm, funny, I don't feel jacked.

so then how do you reach the Climatic End, or is that not necessary when using a blow-up doll?



re (8): I'm not a smoker.

oh. well, too bad then.



yours truly,

how truly?

[slayer]

[QUOTE=sonrisa,Feb 3 2004, 12:35 PM][QUOTE=slayer,Feb 2 2004, 08:26 PM]
Sonrisa,

"whatever. I'm not into this type of word game."

I never heard the exercise of trying to get clear on the definitions and usages of words as a 'word game.' Word of caution: don't purchase a dictionary -- they're full of word games.

"Tough. Grow a thicker skin. You'll need it around here."

No thanks, I'll stay as sensitive as I am now. But you feel free to be unaffected by maliciousnes and obscurantism when you see it.

"What makes you think Fu's a he?"

Just the pic of an old man under his name.

"so then how do you reach the Climatic End, or is that not necessary when using a blow-up doll?"

A blow-up doll/you/a wet dream -- they're all means to the same (climactic) end.


very truly,

slayer

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by slayer@Feb 3 2004, 10:30 PM
Sonrisa,

"whatever. I'm not into this type of word game."

I never heard the exercise of trying to get clear on the definitions and usages of words as a 'word game.' Word of caution: don't purchase a dictionary -- they're full of word games.

don't need to. There's several right here at the house. Not to mention online dictionaries....



"Tough. Grow a thicker skin. You'll need it around here."

No thanks, I'll stay as sensitive as I am now. But you feel free to be unaffected by maliciousnes and obscurantism when you see it.

your choice, Don Quixote. ¿O es Sancho Panza?



"What makes you think Fu's a he?"

Just the pic of an old man under his name.

sometimes Fu uses pix of women. I believe one of them was Mme Curie, if I remember correctly.



"so then how do you reach the Climatic End, or is that not necessary when using a blow-up doll?"

A blow-up doll/you/a wet dream -- they're all means to the same (climactic) end.

not me, Harold. I do have my standards.


very truly,


how very truly?

[fu*]

Slayer >> "I exposed his poor assumptions behind his attack on me, which is why you have seen no follow up to his eggregious, embarrassingly wrong charge that I was an idiot."

Wrong

It was not an attack, just an answer to your invitation. I thought I would take a shot at your challenge.

>idiot
noun [C]
a stupid person or someone who is behaving in a stupid way<

I included some of the quotes that led me to believe you had been behaving in a stupid way.

"I think everyone on this site will testify to my genius."

And if you are wrong about this, can we still consider you a genius?

I know many people who are not genius's, and are not "angry and judgmental". Makes me wonder, who is really "smarter" then?

"Alas, I've never been popular."

Has that been a surprise to you? Or something you wear like a merit badge?

"No, David, I won't stop calling someone who makes idiotic claims an idiot. I understand that you (most) find me offensive. Of course it's against your sensitivities to say to anyone, "Hey, you're wrong" or "Hey, that's foolish" or "Hey, only a cruel bastard would say that." I suffer from no such sensitivities. But the question is, isn't there a time when you should get angry? when you should lash out at morons? when you should get fed up with the intelligence level of the average person?"



A time "when you should get fed up with the intelligence level of the average person?" ???

What a brilliant idea!
But why aren't you fed up with Bush?

However, some might say that getting pissed off at people, the way they are, is rather foolish.

Seems you got fed up with the intelligent people at the "smart" board too.

"Indian giver" is a racist term. It is also false.

So it seems you are a self proclaimed genius, who spouts racist terms,(contemptible) who feels it is right to be fed up with the way people are,(foolish) and uses insults and name calling. (rude)

Jerk-
Slang- A foolish, rude, or contemptible person......Bingo

I have tried not to feed the negative cravings of posters but you seem to enjoy it so very much, this is my gift to you.
While you are flooded with your favorite emotions like judgment :hahaha: and anger :angry: and disdain :nono: writting your response, it might be a good time to explore the source of these feelings. You seem to know many things, but something vital may be missing.

Enjoy!

F U

[sonrisa]

Fu :D :badgrin:

that totally rocks!! :thumbsup:

[slayer]

Originally posted by fu*@Feb 4 2004, 11:56 AM
(1)* It was not an attack, just an answer to your invitation. I thought I would take a shot at your challenge.

(2)* >idiot**
noun [C]
a stupid person or someone who is behaving in a stupid way<

I included some of the quotes that led me to believe you had been behaving in a stupid way.

(3)* "I think everyone on this site will testify to my genius."

And if you are wrong about this, can we still consider you a genius?

I know many people who are not genius's, and are not "angry and judgmental". Makes me wonder, who is really "smarter" then?

(4)* "Alas, I've never been popular."

Has that been a surprise to you? Or something you wear like a merit badge?

(5)* A time "when you should get fed up with the intelligence level of the average person?"* * * * ???

What a brilliant idea!*
But why aren't you fed up with Bush?

(6)* However, some might say that getting pissed off at people, the way they are, is rather foolish.

(7)* "Indian giver" is a racist term. It is also false.

So it seems you are a self proclaimed genius, who spouts racist terms,(contemptible) who feels it is right to be fed up with the way people are,(foolish) and uses insults and name calling. (rude)

(8)* Jerk-
Slang- A foolish, rude, or contemptible person......Bingo

(9)* While you are flooded with your favorite emotions like judgment :hahaha:* and anger :angry:* and disdain :nono:** writting your response, it might be a good time to explore the source of these feelings. You seem to know many things, but something vital may be missing.*


Dearest Fu,

I would enjoy the following if it weren't going to be so easy. (This is where I would usually throw in an 'appropriate' insult, but I'm a new slayer -- a kind slayer).

re (1): Making a charge against my character or my intellectual abilities was an ad hominem. I'm not saying ad hominems are always bad argumentation, but they are always considered personal attacks. So, no, my sensitive friend, you're the one who's wrong.

re (2): All due respect to what you thought about my behavior, the question remains unsettled whether it was stupid behavior. Nice definition of idiot, though I'm not sure clinical idiots would appreciate you calling them stupid.

re (3): My comment about everyone testifying to my genius was offered as sarcasm. This isn't the first time you've tried to build a case misrepresenting me.

What I found more amusing was that once you falsely attributed this comment to me as a claim, then you gave a poor argument. No, Fu, if you know lots of people who are not geniuses and not angry and judgmental, then it doesn't follow that they are smarter than me if I am angry and judgmental. It would only follow if the following principle were universal: the smarter one is (and of course smartness will have to be measured by one objective standard), the less angry and judgmental one is. "Less angry and judgmental" not in a relative sense, as in less angry than before, but they too will be objectively measured. I doubt you want this, brilliant Fu. I doubt you even thought of it, genius. I suppose you now think I believe you're brilliant and a genius.

re (4): Honestly, I'm not popular because I choose to live my life a certain way -- hermitic. I am quite capable of making friends, and even have several, but of course I meant 'popular' pejoratively. Are you that incapable of distinguishing such things as jokes, hidden insults, sarcasm, and whatnot , or are you just disingenuous?

re (5): Here's the easy answer: he's more intelligent than the average person. Oh that's right, the average person went to Yale.

re (6): Yeah, some might say that. Now what?

re (7): Sure, Fu, if 'indian giver' falls under 'racist terms', then I am someone who used a racist term. Mind you, you said terms (plural), which wasn't the case. You got me, clever Fu, I'm a contemptible racist. You've exposed me. What's ironic is that you find my innocent use of 'Indian giver' as contemptible, so much so that you had to comment on it, but not on "Bush is more evil than Hitler." You are a true man/woman of integrity and good values, Fu. Keep up the watch.

But, no, I didn't proclaim myself a genius. I only spouted a so-called racist term. Wrong, it's not foolish to be fed up with the way many people are. It's not rude to call someone making maliciously moronic claims a moron -- so, again, you're wrong. You managed to be wrong everytime. Still the consistent Fu I remember.

re (8): You're of course implying that I'm a jerk, but since you haven't shown me to be foolish or a contemptible person, I think the Bingo is premature. I'll hand you rude, though not because of anything I've said to you.

re (9): Judgment isn't an emotion. Yeah, something vital MAY BE missing. Of course this is compatible with nothing vital being missing. Nevermind, I had this discussion with someone else.

Thank you, I did explore the source of these feelings. If you'll just look up one quick time, you might notice who one such source is.

the racist,

slayer

PS. Oh Sonrisa, you'll have to find another champion other than Fu if you're going to find the victory you seek. By the way, very very truly.

[sonrisa]

a hermit??????

(pause)

well I guess that explains a few things... B)

Daddy buying your way into Yale is not an indicator of intellingence.

please define average & very very truly

ps, Fu is more than welcome to join in my game. I don't mind partners. :)

[slayer]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Feb 4 2004, 03:24 PM
(1) Daddy buying your way into Yale is not an indicator of intellingence.

(2) please define average & very very truly


Sonrisa -- mi mundo,

No, you're right, Daddy buying your way into Yale is not an indicator of intelligence, but how about graduating from Yale?

Am I to do define average? average truly? or, average intelligence?

Average: 1 a: a single value (as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values. 2b: a level (as of intelligence) typical of a group, class, or series --- Webster's, 10th ed.

There aren't degrees of trueness -- unless you're talking about probability theory, which we're not -- so 'very very truly' and 'very truly' just mean 'truly.'

I don't mind Fu joining you in your games. I certainly find no reason to consider him/her of any great assistance to you though.

veni, vidi, vici,

slayer

[fu*]

My dearest Slayer,

I do like the new and improved Slayer, but this seems to be stuck in a point by point debate mode.

"I would enjoy the following if it weren't going to be so easy."

You mean you spend time doing this type of thing without enjoying it? Why bother?

"Nice definition of idiot, though I'm not sure clinical idiots would appreciate you calling them stupid."

There was another definition of idiot, but it had to do with extreme retardation, not being able to put simple sentences together, or protecting oneself from common hazards. I didn't think that quite fit, because you were calling most everyone here an idiot, and that doesn't seem accurate. Does it?

"What I found more amusing was that once you falsely attributed this comment to me as a claim, then you gave a poor argument. No, Fu, if you know lots of people who are not geniuses and not angry and judgmental, then it doesn't follow that they are smarter than me if I am angry and judgmental. It would only follow if the following principle were universal: the smarter one is (and of course smartness will have to be measured by one objective standard), the less angry and judgmental one is. "Less angry and judgmental" not in a relative sense, as in less angry than before, but they too will be objectively measured."

Saying "I wonder" means I wonder. Not "I have concluded"
I doubt you want this, brilliant Slayer. I doubt you even thought of it, genius. I suppose you now think I believe you're brilliant and a genius.

"Honestly, I'm not popular because I choose to live my life a certain way -- hermitic."

I am totally with you on that one.

"Here's the easy answer: he's more intelligent than the average person. Oh that's right, the average person went to Yale."

I am totally with Sonrisa on that one. Unless you mean that "educated" means intelligence. I didn't think it did, but being of average intelligence I could be wrong.

"What's ironic is that you find my innocent use of 'Indian giver' as contemptible, so much so that you had to comment on it, but not on "Bush is more evil than Hitler." You are a true man/woman of integrity and good values, Fu. Keep up the watch."

You wouldn't know this because of the way you barged in to a board that you had no knowledge of, made all sorts of assumptions, started flinging insults, and attempted to convince everyone of your smartness, by pointing out their/my dumbness, But I have been around Vincent's postings for close to five years on different boards, and have had the kinds of discussions you seem to wish for me about his political leanings. Should I go another round with him to satisfy your perception of integrity and values?
If you answer yes, you are shit out of luck.

"Wrong, it's not foolish to be fed up with the way many people are"

Is it foolish to be mad that it snows in the winter? That rocks seem hard? That the sky appears blue?
I don't think you understood what I was saying. I don't think you really tried, or care.

" You're of course implying that I'm a jerk, but since you haven't shown me to be foolish or a contemptible person, I think the Bingo is premature. I'll hand you rude, though not because of anything I've said to you."

No. bingo is right. According to the definition we don't have to prove all three, and you have admitted to "rude"

"Thank you, I did explore the source of these feelings. If you'll just look up one quick time, you might notice who one such source is."

That's funny. You missed this one also. You are looking outside Slayer for the source.

What are you here for Slayer? If you truly had come here to contribute something that may be of value to anyone I wouldn't think that you would choose the methods that you have chosen. I think peoples mind/ears kind of closed up with all that idiot stuff, so I have to assume that that is not your purpose. Did something bad happen, and you need to take it out on someone? Is it because the internet is anonymous and it gives you freedom to say things and act as you wouldn't probably act face to face? Are you just wanting to give a sound thrashing to those of average intelligence?

Sincerely
FU

[slayer]

Reasoning Champion Fu,

Well, since I'm not a hedonist, I do many things I don't enjoy.

It's not that the other definition of idiot didn't fit, it's that neither did.

No, saying "I wonder" doesn't always mean I wonder. The English language is funny that way. You can say, "I wonder if you can pass me the salt", and intend it as a command (pass me the salt) and not really be wondering if I can reach the salt. You can also make claims using "I wonder" in the following way: Fu isn't very bright and is fond of pop psychology, I wonder if s/he has a college education at all. I'm not really wondering, in this case, I believe and am implying that you don't. I can give many more examples, but I think the point is clear.

But of course if you were wondering, which I doubt, and had come up with the nice and clear explanation of what does and doesn't follow from "I know lots of people who aren't geniuses who aren't angry and judgmental", then you might have seen what you would have had to ascribe to (i.e., those universal standards), which should put your wonder to rest. Don't worry, I'm here to do all your thinking for you.

Webster's, 10th ed: Jerk: 4 : an annoyingly stupid or foolish person. I'm not seeing how agreeing to have been rude gets you that I'm a jerk. Of course, with your reasoning, you also get I'm not as smart as those non-angry, non-judgmental people you know.

I tend to agree -- an educated person isn't necessarily intelligent. But if a college education is going to count for something, I would think it counts in one's favor. And since Sonrisa brought up Yale, I thought it was germane to focus on his graduating instead of on how he got in.

Well, I would know whether you challenged him on the particular claim I mentioned, namely, "Bush is more evil than Hitler." I can see if you're fed up discussing things with Vicente; from what I've read he's basically, er, not smart.

You needn't do anything to prove to me your integrity and values. And if he claims that the Holocaust never happened, rest assured, you need not to then either.

Why yes, master of pop psychology, I only call people who make moronic claims morons because it helps me feel smarter. No wait! Something bad happened to me and this is my way of coping. No wait! Since I'm on the internet, it makes sense to think I'm only saying what I say because of the safety of anonymity. And if I say gayness isn't innate, I'm sure it'll be because I'm homophobic. The world and people are so simple.

growing weary of dismantling poor arguments,

slayer

[rich]

slayer posted:<snip>
You can also make claims using "I wonder" in the following way: Fu isn't very bright and is fond of pop psychology, I wonder if s/he has a college education at all. I'm not really wondering, in this case, I believe and am implying that you don't. I can give many more examples, but I think the point is clear.<snip>

slayer,
Thanks for enlightening me. I did not realize that this forum is restricted to those with a college education. Guess that I'll take the hint and stop posting here, being a college education is a requirement. Talk among yourselves. :unsure: <_<

[fu*]

Dearest Slayer,

"It's not that the other definition of idiot didn't fit, it's that neither did."

Well I would like to see the definition of idiot you were using to describe the posters here then.

"Fu isn't very bright and is fond of pop psychology, I wonder if s/he has a college education at all."

Yes I know. You keep saying that. In fact it seems the bulk of your arguments.

"Don't worry, I'm here to do all your thinking for you."

Yes, you and Rush Limbaugh. Speaking of Rush, I found it ironic, that the man who will not listen, lost his hearing.

"I'm not seeing how agreeing to have been rude gets you that I'm a jerk."

Well, that is because you chose to use an alternate definition.

Jerk-
Slang- A foolish, rude, or contemptible person. dictionary.com

"But if a college education is going to count for something, I would think it counts in one's favor."

I guess that depends on who is "counting". I have always put more value in courage, and honesty, and compassion.

Well, I would know whether you challenged him on the particular claim I mentioned, namely, "Bush is more evil than Hitler." I can see if you're fed up discussing things with Vicente; from what I've read he's basically, er, not smart.

No, you wouldn't know that.

"I took a peek at the Genius Forum and have concluded that most of those people are more deluded and fundamentally wrong about life, reality, the truth, etc., than the people here"

I was asking about your purpose for selfish reasons. I was hoping that after you got everyone's attention with your, er, interesting form of introduction, you might have something valuable to contribute along the lines of "life, reality, the truth etc." Although at this point I would be skeptical that anything you might have to say about that, would come from just an academic understanding, not a personal "gnowing".

"growing weary of dismantling poor arguments,"

Well stop it then. Simple.

F U

[sonrisa]

Slayer, you must be weary, considering you hoisted yourself on your own petard in your last post-

Jerk: 4: an annoying stupid or foolish person.
That was tu, mi perrito regazo, when you first blew onto to this site. Also (sotto voce) I did not bring up Yale, you did.

If you're tiring out, we can stop this. I only started this game to have some fun with you when you were posting obnoxious. After Thomas reprimanded you & you started posting nice, I considered the game over. You keep coming back for more. So I've been obliging you (shrug) But any time you're ready to stop, just give the word. It's just a game. :)

[slayer]

Originally posted by fu*@Feb 5 2004, 02:34 PM
(1) "Fu isn't very bright and is fond of pop psychology, I wonder if s/he has a college education at all."

Yes I know. You keep saying that. In fact it seems the bulk of your arguments.

(2) "Don't worry, I'm here to do all your thinking for you."

Yes, you and Rush Limbaugh. Speaking of Rush, I found it ironic, that the man who will not listen, lost his hearing.

(3) "But if a college education is going to count for something, I would think it counts in one's favor."

I guess that depends on who is "counting". I have always put more value in courage, and honesty, and compassion.

(4) I was asking about your purpose for selfish reasons. I was hoping that after you got everyone's attention with your, er, interesting form of introduction, you might have something valuable to contribute along the lines of "life, reality, the truth etc." Although at this point I would be skeptical that anything you might have to say about that, would come from just an academic understanding, not a personal "gnowing".




Dear Fu,

Let me just address four of the things you've said.

re (1): I was just using this as an example on how one can use "I wonder" to make a claim.

re (2): I don't liken myself to Rush, but if more people here would adopt his views, they'd be right more than they are now.

re (3): Well, no, someone's intelligence level doesn't depend on who is counting. That intelligence level is an objective fact, whether we can determine it or not. Nevertheless, courage, honesty, and compassion are all a plus, and just might count towards one being intelligent too.

re (4): My, er, "introduction" wasn't for introductory purposes. I came to this site to see if I could find people to carry on worthwhile philosophical discussions with. I don't claim to be the philosophical authority, but I am not without ability, and I've engaged in those type of discussions with at least two people, namely, Thomas and Craig. Now, I happen to think Craig is wrong about a few things, but that doesn't mean we can't exchange views in an enriching manner. I've posted on such topics as Morality, the argument from design, the dream argument, and one or two other philosophical topics I can't recall right now. Just an academic understanding? Well, I would more than welcome even this level of understanding from the people who post here. Whatever wisdom I feel I have acquired from my life experiences and reflections thereof are not what I'm here looking to share. I will challenge blatant falsehoods though, for I do know a little about this and that, but philosophy is my forte.

To be frank, I don't think anyone here has anything to offer me with regards to wisdom or the way to achieve happiness. My sensitivities, values, and goals are rather different than anything I've been able to glean from anyone here, so I'm not trying to have these type of discussions with anyone here.

I'll be trying to stay away from the other non-philosophical threads from now on though,

slayer

[slayer]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Feb 5 2004, 05:43 PM
(1) Jerk: 4: an annoying stupid or foolish person.
That was tu, mi perrito regazo, when you first blew onto to this site.

(2) Also (sotto voce) I did not bring up Yale, you did.


Mi corazon -- Sonrisa,

re (1): I don't mind you accusing me of being a jerk, but your matter of fact language, even in Spanish, doesn't make your case. All you've done is insist that that's how I was when I first blew onto this site. We give reasons when making claims, we don't just use a stronger way of expressing that very conclusion.

re (2): To be honest, I'm not sure anymore who brought up Yale. I'm happy to agree that I did, but like I said, the relevant point was that he graduated Yale, not how he got in. I've just been assuming that his daddy got him in. I suspect you are too. Or have you done research on this?

Our correspondences have been a game of sorts. What does it matter who wins many of the points we're contending, really!? Alas, like I told Fu, I came here to look for philosophical debates or discussions, but I couldn't help meander into the other threads to see what was going on there. And what drove me there was the relativist bent most people take here, so I wasn't surprised by what I found on the other threads.

I'm taking a new approach to this site now, which is to stay away from the non-philosophical discussions. I'm looking for people who want to engage in philosophical debate, or who want to do some philosophy. I do have an academic background in philosophy and I enjoy the break from reading philosophical texts, but when the level of talk is too low (and, yes, I'm in a position to say), then it's not worth my time.

down with academic educations (<-- sarcasm, Fu),

slayer

[...]

To be frank, I don't think anyone here has anything to offer me with regards to wisdom or the way to achieve happiness.

..you are not wise and happy?

[slayer]

Originally posted by rich@Feb 5 2004, 10:16 AM
slayer posted:<snip>
You can also make claims using "I wonder" in the following way: Fu isn't very bright and is fond of pop psychology, I wonder if s/he has a college education at all. I'm not really wondering, in this case, I believe and am implying that you don't. I can give many more examples, but I think the point is clear.<snip>

slayer,
Thanks for enlightening me. I did not realize that this forum is restricted to those with a college education. Guess that I'll take the hint and stop posting here, being a college education is a requirement. Talk among yourselves. :unsure: <_<


Rich,

I wasn't making a claim about who should or shouldn't be posting on this site. I wasn't even saying that a college education means you're intelligent. I was simply giving an example of "I wonder" used in making a claim, and not as an expression of wonderment.

The point about being college educated, which wasn't the point I made on the post you've quoted, is that IF being college educated was going to count for something, then it would make sense if it counted towards one being intelligent than not. But even formulated this way, I'm not claiming that having a college education means you're intelligent.

slayer

[slayer]

Originally posted by ...@Feb 6 2004, 07:10 AM
To be frank, I don't think anyone here has anything to offer me with regards to wisdom or the way to achieve happiness.

..you are not wise and happy?


Dotty,

I am assuming happiness doesn't have degrees. No, I'm not happy and if we can allow for degrees to wisdom, then I'm not lacking in wisdom but, certainly I have much to attain still.

Thank you for your concern about my wisdom and happiness.

slayer

[rich]

slayer,

Although your post was made to fu*, I interrrupted by interjecting my post.
In fact, you wrote that you believe and imply that fu* does not have any college education at all. What on earth does having or not having a college education have to do with this topic?
slayer, your post does indicate a bit of intellectual snobbery . At least as written, it appears that way. Do not think that's your intention. :unsure: :(

extracted from slayer's post:
You can also make claims using "I wonder" in the following way: Fu isn't very bright and is fond of pop psychology, I wonder if s/he has a college education at all. I'm not really wondering, in this case, I believe and am implying that you don't. I can give many more examples, but I think the point is clear.

[slayer]

Originally posted by rich@Feb 6 2004, 09:55 PM
In fact, you wrote that you believe and imply that fu* does not have any college education at all.

What on earth does having or not having a college education have to do with this topic?
slayer, your post does indicate a bit of intellectual snobbery .

extracted from slayer's post:
You can also make claims using "I wonder" in the following way: Fu isn't very bright and is fond of pop psychology, I wonder if s/he has a college education at all. I'm not really wondering, in this case, I believe and am implying that you don't. I can give many more examples, but I think the point is clear.

Rich,

I hope this response clears things up.

In an earlier post Fu had claimed, or so I contend, that I was less smart than some people she knew, and she framed this claim in the form of a rhetorical question (which is a claim). She began her claim with the words "I wonder.......?" Fu responded by saying that "I wonder" just means 'I wonder', and not 'I conclude.' So, in the quote below, I was merely giving an example of how "I wonder" can start a sentence that has the illocutionary force of a claim. That is, you can use "I wonder" in a sentence to make a claim, not simply to express wonderment.

Yes, I had fun with the example I chose, but I wasn't making a claim about Fu. I was giving an example of how "I wonder" can be, and is often, used in other ways.

I aspire to intellectual snobbery,

slayer

[sonrisa]

why are you unhappy?

[...]

I am assuming happiness doesn't have degrees. No, I'm not happy and if we can allow for degrees to wisdom, then I'm not lacking in wisdom but, certainly I have much to attain still.

..do you have a 'gameplan' to find happiness or attain wisdom?

[slayer]

Wow, such outpouring of concern.

Well, I'm not unhappy, I just wouldn't characterize my state as happy just yet. But it's not like I'm sad or depressed, in fact, I'm very easing going and generally quite content.

Sure, my game plan for happiness is to continue my education and to work on some personal traits. Of course if Jane March (from The Lover) were to fall into my lap, that would also be conducive to my happiness.

not jumping off any ledges,

slayer

[sahyo]

To be frank, I don't think anyone here has anything to offer me with regards to wisdom or the way to achieve happiness.





The Gift of Water - Rumi


Someone who doesn't know the Tigris River exists
brings the caliph who lives near the river
a jar of fresh water. The caliph accepts, thanks him,
and gives in return a jar filled with gold coins.

"Since this man has come through the desert,
he should return by water. " Taken out by another door,
the man steps into a waiting boat
and sees the wide freshwater of the Tigris.
He bows his head, "What wonderful kindness
that he took my gift"

Every object and being in the universe is
a jar overfilled with wisdom and beauty,
a drop of the Tigris that cannot be contained
by any skin. Every jarful spills and makes the earth
more shining, as though covered in satin.
If the man had seen even a tributary
of the great river, he wouldn't have brought
the innocence of his gift.

Those that stay and live by the Tigris
grow so ecstatic that they throw rocks at the jugs,
and the jugs become perfect!
......................................They shatter.
The pieces dance, and water . . .
....................................Do you see?
Neither jar, nor water, nor stone,
................................nothing.

You knock at the door of reality,
shake your thought-wings, loosen
your shoulders,
.................and open.

[sahyo]

Of course if Jane March (from The Lover) were to fall into my lap, that would also be conducive to my happiness.


but could you sharing without 'expecting' her to discuss logically like you?
....could you drop thought'desiring' thought 'logic' for sharing which not 'thought', which not 'logic'?

:)

[sahyo]

..and if janemarchfu*sonrisa, slayer?

[sonrisa]

lovely story asheera. :)

finally decided to quit lurking, huh?

:dance: :dance:

[sahyo]

.......:dance:



:) thanking

which are calling "lurking"
not which seems


.......................:gone:

....................................:mellow:
...............................................:go ne:

[sahyo]

;)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by slayer@Feb 4 2004, 11:02 PM
growing weary of dismantling poor arguments
Good. If you aren't 'busy' so, there's the possibility that you might 'hear' what you have been 'shutting out' with all the racket you have been making.

Slayer - all 'judgments' are relative. You've heard of the half-full/half-empty glass of water example, I'm sure. Whatever there may be which 'qualifies' as being regarded as 'poor' in FU's 'arguments', I submit to you that there is also much 'richness' in them, in terms of valuable, logically supported feedback.

For whatever 'value' it may have in stimulating you 'open' yourself to benefitting from the offering (of course, I also realize it could easily also not have any such 'value' for you) , I would like you to know that in my personal 'judgment' (which is likewise relative because of my 'particular' value scheme), 'the truth' is that FU has quite cogently communicated made some very perceptive and relationally relevant 'points' youward.

Sincerely, David

[slayer]

Originally posted by DavidS@Feb 7 2004, 09:31 PM
Slayer - all 'judgments' are relative. You've heard of the half-full/half-empty glass of water example, I'm sure.

Whatever there may be which 'qualifies' as being regarded as 'poor' in FU's 'arguments', I submit to you that there is also much 'richness' in them, in terms of valuable, logically supported feedback.

I would like you to know that in my personal 'judgment' (which is likewise relative because of my 'particular' value scheme), 'the truth' is that FU has quite cogently communicated made some very perceptive and relationally relevant 'points' youward.




David,

I have indeed heard of the half-empty/half-full glass. But this example doesn't fit most, or many, cases in which we offer judgements. It's a misguided way of looking at the world and facts when you use this particular type of glass as an analogy.

There is such a thing as a good argument. We have validity requirements. We have truth requirements. And even in informal logic, we have strong and weak arguments, which partly rest on the likelihood of the conclusion following from the given premises. Like I've expressed before, it's not that you have one form of logic and I another, it's that one of us is better at it than the other(s).

So I'm not understanding your relative way of judging an argument. It can't be relative in the sense that you have your own logic system. If you do, I'd be happy to know what it is.

So, no, the half-empty/half-full glass analogy doesn't get you what you want. There are such things as facts, and your relative judgments don't determine what those facts are.

I'm not saying Fu is without sound reasoning. In fact, she displays better reasoning than most I've seen on here. I'm saying that she didn't refute me because she was slightly off point many of the times. But, let's not forget, Fu also uses logic. So the question of which one of us was making the better argument is quite relevant concerning our arguments.

slayer

[sahyo]

slayer what need does discussing fulfill?

[slayer]

Originally posted by asheera@Feb 8 2004, 01:10 AM
slayer what need does discussing fulfill?


Asheera,

Discussion can possibly fulfill several needs. One, it could help a person (or more) get clearer on his understanding of a topic. Two, it could be a way of teaching someone else something. Three, it could be a way to stay fresh on the details of a particular topic. Four, it could challenge you to defend a position in different ways, in light of the paticular ways one's claim is attacked. Four probably falls under One. Five, it could help expose someone's lack of understanding about a topic. And, Six, it could help to expose a fundamental difference of opinion regarding some of the premises of a claim. All of these are potentially beneficial and enriching.

slayer

[...]

..slayer, you will probably find that this forum has non-dual overtones that point towards the illusion of self, and ultimately the end of suffering. Lyrics like below can be interpreted in many ways, but fit nonetheless:

Spirit in Black (Slayer)

Welcome to my world
Involve yourself within my dream
Experience a life
Just like your mind thought not to be
Take a look through time
As past or present words to be
I rule this inferno
Enthroned for eternity

CHORUS
Coils of the serpent unwind
Buried beneath you will find
Deep in the halls of the damned
Spirit in black till the journey's end

Spirits damned to rot
Amidst the brimstone fireballs
Eyes of the dead
Watching from their living walls
Broken glass reflections
Show your flesh eaten away
Beyond the gates I 'll take you
Where the blood forever rains

CHORUS

Afterlife confessions
Tell me who you used to be
Looking on in wonder
As I show you it was me
Burning from within
You know one spark is all it takes
Hear the piercing cries of all
Who found that hell awaits

Living nightmare can't you see
You really have no choice
Faded memories haunt you
Listen clearly to my voice
Feed me all your hatred
Empty all your thoughts to me
I can fill your emptiness
With immortality

Welcome to my world
Involve yourself within my dream
Experience a life just like your mind thought not to be
Take a look through time
As past or present worlds to be
I rule this inferno
Enthroned for eternity

[slayer]

Dotty,

Didn't like the poem. My hatred burns hotter than bad poetry can convey. The world as illusion! Let me not wake you from your dream. In fact, I would prefer that you never woke from it.

I'm not interested in your metaphors. Again, I leave the supposed knowledge through metaphors to those who are averse to precision and clarity.

You have no idea what hatred is. You have no idea what nausea is. You therefore have no idea what I am. But maybe you can come up with a metaphor that will precisely express what you can't precisely understand.

You say it has many interpretations -- all correct interpretations? And since it seems to fit to you, whatever you think is fitting about it, then all interpretations must at least be confined to the relevancy of this 'fitting'?

Of course not. That would require constraints which reletavists are incapable of drawing. Oh the irony!

The poem wasn't enlightening. If it wasn't so blatantly a besmirching of my good character, I'd thank you for your effort. But, alas, the effort really was for your own benefit.

By the way, I yawned after I read it -- it's trite. I figure I'll have the same reaction were I to get to know you better.

grasping for intellectual straws in a relativist haystack,

the serpent (a.k.a., slayer)

[rich]

Liked your poem, ...

my signature is a oxymoron.

One sure thing, IS nothing is sure.

[sahyo]

slayer

slayer:
Discussion can possibly fulfill several needs. One, it could help a person (or more) get clearer on his understanding of a topic. Two, it could be a way of teaching someone else something. Three, it could be a way to stay fresh on the details of a particular topic. Four, it could challenge you to defend a position in different ways, in light of the paticular ways one's claim is attacked. Four probably falls under One. Five, it could help expose someone's lack of understanding about a topic. And, Six, it could help to expose a fundamental difference of opinion regarding some of the premises of a claim. All of these are potentially beneficial and enriching.

slayer from 'Words' thread:
Well, no, we don't decide truth. We in no way determine what is true. We don't determine whether a proposition is true.

since discussing cannot determine which is called truth, but only intellectually exercise challenging and defending imagined opinions suppositioning-speculating, of what use is it?...what use is discussing imaginings?

what desires discussing?
(not saying "what" is, isn't, or isisn't)

:)

[slayer]

Originally posted by asheera@Feb 11 2004, 12:07 AM
color=gray]slayer from 'Words' thread: [/color]
Well, no, we don't decide truth. We in no way determine what is true. We don't determine whether a proposition is true.

since discussing cannot determine which is called truth, but only intellectually exercise challenging and defending imagined opinions suppositioning-speculating, of what use is it?...what use is discussing imaginings?

what desires discussing?
(not saying "what" is, isn't, or isisn't)

:)

Asheera,

Well, I'll tell you. If you would have read the discussion in the Words thread carefully, then you would have known that there was a distinction being drawn -- that between determining truth and discovering truth.

Craig was claiming that we determine truth -- that is, what's true is what we say is true. I was claiming that the truth is objective, not dependent on us in any way.

So to answer your question, first let me say that they aren't imagined opinions. They're real opinions. Second, there are plenty of reasons for discussion, namely the ones I mentioned. And this is possible because discussion can lead to the discovery of truths.

And the reason why you are asking me this question is because you suppose some clarity will come to one of us. You think it might be me, but really I'm already clear, so hopefully it'll be you.

best,

slayer

[...]

Didn't like the poem. My hatred burns hotter than bad poetry can convey.

Perhaps when you hear the song from Slayer, instead of just reading the lyrics [apologies for assuming you'd recognize it] it'll come across with more vigour :thumbsup:

The world as illusion! Let me not wake you from your dream. In fact, I would prefer that you never woke from it.

No, not the world is illusion, the 'you' who believes is dwelling in an hostile universe is illusion...

Again, I leave the supposed knowledge through metaphors to those who are averse to precision and clarity.

Abandon all hope, not logic. To be precise, the sense of being an individual is false. This can be seen if there is an inclination to do so...

You have no idea what hatred is. You have no idea what nausea is. You therefore have no idea what I am. But maybe you can come up with a metaphor that will precisely express what you can't precisely understand.

Oh dear, somebody call a nurse, we got a victim of circumstance here!!

You say it has many interpretations -- all correct interpretations?

They're all good...

And since it seems to fit to you, whatever you think is fitting about it, then all interpretations must at least be confined to the relevancy of this 'fitting'?

Not really, giving other circumstances this 'fitting' changes, but it'll still fit...

Of course not. That would require constraints which reletavists are incapable of drawing. Oh the irony!

See above...

The poem wasn't enlightening. If it wasn't so blatantly a besmirching of my good character, I'd thank you for your effort. But, alas, the effort really was for your own benefit.

It's a song by a band called Slayer, from the west coast of the USA. They have been around for years, again apologies for assuming you were aware of them. What good character?

I figure I'll have the same reaction were I to get to know you better.

In the archives there's a post about expectations and how they govern what you find, you can find it here: http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/archi...+expect+to+find (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/archive/index.php?forum=2&topic=7&title=To+find+what+you+expect+to+find). No-one is forcing you to feel what you feel, that's your own importance...

[rich]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Feb 8 2004, 05:48 AM
lovely story asheera. :)

finally decided to quit lurking, huh?

:dance: :dance:
Sonrisa,

In the above post, who is dancing or kissing who?

:dance:, it looks more like :kiss: to me. Or maybe it is :lurk:

[slayer]

Originally posted by ...@Feb 11 2004, 07:07 AM
(1)* [apologies for assuming you'd recognize it]*

(2)* the 'you' who believes is dwelling in an hostile universe is illusion...

(3)* To be precise, the sense of being an individual is false. This can be seen if there is an inclination to do so...

(4)* You say it has many interpretations -- all correct interpretations?

They're all good...

And since it seems to fit to you, whatever you think is fitting about it, then all interpretations must at least be confined to the relevancy of this 'fitting'?

Not really, giving other circumstances this 'fitting' changes, but it'll still fit...

(5)* It's a song by a band called Slayer, from the west coast of the USA. They have been around for years, again apologies for assuming you were aware of them.*


(6)* In the archives there's a post about expectations and how they govern what you find, you can find it here:*

This point by point explanation of why almost everything Dotty claims is wrong seems so familiar.

What's interesting is that if Dotty recognized that it was a matter of my thinking that "Slayer" (in her post) referred to me instead of the band, which of course was a perfectly understandable misunderstanding, then why would she comment on everything I said following that misunderstanding? Especially since, had there been no misunderstanding, what I said would be correct and appropriate. Of course her addressing those further points gives her seemingly easy targets. But of course she even botches this job.

re (1): Apology accepted.

re (2): Oh, the me who believes I'm dwelling in a hostile universe is the illusion. Thank you for showing that to be the case. Thank you for offering evidence of this. Thank you for offering a stronger argument to show why I'm an illusion instead of the real entity I envision.

re (3): Thanks for restating your claim without including those pesky premises. I'm sure all your beliefs are in accordance with everything you 've always been inclined to believe. Who needs an education and critical analysis skills when her instincts are infallible!

re (4): Thanks for changing the object of 'fitting.' You probably have no idea of the fallacy you've committed, since you didn't understand my objection in (4), so let me not bother trying to explain it again.

re (5): Apology accepted, again. But I have heard of Slayer, I just wouldn't be able to recognize any of their lyrics.

re (6): You'll forgive me if I don't read those posts. Not just because they're from this website, but more so because you seem to find some truth in them, which is enough -- given your posts -- to dissuade me.

slayer (the person..., er, the illusion!)

[sahyo]

:) slayer

Well, I'll tell you. If you would have read the discussion in the Words thread carefully, then you would have known that there was a distinction being drawn -- that between determining truth and discovering truth.

Craig was claiming that we determine truth -- that is, what's true is what we say is true. I was claiming that the truth is objective, not dependent on us in any way.

ok :)

can discussing discover truth?....is truth not but a thought believed concept for which thought cannot understand yet tries to?....is a-which?

So to answer your question, first let me say that they aren't imagined opinions. They're real opinions. Second, there are plenty of reasons for discussion, namely the ones I mentioned. And this is possible because discussion can lead to the discovery of truths.

can you an example which you call a 'real' opinion?

isnot thought-'point of view' imagined as though an-entity-point?...is a-point which can veiw from?...isnot to-from but imagined?

And the reason why you are asking me this question is because you suppose some clarity will come to one of us. You think it might be me, but really I'm already clear, so hopefully it'll be you.

no didn't suppose as though a-future since wasn't happening....does seem as though "one of us"?

:)

[slayer]

Asheera

I'm not seeing the force behind your objections. Oh wait, you're going to tell me, "notquestion curiousityonly."

Anyway, some things have a different ontological status than others. For example, rocks are physical entities, while thoughts are not -- they're abstract entities. Reflections probably fall inbetween. So let's set up this nice ontological ladder. Rocks on top, reflections of physical objects (e.g., rocks) in the middle, and thoughts (e.g., opinions) on the bottom. All of them are real.

Now, if you draw me a picture of a mirror with someone's reflection in it, then that reflection in your drawing wouldn't be a real reflection. Or, if I took a picture of a rock, then the representation of the rock on the picture wouldn't be real (a real rock, that is; but it would be a real representation). But the rock in the picture woud be real. Mind boggling, I know.

Have you been reading Plato while smoking that herb?

imagined and 'not real' aren't synonymous,

slayer

[sahyo]

slayer

I'm not seeing the force behind your objections.

is "force" necessary?...."behind"?

Oh wait, you're going to tell me, "notquestion curiousityonly."

which you imagined isn't fact

Anyway, some things have a different ontological status than others. For example, rocks are physical entities, while thoughts are not -- they're abstract entities.

if not think as though boundaried, can still think "entities" as though fact?

Reflections probably fall inbetween. So let's set up this nice ontological ladder. Rocks on top, reflections of physical objects (e.g., rocks) in the middle, and thoughts (e.g., opinions) on the bottom. All of them are real.

is which you imagining "real"?

Now, if you draw me a picture of a mirror with someone's reflection in it, then that reflection in your drawing wouldn't be a real reflection. Or, if I took a picture of a rock, then the representation of the rock on the picture wouldn't be real (a real rock, that is; but it would be a real representation). But the rock in the picture woud be real. Mind boggling, I know.

only if thinking

Have you been reading Plato while smoking that herb?

haha....didn't reading plato and not smoke herbs

imagined and 'not real' aren't synonymous,

can 'not real' if not imagining?

:)

[slayer]

Originally posted by asheera@Feb 12 2004, 12:20 AM
is "force" necessary?...."behind"?

can 'not real' if not imagining?



Asheera,

I've quote the only two questions which I could make sense of. Your other objections have been addressed.

Yes, if you're objecting to something I say, then presumably there was something which you didn't agree with. The reason(s) why you're not agreeing with something I've said is the force behind your objection.

Can something be not real if it's not an imagining? On second thought, I have no idea what you're asking here.

This will be my last response to you unless you manage to express yourself better,

slayer

[sonrisa]

Sonrisa,

In the above post, who is dancing or kissing who?

:dance:, it looks more like :kiss: to me. Or maybe it is :lurk:[/QUOTE]

that's me & Asheera, Richie. :)

It's the word "dance" in between 2 colons. (if I type it that way the dancers will pop up)

glad to see you have decided to keep on posting here. what would TBV do w/o our resident elder & sage? ;)

[sonrisa]

asheera, :dance: :lol: :goodlaugh: :thumbsup: :dance:

[sahyo]

....slayer

The reason(s) why you're not agreeing with something I've said is the force behind your objection.

you seek "reason(s)" when which responded not reasoning
....insecure thought seeks reason(s) as proof when which responded cannot prove

Can something be not real if it's not an imagining? On second thought, I have no idea what you're asking here.

"no idea".... B)

This will be my last response to you unless you manage to express yourself better,

david, did read this? ;)
....david has said similar, slayer


:)

[sahyo]

s :D nrisa


:lol: :goodlaugh: :dance:



:applause:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by slayer@Feb 7 2004, 10:16 PM
So I'm not understanding your relative way of judging an argument.* It can't be relative in the sense that you have your own logic system.* If you do, I'd be happy to know what it is.
As I clearly stated (but you seem to have not logically grasped, Massa) , one's personal judgment is based on, or a reflection of, one's personal values. You 'value' certain things more than others. My 'hierarchy' of 'values' has a different order. Hence you and I have different 'judgments' about the same 'things' (in this case, the 'things' happen to be the set of 'points' made by FU).

So, no, the half-empty/half-full glass analogy doesn't get you what you want.* There are such things as facts, and your relative judgments don't determine what those facts are.* I'm not saying Fu is without sound reasoning.* In fact, she displays better reasoning than most I've seen on here.* I'm saying that she didn't refute me because she was slightly off point many of the times.* But, let's not forget, Fu also uses logic.* So the question of which one of us was making the better argument is quite relevant concerning our arguments.
The 'value' which your 'judgment' is (most?) based on is the (logical) 'soundness' of 'refutation' or 'argument' against an other's 'refutation' or 'argument' -- how 'well' a personal plays the logic-game (or 'sport') in 'opposition' to someone else's 'king o' the castle' logic-game (or sport).

The 'value' which my 'judgment' is based on is the relevance, or pertinence, or horizon-expanding stimulus potential of whatever is said, or 'pointed' to, not how 'cleverly' or logic-masterfully, it is done.

Recognizing and appreciating the 'value' of such 'offering' (or 'failing' to) is up to the 'hearer', or 'listener', or 'conversational partner.

IMO, you 'justify' sweep a whole lot of relevant/pertinent/(potentially) stimulating 'stuff' (truth!!!) under the rug on the basis that the 'stuff' isn't presented in a way which meets your 'standards' of 'logic' and 'communication' (or 'debate').

I'm suggesting to you that the 'glass' you 'see' (offered to you) has plenty of 'water' (i.e., logic and pertinence) present, and that you 'conveniently' (as it suits your 'purposes') dismiss it as 'lacking', instead of interpersonally receiving and relating to it as the meaningful and valid (and wise!!! IMO) feedback that it is in truth (though it may not be 'perfectly', or 'absolutely', 'accurate' on all scores in your eyes (which IMO 'see' the 'world' through very slayer-self-serving 'spectacles').

The same 'criticism' applies, IMO, to your response to my preceding post, which I am now, in effect, reiterating for your benefit (should you choose to so 'use' it). I hope this rises to the 'level' of your 'requirements' for considering a statement worthy of more than just 'perfunctory' consideration .

Sincerely, David

P.S. The "king o' the castle" 'game' only 'works' in the context of others 'desirous' of playing the same 'game' - IOW, among 'juveniles' contesting and seeking to establish a 'pecking order' of sorts.

[sahyo]

This will be my last response to you unless you manage to express yourself better
is which david has said similar, slayer, if perhaps read as though was referring to the whole post

[slayer]

David S: As I clearly stated (but you seem to have not logically grasped, Massa) , one's personal judgment is based on, or a reflection of, one's personal values. You 'value' certain things more than others. My 'hierarchy' of 'values' has a different order. Hence you and I have different 'judgments' about the same 'things' (in this case, the 'things' happen to be the set of 'points' made by FU).

Well, no, I didn't miss the point of your clearly stated post. You have missed the point of my objection. Yes, you have a different set of values than I do. Fine. This isn't relevant. It's not relevant because my point was that there is one way of judging arguments. Validity and soundness come to mind. Relevancy is another. So, unless you judge arguments a different way, or have your own definitions of 'validity', 'soundness,' and 'relevance,' then I'm not seeing how you have a different way of determining who, Fu or I, presented the better argument.


David S: IMO, you 'justify' sweep a whole lot of relevant/pertinent/(potentially) stimulating 'stuff' (truth!!!) under the rug on the basis that the 'stuff' isn't presented in a way which meets your 'standards' of 'logic' and 'communication' (or 'debate').

It's not that I dismiss what I deem off-topic observations or points, but I point out that they're off-topic. I need to stay on topic to keep track of the point at hand. I find philosophy or arguments rather difficult enterprises, ones that demand careful attention, so when the point I'm defending or attacking all of a sudden is switched to something else, I get lost. I also think nothing gets settled switching topics, but I'm sure that's the point most of the time. Cynical of me, I know.


David S: The same 'criticism' applies, IMO, to your response to my preceding post, which I am now, in effect, reiterating for your benefit (should you choose to so 'use' it). I hope this rises to the 'level' of your 'requirements' for considering a statement worthy of more than just 'perfunctory' consideration .

Fu made some interesting points. I don't dispute that. But the points were irrelevant, in the strict sense, to what was being argued.

So, you see, though you did reiterate your previous post, you unnecessarily did so. I won't even take offense at the tone of your post. Although, considering the facts, it was unwarranted.

slayer

[sahyo]

I find philosophy or arguments rather difficult enterprises, ones that demand careful attention*


since you don't like how asheera expresses, slayer,
happened finding this which may perhaps express more like you prefer:



The mind is a great philosopher. And life is not a philosophy, life is a reality.
And philosophy is an escape from reality; philosophy means thinking.
Life is — there is no question of thought.
Thinking about it is the surest way to miss it.


- osho

[slayer]

Originally posted by asheera@Feb 12 2004, 03:27 AM
The mind is a great philosopher. And life is not a philosophy, life is a reality.
And philosophy is an escape from reality; philosophy means thinking.
Life is — there is no question of thought.
Thinking about it is the surest way to miss it.

- osho

Asheera,

Thank you. I do understand your objection now.

I disagree with you and Osho. Philosophy is a worthwhile activity. I'm not saying philosophy = life. I'm saying that philosophy is a worthwhile way to spend part of your life.

Reading (as you or Osho would say) is thinking. Posting on this site is thinking. Pondering important questions is thinking. Are we to abstain from all these things because they're supposed escapes from reality?

Of course reality includes thinking, but that''ll be my next point -- an advanced objection.

slayer

PS. In all fairness to Osho, I think he meant that one should live first (in the existentialist sense) and then philosophize later. Not that doing philosophy was a waste of time. And I highly doubt he meant: do not think.

[...]

re (2): Oh, the me who believes I'm dwelling in a hostile universe is the illusion. Thank you for showing that to be the case. Thank you for offering evidence of this. Thank you for offering a stronger argument to show why I'm an illusion instead of the real entity I envision.

..how would proving that be possible when the inclination to uncover the truth about the illusion of self isn't present in Slayer? It appears Slayer is far more comfortable ventilating his hate and disgust instead of ending it...

re (3): Who needs an education and critical analysis skills when her instincts are infallible!

..did your education and critical analysis skills bring peace and tranquility?

[rich]

The word dance between 2 as'XXX colons.

The old squeeze play, eh? Who is getting squeezed?? :blink: <_<

[sonrisa]

If I told you who is getting squeezed then the squeezee would know it too, wouldn't they? :goodlaugh: Sorry, gotta pass on this one.

[rich]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Feb 13 2004, 03:13 AM
If I told you who is getting squeezed then the squeezee would know it too, wouldn't they? :goodlaugh: Sorry, gotta pass on this one.
:goodlaugh: :ph34r: :dance: :tremble: :dancing:

[slayer]

Originally posted by ...@Feb 12 2004, 05:14 AM
(1) .how would proving that be possible when the inclination to uncover the truth about the illusion of self isn't present in Slayer?

(2) It appears Slayer is far more comfortable ventilating his hate and disgust instead of ending it...

(3) ..did your education and critical analysis skills bring peace and tranquility?

Hello Dotty,

First, let's drop the 'showing' and 'proving' language when talking about the illusion of self. I don't think either one of us, or anyone, will ever reach that level of persuasion (for lack of a better word).

But we can talk about 'more reason to believe' regarding our beliefs. That said, let me address your questions.

re (1): I think we're going to be in trouble if we don't define this 'self' first. Let's say we agree to what it is though. I still think it's possible to give the better argument for it irrespective of my skepticism. E.g., you could doubt that we landed on the moon, but of course I could present evidence that you would, or should, find compelling.

re (2): It's not a matter of comfort. I hate because there exists certain type of people. I'd be more comfortable if they didn't exist. But since I find this possibility a pragmatic pipe dream, I continue to feel disgust, which includes venting my disgust.

re (3): Yes and No. Yes. I feel much more at peace with myself for cultivating my mind. My critical reasoning skills have allowed me to shed some superstitions and down-right falsehoods. I'm as tranquil as I think one should be, given what I know of the world.

No. The more I learn the more hopeless and ugly other things seem, things that once didn't seem so ugly. Some people fit into these 'other things.'

Of course I don't consider either "tranquility" or "peace" a necessary or sufficient condition for happiness, so I'm not all that concerned about them. I only need to be undisturbed by others, so I can read, for example, and not the tranquility of meditation lore. And by 'peace' I just mean -- and need -- the satisfaction that one is living a worthwhile life for a being with the ontological status man has.

slayer

[sahyo]

Thank you. I do understand your objection now.

thanking slayer

I disagree with you and Osho. Philosophy is a worthwhile activity. I'm not saying philosophy = life. I'm saying that philosophy is a worthwhile way to spend part of your life.

does th :think: inking about, philosophy, sooth?

Reading (as you or Osho would say) is thinking. Posting on this site is thinking. Pondering important questions is thinking. Are we to abstain from all these things because they're supposed escapes from reality?

ok...but not about "abstain"ing....what does thinking "pondering" about sustain?

Of course reality includes thinking, but that''ll be my next point -- an advanced objection.

not whether reality includes thinking or not, but that thinking im :zzz: agines you (saying generally) as though a separate 'en :wacko: tity'

PS. In all fairness to Osho, I think he meant that one should live first (in the existentialist sense) and then philosophize later. Not that doing philosophy was a waste of time. And I highly doubt he meant: do not think.

after responding above, researching, read this:



osho:


"Mind is very much afraid of the unknown because mind feels capable when you are functioning within the boundaries of the known. Mind means knowledge. You are acquainted with it. You know all pros and cons; you know what to do, what not to do. You have passed through the same route so many times that now you can pass with closed eyes without any fear of stumbling into anything or falling or going astray. You can function like a robot. Mind consists only of the known. The moment you start inviting the unknown in, the mind freaks. The mind says, "No, this dangerous. I am not willing."

Don't listen to the mind because mind means past; dead it is, already dead and gone.

It is non-existential. It is only the footprints of the events that are no more. Mind knows nothing of the present, it cannot know of the present. It has not any capacity to commune with the present because the present is always unknown. You cannot reduce-it to the past. And the fear of the mind is that the moment you encounter the present you have to be spontaneous, and the mind becomes useless. The mind has to be put aside."



:dancing:

[sahyo]

site http://www.geocities.com/yahugrup/titles.htm
the source of the last osho quote
if happens feeling to explore

:)

[...]

Hello Slayer,

First, let's drop the 'showing' and 'proving' language when talking about the illusion of self. I don't think either one of us, or anyone, will ever reach that level of persuasion (for lack of a better word).

Agreed, altough persuasion has never been the intent...

But we can talk about 'more reason to believe' regarding our beliefs.

Could it be possible to talk about the believer of beliefs instead of just beliefs?

re (1): I think we're going to be in trouble if we don't define this 'self' first.

Self, as in the mind/ego, thought, the psychological, is thinking. This sense of being an individual exists in thought only. To come to a greater understanding of this individual, watching thought [what is thought?] is recommended...

re (2): It's not a matter of comfort. I hate because there exists certain type of people. I'd be more comfortable if they didn't exist. But since I find this possibility a pragmatic pipe dream, I continue to feel disgust, which includes venting my disgust.

Which is perfectly understandable if hate and disgust are enjoyed, but that is not entirely the case? What are the conditions for hating people, and are those conditions universal?

re (3): Yes and No. Yes. I feel much more at peace with myself for cultivating my mind. My critical reasoning skills have allowed me to shed some superstitions and down-right falsehoods. I'm as tranquil as I think one should be, given what I know of the world.

Was there ever an experience of thoughtlesness? Not an active mind keeping silent, but a forgetting of it?

No. The more I learn the more hopeless and ugly other things seem, things that once didn't seem so ugly. Some people fit into these 'other things.'

What are you learning?

Of course I don't consider either "tranquility" or "peace" a necessary or sufficient condition for happiness, so I'm not all that concerned about them.

Is happiness something you want at all?

And by 'peace' I just mean -- and need -- the satisfaction that one is living a worthwhile life for a being with the ontological status man has.

What is considered worthwhile? Which conditions have to be met in order for you to have peace?

[slayer]

Dotty,

Dotty: Self, as in the mind/ego, thought, the psychological, is thinking. This sense of being an individual exists in thought only. To come to a greater understanding of this individual, watching thought [what is thought?] is recommended...

--- I must confess, I can't make heads or tails of this.


slayer: It's not a matter of comfort. I hate because there exists certain type of people. I'd be more comfortable if they didn't exist. But since I find this possibility a pragmatic pipe dream, I continue to feel disgust, which includes venting my disgust.

Dotty: Which is perfectly understandable if hate and disgust are enjoyed, but that is not entirely the case? What are the conditions for hating people, and are those conditions universal?

--- No, it's not understandable if hate and disgust are enjoyed. Joy has nothing to do with it. Are you a hedonist? You seem to think that things are only 'understandable' if they are enjoyed.

--- What are the conditions for hating people? Oh my. When someone is so weak, fragile, ignorant, and malicious that he would spread lies or obvious falsehoods, thereby lending a sense of legitimacy to such bilge, then they are irresponsible about their contribution to the world's overall happiness, -- and they earn my hate. Are these conditions universal? Yes.

Dotty: Was there ever an experience of thoughtlesness? Not an active mind keeping silent, but a forgetting of it?

--- If you're saying that as long as we have minds then we're thinking about something, then I'm not seeing the relevancy of this to anything I've said. Why isn't that trivial?


slayer: No. The more I learn the more hopeless and ugly other things seem, things that once didn't seem so ugly. Some people fit into these 'other things.'

Dotty: What are you learning?

--- I've learned that people are rather more like animals than I had previously thought. Their fears dictate much more of their feelings and beliefs than I think they realize. The majority feel, then act, and only later give (themselves) reasons.

slayer: Of course I don't consider either "tranquility" or "peace" a necessary or sufficient condition for happiness, so I'm not all that concerned about them.

Dotty: Is happiness something you want at all?

--- Of course. Although my idea of happiness is probably best given by Aristotle in his Nichomachean Ethics, in which you won't find the modern idolatry of "tranquility" and "peace."

Dotty: What is considered worthwhile? Which conditions have to be met in order for you to have peace?

--- Cultivating your mind would be worthwhile. Improving your character would be worthwhile. Being honest with yourself might prove worthwhile. Showing compassion towards certain others is worthwhile. Contributing towards the improvement of the human race, even if that means just improving oneself.

--- I'm at peace when I'm working on any of the worthwhile things above. You can keep your modern conception of tranquility and peace, I'll take suffering and strife so long as I am working on something worthwhile.

slayer

[...]

--- I must confess, I can't make heads or tails of this.

..people tend to believe thinking is real or true, and base their views of life on such beliefs. Without understanding the nature of thinking, and therefore the mind, ignorance rules...

--- No, it's not understandable if hate and disgust are enjoyed. Joy has nothing to do with it. Are you a hedonist? You seem to think that things are only 'understandable' if they are enjoyed.
..if you don't enjoy hate and disgust, what is the point of it? Why would you feel a certain way if it is not enjoyable, otherwise you're just crucifying yourself for no reason...

--- What are the conditions for hating people? Oh my. When someone is so weak, fragile, ignorant, and malicious that he would spread lies or obvious falsehoods, thereby lending a sense of legitimacy to such bilge, then they are irresponsible about their contribution to the world's overall happiness, -- and they earn my hate. Are these conditions universal? Yes.

..clearly such conditions aren't universal, they are utterly subjective. None of what you deemed worthy of hatred is on my list [which i don't keep], becones the question; who does such a person remind you of?

--- If you're saying that as long as we have minds then we're thinking about something, then I'm not seeing the relevancy of this to anything I've said. Why isn't that trivial?

..you work from the assumption that whatever we think about others, or life for that matter, is true and actual. You also assume that who you think you are is true and actual, and everything occuring from that inner stance is righteouss. It isn't...

--- I've learned that people are rather more like animals than I had previously thought. Their fears dictate much more of their feelings and beliefs than I think they realize. The majority feel, then act, and only later give (themselves) reasons.

..and you are free of such fears and influences?

--- ..my idea of happiness is probably best given by Aristotle in his Nichomachean Ethics, in which you won't find the modern idolatry of "tranquility" and "peace."

..which is?

--- Cultivating your mind would be worthwhile. Improving your character would be worthwhile. Being honest with yourself might prove worthwhile. Showing compassion towards certain others is worthwhile. Contributing towards the improvement of the human race, even if that means just improving oneself.

..this is useless Slayer, you can come to a delicate balance between good and bad, but you will never be free from the seesaw action. You can spend years on improving the mind/ego complex and never succeed. Nevertheless, if this is your cup of tea, then so be it...

--- ..I'll take suffering and strife so long as I am working on something worthwhile.

..they go hand in hand Slayer, as long as you prefer one thing over another [as if there is a real difference], it's opposite will keep equal power. You will have suffering and strife until your deathbed believing your own idea of something worthwhile...

[slayer]

Hey Dotty,

I'm becoming more confused by your claims now. I'll just address this latest set and I'll have to respond to your (presumably) upcoming response in about a week, for I will be busy for a while.

Dotty: ..people tend to believe thinking is real or true, and base their views of life on such beliefs. Without understanding the nature of thinking, and therefore the mind, ignorance rules...

slayer -- Thinking is real. Thinking and the content of one's beliefs are distinct things. Someone doesn't have to understand the nature of thinking to know things, and therefore not be ignorant about such things. So, again, I'm confused by what you're saying. Not confused in the sense that I don't understand what you're claiming, but in the sense that I don't see what reasons you give or could give for your claims.

Dotty: ..if you don't enjoy hate and disgust, what is the point of it? Why would you feel a certain way if it is not enjoyable, otherwise you're just crucifying yourself for no reason...

slayer -- Again, I have to ask, are you a hedonist? Well, there's such a thing as making sacrifices to attain long term goals, or doing things because you feel they're the right things to do, or doing noble acts, all of which might entail doing non-enjoyable things. Do you really not see the point of doing things if they don't bring you joy? Sounds rather shallow.

Dotty: ..clearly such conditions aren't universal, they are utterly subjective. None of what you deemed worthy of hatred is on my list [which i don't keep], becones the question; who does such a person remind you of?

slayer -- I'm not seeing why they're not universal, and certainly not seeing why you think it's clear that they're not. Your list is immaterial. If you're going to deny that there are or can be universal standards for when people should hate, that would require a different argument than..."I don't use those standards."

Dotty: ..you work from the assumption that whatever we think about others, or life for that matter, is true and actual. You also assume that who you think you are is true and actual, and everything occuring from that inner stance is righteouss. It isn't...

slayer -- That's a nice strawman you've built. I don't work from the assumptions you've attributed to me though, so it's you who is working from false assumptions.

Dotty: ..and you are free of such fears and influences?

slayer -- No, but what's the point of your question? There are degrees. I'm more free of them than the people I was referring to. Unless you, like every liberal relativist I've encountered (not implying that you are one), want to group us all in the same category without making distinctions. So, if I've stolen a candy bar and you've murdered someone, then we're both criminals, right? No need for distinctions.

Dotty: ..which is?

slayer -- read The Nichomachean Ethics. Sorry, I'm not going into Aristotle's theory of happiness. If you read it and dispute something in it, I'd be happy to discuss it then.

Dotty: ..this is useless Slayer, you can come to a delicate balance between good and bad, but you will never be free from the seesaw action. You can spend years on improving the mind/ego complex and never succeed. Nevertheless, if this is your cup of tea, then so be it...

slayer -- Your claim is ridiculous. It's useless to try to cultivate my mind? It's useless to try to become more compassionate? And it's useless because I "will never be free from the seesaw action." I can spend years improving my mind and never succeed? That's an empericial falsehood. I would think this will be false with respect to all persons, except with someone with the life philosophy of: Don't try to improve, it's futile. You shouldn't be so passive. Unless it's your cup of tea.

Dotty: ..they go hand in hand Slayer, as long as you prefer one thing over another [as if there is a real difference], it's opposite will keep equal power. You will have suffering and strife until your deathbed believing your own idea of something worthwhile...

slayer -- You've missed the point. I said I would welcome suffering and strife so long as I'm doing worthwhile things. That means I can be happy and yet be suffering and enduring strife. In fact, I think suffering and strife are probably a condition for happiness. But don't hold me to that.

I don't share your passivity about living, about improving oneself -- about life.

slayer

[sonrisa]

how can you be compassionate when you are burning with hate?

[...]

slayer -- Thinking is real.

..thinking is a result of stored experiences in memory. Thinking dwells in the past, so it may have a grasp of the future but to propose it's anything real is assumption. Is yesterday real, or tomorrow?

slayer -- Again, I have to ask, are you a hedonist?

..labels do not apply, so no...

Do you really not see the point of doing things if they don't bring you joy? Sounds rather shallow.

..doing things you don't enjoy gives a reason to bitch about ones circumstances without wanting those circumstances to change. Such people are leeches, energyvampires who have no need for change, but need to remain static...

slayer -- I'm not seeing why they're not universal, and certainly not seeing why you think it's clear that they're not. Your list is immaterial. If you're going to deny that there are or can be universal standards for when people should hate, that would require a different argument than..."I don't use those standards."

..that's weird, why is my list immaterial, but your reasons for hatred are universal? The presumed universal aspects of hatred don't move outside the subjective realm, it is always based on previous experiences that feeds off this unwillingness to come to terms with pain. Usually this unwillingness is fed by fear...

slayer -- That's a nice strawman you've built. I don't work from the assumptions you've attributed to me though, so it's you who is working from false assumptions.

..yet you believe thought is real, which is an assumption made out of ignorance. Everything you claim is actual stems from that assumption...

Dotty: ..and you are free of such fears and influences? slayer -- No, but what's the point of your question?

..what you hate in others, is what you can't come to terms with personalitywise. It sounds awfully newage but nevertheless, the emotional reactions that are triggered by [outside] observations are yours. How else can you recognize something if it isn't known by you?

There are degrees. I'm more free of them than the people I was referring to. Unless you, like every liberal relativist I've encountered (not implying that you are one), want to group us all in the same category without making distinctions. So, if I've stolen a candy bar and you've murdered someone, then we're both criminals, right? No need for distinctions.

..sure there are degrees, but free you are not. When actions of others illicit strong reactions like hate, you're not free but bound by the mind, as a puppet on a string...

slayer -- Your claim is ridiculous. It's useless to try to cultivate my mind?

..yes...

It's useless to try to become more compassionate?

..it is useless unless you are willing to observe the mind and all it contains, otherwise your feeding something that is the cause of suffering...

And it's useless because I "will never be free from the seesaw action." I can spend years improving my mind and never succeed? That's an empericial falsehood.

..you will never be free from pain, fear, trauma, doubt and confusion, despite the attempts to improve. Which is fine, because you feel such energies are worthwile and an indication of life...

I would think this will be false with respect to all persons, except with someone with the life philosophy of: Don't try to improve, it's futile. You shouldn't be so passive. Unless it's your cup of tea.

..the strong dualistic movement, from one end of the spectrum to the other- improvement vs passiveness, is the key Slayer. It is hard to see that what exists as the opposite of another is not different from that opposite. I'm not discussing with you from the belief in duality, good vs evil...

slayer -- You've missed the point. I said I would welcome suffering and strife so long as I'm doing worthwhile things. That means I can be happy and yet be suffering and enduring strife. In fact, I think suffering and strife are probably a condition for happiness. But don't hold me to that.
..understandable...

I don't share your passivity about living, about improving oneself -- about life.

..me neither...

[slayer]

Dotty: ..thinking is a result of stored experiences in memory.

slayer --- this is not incompatible with my claim that thinking is real. In fact, if true, it's trivial. This neat little bit of purported fact doesn't do anything to establish your claim that thinking isn't real.

Dotty: Thinking dwells in the past, so it may have a grasp of the future but to propose it's anything real is assumption.

slayer --- I'm going to be charitable and assume you don't mean dwells as in only contemplates the past, but instead you mean something like works from past experiences -- emphasis on 'past' -- and therefore isn't real because the past isn't real. Although you then say...I may then have a grasp of the future, which totally confuses my charitable reading. So far nothing you've said, or implied, or could reasonably be said to mean, argues for your claim that it would be an assumption and not a fact that thinking is real. Since it's your claim, the onus is on you to explain the missing premises and "proper" inferences one is supposed to have made in order for your claim to at least seemingly follow.

Dotty: ..doing things you don't enjoy gives a reason to bitch about ones circumstances without wanting those circumstances to change.

slayer -- Three things wrong with this claim. A person can have reasons to bitch but yet not bitch. A person can have reasons to bitch and yet not feel like they have reasons to bitch. A person can have reasons to bitch, bitch, and want to change his circumstances. A person can even bitch while he's changing his circumstances.

Dotty: Such people are leeches, energyvampires who have no need for change, but need to remain static...

slayer -- Well, when a person does fit the description you've given, then look for a passive life philosophy, something akin to 'it's futile to try to improve your mind, your character, etc.'

Dotty: ..that's weird, why is my list immaterial, but your reasons for hatred are universal?

slayer --- Uhm, no, it's not weird. It's only weird that you think it's weird. I claimed that there is a universal standard for when people should hate. If you had properly challenged that claim, then I probably would have had to ultimately make claims about what it is to be a human being qua member of society. My claim isn't that each and every single person follows this standard. I'm claiming that every person should, so the fact that any one doesn't or a great many don't, is immaterial. Hence, it follows that your response is immaterial.

Dotty: ..yet you believe thought is real, which is an assumption made out of ignorance.

slayer -- You're now just screaming your conclusion at me. You've not given reasons to believe what you say is true, not the first time you made this claim nor now.

Dotty: Everything you claim is actual stems from that assumption...

slayer -- So, you having an undestanding of the nature of thinking knows things. Of course your knowing things stems from your thinking things, which is an activity that 'dwells' in the past and therefore isn't real and can't yield truths or knowledge because truth and knowledge are real? And all of your reponses to me are about something I've written in the past with respect to when you're reading them, so how could you be doing anything other than thinking about nothing, because, after all, the past isn't real. I have to say it: This is terribly incoherent, condradictory, and so not real.

Dotty: what you hate in others, is what you can't come to terms with personalitywise. It sounds awfully newage but nevertheless, the emotional reactions that are triggered by [outside] observations are yours. How else can you recognize something if it isn't known by you?

slayer -- Nice pop psychology. I hate Hitler's genocidal hatred of the Jews because I'm trying to come to terms with my own genocidal hatred of the Jews. I hate Osama Bin Laden for plotting and funding the 9/11 attacks because I'm trying to come to terms with my own anti-American/terrorist proclivities. Wow. What can I say but thank you. Thank you for sharing your knowledge -- your expertise -- in the field of pop pychology. I feel that just now I am on the path towards liberation from my Shylock hating ways. Oh ye Christ killers, I apologize for subconsciously hating you all these years. I had thought that I was abhoring anti-Semiticism, Nazis, and the popular European sentiment towards Jews and Israel, when in reality I was hating you, you Chosen People. I was hating the most resilient, intelligent, rational, and probably most just people to ever exist on this planet.

Thank you, Dotty, for your insights. You have obviously discovered the true nature of thinking, which I now know is a necessary ingredient to all other types of knowledge.

indebted forever,

slayer

[Thomas Knierim]

Dotty [<--lovely name!]: ...people tend to believe thinking is real or true, and base their views of life on such beliefs...

I am sorry for interrupring the flow of this discussion, but since this appears to be a matter of extreme simplicity, I'd like to comment on it. The act of thinking is real, while the contents of thought are symbolic. There is no contradiction. Problems (i.e. illusions) arise only when symbolic constructs are confused with phenomena.

Thomas

[...]

slayer --- this is not incompatible with my claim that thinking is real. In fact, if true, it's trivial. This neat little bit of purported fact doesn't do anything to establish your claim that thinking isn't real.

..that there is thought is obvious, but what is it's nature? An MRI-scan only shows brainactivity as a result of neurons firing, but where is the thought as such?

Dotty: Thinking dwells in the past, so it may have a grasp of the future but to propose it's anything real is assumption. slayer --- I'm going to be charitable and assume you don't mean dwells as in only contemplates the past, but instead you mean something like works from past experiences -- emphasis on 'past' -- and therefore isn't real because the past isn't real.

..correct...

Although you then say...I may then have a grasp of the future, which totally confuses my charitable reading.

..actually the word isn't 'I' but 'it'. Don't know if that changes anything...

So far nothing you've said, or implied, or could reasonably be said to mean, argues for your claim that it would be an assumption and not a fact that thinking is real.

..is a hologram real? It's now best to define real, and from this POV what is real, does not change. Not real in the sense of solid/tangible, but real as in has always been, is now, and will always be, without change.

slayer -- So, you having an undestanding of the nature of thinking knows things. Of course your knowing things stems from your thinking things, which is an activity that 'dwells' in the past and therefore isn't real and can't yield truths or knowledge because truth and knowledge are real?

..no...

And all of your reponses to me are about something I've written in the past with respect to when you're reading them, so how could you be doing anything other than thinking about nothing, because, after all, the past isn't real. I have to say it: This is terribly incoherent, condradictory, and so not real.

..aaahh, basking in the light of the paradox :unsure: No, there is no difference between what is happening here, and what is happening there, which results in many words. Funny thing is, nothing in Slayers world, as Slayer is, needs to be improved yet it's joyfull [through such exchanges] to come to wider understanding of an unique viewpoint...

slayer -- I was hating the most resilient, intelligent, rational, and probably most just people to ever exist on this planet.

..as you seem to hate the nature of mankind, what else is there but selfhatred, Slayer?

[...]

Thomas: The act of thinking is real, while the contents of thought are symbolic.

..has science shown what thought actually is? Except for increased electric activity when one is observing certain pictures, has thought ever been 'seen' during research?

[sahyo]

..actually the word isn't 'I' but 'it'. Don't know if that changes anything...

"actually", as though?

but real as in has always been, is now, and will always be, without change.

can separate, as though

yet it's joyfull [through such exchanges] to come to wider understanding of an unique viewpoint...

"wider understanding", "viewpoint", as though?

[slayer]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Feb 26 2004, 03:33 AM
how can you be compassionate when you are burning with hate?

Sonrisa,

I honestly don't see the big puzzle here. I can hate someone and show them compassion.

the compassionate one,

slayer

[sahyo]

..has science shown what thought actually is?

..., would called airplanes-cars-computers-mickeymousecartoons
have happened if not thinking-desiring?

[slayer]

Hello Dotty,

Well, I think we've discovered the crux of our disagreement, you have an uncommon definition of 'real.' You really should make this explicit when arguing a point that rests on this uncommon definition.

Before I address some of the things you've claimed that don't rest on this uncommon definition, I want to ask a few questions about what use this uncommon definition has for you.

With such a stringent definition of 'real,' what exactly can you characterize as real? I suppose you'll say 'nothing,' which is probably the intent of the definition in the first place. But I'll await your response.

But if, as you claim, thinking is not real and therefore, somehow, cannot yield truth about the world, then how is it that you can sit here and make the claims you've been making? Nothing you say, it would seem to follow, is true. You are making claims about how things are, yet, by your own account, all of this is nothing -- not real -- so you are making claims about nothing. Your theory, if you're going to be true to it, would seem to require that you at least claim nothing, believe nothing, about the world. This theory helps explain (to me) your passivity. That you should abstain from thoughts about how the world is -- lest you continue to spread falsehoods and be talking about nothing -- just seems to follow from your theory. Personally, I think you should be more consistent.

Dotty: ..as you seem to hate the nature of mankind, what else is there but selfhatred, Slayer?

slayer -- I'm going to give a similar response to the one I gave Sonrisa above. You know, if you just think about something for a little while, you'll sometimes see that what you think seems obviously to follow (e.g., that only selfhatred is left) isn't necessarily the case. The world and people are more complex than you might imagine, although you think you've got human psychology figured out -- a quite amazing thing considering your theory about thinking and what it cannot yield. Yet you, who purports to believe that thinking isn't real and yields no truths, seemingly knows psychological truths -- truths which you think hold for all persons. This alone tells me that you misunderstand psychology and people. These 'psychological truths' are at best generally true.

But let me address your claim. First, I have never said that I hate the nature of mankind. You say "it seems", yet there is no need for this, because I've explicitly claimed that I hold the average man in low regard. Low reqard doesn't equal 'hate.' But let's say that I do hate the average man. The average man doesn't denote every single man (and woman) to ever exist. So, again, you don't have much grounds for your claim that I hate every man and woman to ever exist. And if by 'the nature of mankind' you mean 'the nature of most men', then I have a very simple answer for your claim: I don't hate myself because I don't think I fit into the 'most men' category. So, you see, there is a very simple reason why it wouldn't follow that I would suffer from self-hatred.

Dotty: .that there is thought is obvious, but what is it's nature? An MRI-scan only shows brainactivity as a result of neurons firing, but where is the thought as such?

slayer -- Now I'm really confused. You say it's obvious that there is thought -- yet thinking isn't real? I think you're the only person to take seriously the belief that we would find our thoughts by scanning our brains. If you didn't take it seriously, and yet believed that thought was obvious (obviously real in the sense that it happens), then why would the fact that we didn't find our thoughts by MRI-scan therefore imply that thoughts weren't happening (or real)? Shouldn't you just conclude that thoughts aren't to be found by scanning our brains? especially since you acknowledge that thought happens, which means there are thoughts. (Maybe we just need higher powered MRIs?) To answer your question: The nature of thinking is symbolic.

Philosophers don't have one theory of the mind which they all subscribe to, but this disagreement is more about how the mind is able to do what it does. But they are not at odds about the belief that thoughts are symbolic, abstract entities. These thoughts are usually referred to as 'propositions.'

holograms are real,

slayer

P.S. Don't address my "holograms are real" comment. I believe it, but to concentrate on this point would be to ignore the crux of our disagreement. In fact, I feel like I should delete it. Nah, I find it amusing.

[slayer]

Originally posted by ...@Feb 27 2004, 04:09 AM
..has science shown what thought actually is? Except for increased electric activity when one is observing certain pictures, has thought ever been 'seen' during research?

Thomas,

I'm not sure science has ever 'seen' thought happen. If we're right that thought is propositional in nature, then I'm not sure science will ever fully 'see' thought happening either. I'm not sure the few neurons firing off that we do now consider corresponding to thinking isn't all there is to 'see.' Perhaps we'll be able to make more refined correspondences. Would this satisfy your question? I don't think you're asking if science can fully 'see' the thought process, which would include the abstract side of thought.

Slightly off topic:

As Searle likes to say, we have a thought (namely a desire) that we want to raise our arm. And pretty much every time we have this thought, when not physically restricted, we raise our arm. Is this a coincidence?--Highly unlikely. Is the thought 'I will raise my arm' uncausally connected to my arm's raising?--Highly unlikely. So, we think that thoughts somehow control physical activity. This suggests that abstract entities such at thoughts and the physical are somehow able to interact. Since we think with our brains, we think that our brains have the power to generate abstract entities (thoughts) and these thoughts dictate much of what we (the physical us) do.

Of course if thoughts aren't abstract entities, they'll still serve the theoretical purpose of explaining how we move our arms when we have the desire to raise our arm. But everything suggests that thoughts are such abstract entities.

slayer

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by slayer@Feb 27 2004, 07:09 PM

I honestly don't see the big puzzle here. I can hate someone and show them compassion.




Oh really?

perhaps I should ask you to define compassion. Your version may be dfferent from mine.

You've been posting about Nazis & Jews. Now that was some true blue in-your-face honest-to-god hard core hate. Where was the compassion there? I'm not gonna gross out the board by posting details, let's suffice to say there was no compassion. That's becuz hate leaves no room for compassion- or peace or tranquility for that matter. Hate is a weed- give it an inch & it takes up the whole bloody yard. Hate is battery acid. It eats up everything else, including compassion, perhaps especially compassion.

So if you're really feeling compassion as you claim, then perhaps you're not burning with hate. Maybe you're just royally pissed. There's a difference, ya know.

¿uno perrito muy confuso? ¡mås definidamente!

the compassionate one,

ok, so this is sarcasm, right?

:)

[...]

With such a stringent definition of 'real,' what exactly can you characterize as real?

..what we percieve as reality is impermanent, in constant flux, changing. How can that which changes constantly be real? Therefore, what is real does not change, and can't be characterized as something, as a concept...

But if, as you claim, thinking is not real and therefore, somehow, cannot yield truth about the world, then how is it that you can sit here and make the claims you've been making?

..words appear and flow in harmony, but here's not doubt that words contain no truth, words can only point...

Nothing you say, it would seem to follow, is true. You are making claims about how things are, yet, by your own account, all of this is nothing -- not real -- so you are making claims about nothing.

..from this POV that is true :lol: but it gives rise to joy nevertheless...

Your theory, if you're going to be true to it, would seem to require that you at least claim nothing, believe nothing, about the world.

..beliefs are irrelevant, yes...

This theory helps explain (to me) your passivity.

..assuming passiveness based on dualistic thinking has no merit Slayer...

That you should abstain from thoughts about how the world is -- lest you continue to spread falsehoods and be talking about nothing -- just seems to follow from your theory. Personally, I think you should be more consistent.

..from an analytical, intellectual mind that would be a correct assumption. Consciousness don't mind however...


..because I've explicitly claimed that I hold the average man in low regard. Low reqard doesn't equal 'hate.'

..the mind, ego, the psychological is a structure built from stored experiences. These experiences are unique, and thus give rise to an unique structure. The structure as such is built following principles which are the same for everyone, only the form in which it expresses differs from body to body. Once this is seen/realised, it is obvious that the outwards expression of emotion and feelings is the result of belief. IOW, you are the source of what you feel, not the world and actions of men...

So, you see, there is a very simple reason why it wouldn't follow that I would suffer from self-hatred.

..you see people do stuff which you find deplorable. You are dissappointed that people are unable to rise above what you see as animalistic behaviour. You have separated your concepts of being from nature, and that gives rise to hate and disgust. But who is this entity Slayer that is able to hate and conceptualize? Who are you?

slayer -- Now I'm really confused. You say it's obvious that there is thought -- yet thinking isn't real?

..not real as in unchanging...

To answer your question: The nature of thinking is symbolic.

..okay, why take it literally then?

Philosophers don't have one theory of the mind which they all subscribe to, but this disagreement is more about how the mind is able to do what it does. But they are not at odds about the belief that thoughts are symbolic, abstract entities. These thoughts are usually referred to as 'propositions.'

..the mind doesn't do anything. Thoughts are like clouds in the sky, drifting by, coming and going, nothing to get attached to...

[sahyo]

..what we percieve as reality is impermanent, in constant flux, changing. How can that which changes constantly be real? Therefore, what is real does not change

you still imagining separating as though change isn't real and changeless is real

..the mind, ego, the psychological is a structure

ego is imagined and not mind nor mind a psychological structure

[slayer]

Originally posted by sonrisa+Feb 29 2004, 11:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sonrisa @ Feb 29 2004, 11:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--slayer@Feb 27 2004, 07:09 PM

I honestly don't see the big puzzle here.* I can hate someone and show them compassion.




Oh really?

perhaps I should ask you to define compassion. Your version may be dfferent from mine.

You've been posting about Nazis & Jews. Now that was some true blue in-your-face honest-to-god hard core hate. Where was the compassion there?
So if you're really feeling compassion as you claim, then perhaps you're not burning with hate. Maybe you're just royally pissed. There's a difference, ya know.


the compassionate one,

ok, so this is sarcasm, right?

:)[/b][/quote]


Cincy Kid,

Yes, really. I can hate someone for the things they've done but ultimately show them compassion when the time comes to punish them, say. Take for example a Nazi war criminal. Let's say we find an especially deplorable and hate-worthy one, but he's now in his 80's. We can hate what he did, who he is, and yet show him compassion by sentencing him to a certain type of imprisonment, something less harsh than we probably would assign him if he were 40 years old. This has happened. This is hate and compassion. Are you still puzzled?

Yes, my "the compassionate one" was sarcasm, but don't miss the joke. I truly believe I'm compassionate, but I know that in your eyes, or in the eyes of many here, they think I'm the opposite. So it's really my joke on those who think I'm not compassionate, especially because I also hate.

I'm not sure your rhetorical question about the Nazis hating Jews and not showing compassion proves your case that if you hate you can't show compassion. I can give you examples of Nazis showing compassion towards Jews. There's a popular movie about a Nazi officer showing compassion towards a talented Jewish pianist, for one. There are also other such stories, from Jews themselves. Of course you'll qualify this by saying, "they aren't the Nazis I'm talking about." Yes, and your claim will die by a thousand qualifications.

estas confundido, perrito?

slayer

[slayer]

Dotty: How can that which changes constantly be real? Therefore, what is real does not change, and can't be characterized as something, as a concept...

slayer -- Therefore? I don't recall any premises to this conclusion. You're only assuming your question merits a No answer. Why is No the answer? Then you say that that which changes cannot be characterized as something, although you've characterized it as something that changes, mind you. As a concept? How about the concept of a changing thing? Nothing you say here is backed up by reasons. Worse than that, you draw illegitimate inferences and contradict yourself.

Dotty: ..words appear and flow in harmony, but here's not doubt that words contain no truth, words can only point...

slayer --- There's no doubt that words contain no truth? Just how do you establish this conclusion? A lot of people would disagree with you here. I for one don't think it's obvious that words contain no truth. In fact, I think they do contain truth. So, please explain to me why it's obvious that words contain no truth. Then please explain to me why words contain no truth. And, finally, explain to me why the words you use in order to do this explaining are true and at the same time don't contradict everything you've claimed. Good luck.

Words point, huh? Nice way of avoiding talk of truth. What do words point at?

Dotty: ..beliefs are irrelevant, yes...

slayer -- And since you believe the claims you're making---that is, they're beliefs, then your claims are irrelevant. This seems right. I agree with you here.

Something that changes isn't real. So Dotty isn't real, because she changes. The words that come out of her mouth contain no truth, according to Dotty. So nothing she says is true, according to Dotty's theory. And the mind works from past experiences, but since the past is nothing, so the mind cannot know anything, or knows nothing. Yet somehow, Dotty, you continue to make claims about human psychology, the mind, what we can believe, the past, the future, the present, and your breadth of knowledge is almost endless, it seems. Yet even if you were right about everything you've said, which you very much are not, then you would still be inconsistent with regards to your own theory. What you don't see is that any claim you make about how things are is self-refuting with respect to your theory.

Of course, everything I say is false,

slayer

[Thomas Knierim]

Dotty: ..has science shown what thought actually is?

I am not sure how that pertains to the argument I made. Are you saying that the act of thinking is not real? You deem it questionable that thinking takes place?

You mentioned clouds - that is a good metaphor. Clouds form and dissolve pretty much in the same way as thoughts do. But what is unreal about a cloud? If you say that a cloud is unreal, this must apply to all phenomena, since all phenomena are ultimately transient. What is real then?

Dotty: Except for increased electric activity when one is observing certain pictures, has thought ever been 'seen' during research?

That appears to be good evidence for the material aspect of thought activity, don't you think? Neuroscience actually paints a somewhat more intricate picture. It is not merely electrical impulses, but a complex process in which electrical impulses are transmitted between neurons via structures called synapses and axons, controlled by certain chemicals called neurotransmitters, and organized by self-organizing pathways. This may be less "handy" than the Cartesian theater, but it points towards a tangible material basis of the mind.

Thomas

[sonrisa]

slayer- Yes, really. I can hate someone for the things they've done but ultimately show them compassion when the time comes to punish them, say. Take for example a Nazi war criminal. Let's say we find an especially deplorable and hate-worthy one, but he's now in his 80's. We can hate what he did, who he is, and yet show him compassion by sentencing him to a certain type of imprisonment, something less harsh than we probably would assign him if he were 40 years old. This has happened. This is hate and compassion. Are you still puzzled?

-- no, now that I see you are practicing a form of hate-the-sin, love(or at least tolerate)-the-sinner. That isn't what I mean. I'm talking about straight up hard core hate.


slayer- Yes, my "the compassionate one" was sarcasm, but don't miss the joke. I truly believe I'm compassionate, but I know that in your eyes, or in the eyes of many here, they think I'm the opposite. So it's really my joke on those who think I'm not compassionate, especially because I also hate.

--huh? that was a joke?

slayer-I'm not sure your rhetorical question about the Nazis hating Jews and not showing compassion proves your case that if you hate you can't show compassion. I can give you examples of Nazis showing compassion towards Jews. There's a popular movie about a Nazi officer showing compassion towards a talented Jewish pianist, for one. There are also other such stories, from Jews themselves. Of course you'll qualify this by saying, "they aren't the Nazis I'm talking about." Yes, and your claim will die by a thousand qualifications.


--I haven't seen any movies about Nazis & Jewish pianists, is it based on a true story? I have seen Schindler's List, which is based on a true story. I have also read Inside the Third Reich, in which Albert Speer recounts a similar tale about keeping Jews out of death camps by assigning them to work details in factories. Not all Germans shared their Fuhrer's hatred of Jews- Speer, at the beginning of his book states he never would have joined the Nazi party if he knew Hitler was going to exterminate Jews. So yeah, there were acts of compassion toward Jews by individual Germans during WWII. But I'm referring to the general, overall, horror of what happened in those camps before they were liberated. I'm referring to death marches that make the Trail of Tears look like a cake walk. I don't see the compassion there, but icbw.

ps, ¡no soy un perrito, tu gringo!

[...]

So, please explain to me why it's obvious that words contain no truth.

..the Tao that can be named is not the Tao...

And, finally, explain to me why the words you use in order to do this explaining are true and at the same time don't contradict everything you've claimed.

..words aren't truth, and it doesn't matter whether it contradicts claims made by ...

Words point, huh? Nice way of avoiding talk of truth. What do words point at?

..there can't be talk of truth, truth is neither a concept or an object and words conceptualize and objectify by nature. The pointing-quality of words may lead to understanding about the nature of being, the knowing of self, the surrender of suffering...

slayer -- And since you believe the claims you're making---that is, they're beliefs, then your claims are irrelevant. This seems right. I agree with you here.

..there's no need to believe anything...

What you don't see is that any claim you make about how things are is self-refuting with respect to your theory.

..because it doesn't matter. The belief in a separated entity [an actual doer] is no longer present, this process of me flows in harmony with consciousness, without any effort, without doing...

Slayer, do you believe in freewill? If yes, who is it that has freewill? Who is this thinking person that exists, does things, feels emotions, draws conclusions?

[...]

Are you saying that the act of thinking is not real?

..is it an act? Who is thinking? Thinking happens, but is there someone who's thinking? Real, from this POV, is the unchanging. As such, thinking is not real...

You deem it questionable that thinking takes place?

..no, if it rains, it rains. When strong emotion or suffering arises due to thinking, without seeing this happens because of thinking, :hahaha: pointing occurs

If you say that a cloud is unreal, this must apply to all phenomena, since all phenomena are ultimately transient. What is real then?

..that which does not change ofcourse :D

That appears to be good evidence for the material aspect of thought activity, don't you think?

..sure...

This may be less "handy" than the Cartesian theater, but it points towards a tangible material basis of the mind.

..which is no issue, but it does beg the question; "who's in the driver seat?"

[sahyo]

this process of me flows in harmony with consciousness

when imagining "me" ceases so will "flows in harmony with consciousness"

[sahyo]

Real, from this POV, is the unchanging.

you still imagining separating as though change isn't real and changeless is real

[sonrisa]

Now this is a joke:

A married man goes into the confessional and says to
his priest "I had an affair with a woman. . . almost."

The priest says, "What do you mean, almost?"

The man says, "Well, we got undressed and rubbed
together, but then I stopped."

The priest says, "Rubbing together is the same as putting it in. You're not to see that woman again. For your penance, say 5 Hail Mary's and put $50 in the poor box."

The man leaves the confessional, says his prayers, then walks over to the poor box. He pauses for a
moment and then starts to leave.

The priest, who was watching, quickly runs over to
him saying, "I saw that you didn't put any money in the poor box!"

The man replies, "Yeah, but I rubbed the $50 on the box, and apparently that's the same as putting it in."


************************************************** *********

ps to Asheera- good observations! B)

[Thomas Knierim]

Dotty: Real, from this POV, is the unchanging. As such, thinking is not real...

Okay. Thinking is not real, because it is changing. Then clouds cannot be real either, because they change all the time. Moreover, objects that appear to retain a stable form for some time, let's say cups, tables, houses ultimately disintegrate and thus aren't real either. Or perhaps they are real during the timespan where they don't change form? Temporarily real so to speak. What do you think? All things change given a long enough time span. Organisms change. Genotypes change. Continents change. Planets, solar systems, galaxies change. So what is real? Is there anything that doesn't change? The laws of nature perhaps?

Thomas

[slayer]

Hello Dotty and Sonrisa,

I'm going to address a couple of your posts at once. I hope you both don't feel less special because of this.

Thomas: If you say that a cloud is unreal, this must apply to all phenomena, since all phenomena are ultimately transient. What is real then?

Dotty: ..that which does not change ofcourse

slayer -- Thanks for not answering the question, Dotty. You've succeeded in avoiding a good question and restating your uncommon definition of 'real.'

Nothing in your latest post merits a response. Its incoherence, except for the question about who slayer is, is its own refutation.


Sonrisa,

First, sorry. I didn't know I was responding to you. I actually thought someone was named Cincinnati Kid. Of course I now realize that "Cincinnati Kid" is a name for a different level on TBV. But, no, I'm not a gringo.

I enjoyed the joke about the priest and the confessor. Thanks.

Sonrisa: -- no, now that I see you are practicing a form of hate-the-sin, love(or at least tolerate)-the-sinner. That isn't what I mean. I'm talking about straight up hard core hate.

slayer -- Well, you're not 'seeing' this, you're imagining it, because I don't practice any such form of hate-the-sin-and-love-the-sinner. I don't separate someones acts from who that person is. If you eat innocent children, then I hate you for being an innocent child eater.

Your claim was that if you hate you cannot show that person you hate compassion. I have given you examples of Nazis, whom you characterized as truly hating, showing compassion towards Jews. Yes, they are true story examples. They're stories from Jews themselves. Are you now going to challenge the veracity of these stories from Jews, but yet not doubt the stories you've read or have been told about the marches to the concentration camps? All I need is one example to refute your claim, and I've given one. It's up to you to show why it's not a good example. But to challenge the veracity of these stories seems desperate.

Sonrisa: Not all Germans shared their Fuhrer's hatred of Jews- Speer, at the beginning of his book states he never would have joined the Nazi party if he knew Hitler was going to exterminate Jews. So yeah, there were acts of compassion toward Jews by individual Germans during WWII.

slayer -- let me quote my prescient self: "Of course you'll qualify this by saying, 'they aren't the Nazis I'm talking about.' Yes, and your claim will die by a thousand qualifications."

ciao,

slayer

[a random hack]

Take for example a Nazi war criminal. Let's say we find an especially deplorable and hate-worthy one, but he's now in his 80's. We can hate what he did, who he is, and yet show him compassion by sentencing him to a certain type of imprisonment, something less harsh than we probably would assign him if he were 40 years old.

Why is an 80 year old 'nazi' more deserving of compassion than a 40 year old one?
:think:

[slayer]

Originally posted by a random hack@Mar 3 2004, 01:26 AM
Why is an 80 year old 'nazi' more deserving of compassion than a 40 year old one?
:think:

Random,

I can't take your question seriously.

Instead of just clicking the little thinking-face, why don't you try thinking. After coming up with possible answers to your question, then, if you feel like taking a position (althought it seems you have), you can argue why the best of these possible answers aren't satisfactory. What you'll then have is some wonderful thoughts and ideas which you can paste together to form an argument. Or, to ask an intelligent question.

But your question screams: Do my thinking for me, slayer!

If you promised me that you'd believe everything I thought for you, then I'd do it, but since I doubt this, let me help you another way. These are some questions you might want to ask yourself on your journey to asking conscientious questions.

1) Is there a difference between spending time in a lower level prison than in a max security one? What might these differences consist in? If life in prison is physically demanding, then wouldn't the 80 year old be enduring significantly more than the 'average prisoner'? In other words, if there's a difference between the average 40 year old's body compared to that of an 80 year old, how would coping to such environments be for each?

2) Is there a difference between how long each one might be expected to live? If so, might a 30 year sentence relatively be more terminal for the older man? Psychologically, might life in a more stressful environment take more of a tax on the 80 year old, considering this is his life until he dies, than on the 40 year old, who can hope to be released someday?

3) What is the purpose of imprisoning people? If it's not to physically punish them, then isn't the 80 year old really just unfortunate to be his age, and so mighten' we correct this by sending him somewhere less physically demanding -- yet still imprisoning him?

Consider these your first baby-steps on your new path toward thoughtful discussion.

come to papa,

your surrogate brain (a.k.a., slayer)

[...]

So what is real? Is there anything that doesn't change? The laws of nature perhaps?

..buddhists speak of impermance, and that suffering arises from the desire to maintain a level of permanence. IOW, to stay within what's known [mind/ego], or surrender to not-knowing [emptiness/silence/Dao]. The seeing of change, thinking, all manifestations, which is always present, which is you, which is the unknown, is...

[...]

you still imagining separating as though change isn't real and changeless is real

..no, you still imagine there's somebody that's able to separate anything from something...

[sahyo]

...

did read


you still imagining separating as though change isn't real and changeless is real


before you responded?

[sahyo]

sonrisa :holiday:

[sonrisa]

asheera! :holiday:

[a random hack]

slayer,
:)
i guess if you're allowed to be annoyed by my stupidity, i'm allowed to be amused by your arrogance :lol:

maybe you'd like to tackle the question if i put it; "why are 40 year old 'nazis' less deserving of compassion than 80 year old nazis?" :think: :lol:

[slayer]

Random: slayer, i guess if you're allowed to be annoyed by my stupidity, i'm allowed to be amused by your arrogance

slayer --- It's not that I'm annoyed with your stupidity, although I'm sure I would be, but that I'm annoyed by your mental laziness.

Random: maybe you'd like to tackle the question if i put it; "why are 40 year old 'nazis' less deserving of compassion than 80 year old nazis?"

slayer ---- Yes, of course your question reformulated this way is supposed to be amusing, but when you're done chuckling, you will still have not put any worthwhile thought towards answering your own question. You migth discover that you can answer it yourself. And even if you conclude that there shouldn't be any exceptions made for the 80 year old, then at least you'll have something to contribute, instead of asking me to do your thinking for you.

Mind you, that I never said that the 80 year old was more deserving of compassion than a 40 year old. I never even said that the 80 year old was deserving of compassion. So I don't see a need to address your question. Unless, of course, you manage to make a claim -- at which point I might choose a side and give an argument. Until then, once you've stopped trying to seem comfortable with your mental laziness, maybe you could come up with a position, even if it's something like..."I can't see any reason why." This at least implies you've thought about it.

I'm spending more time and effort in my responses to you than you have on your own question. This might give you a clue that you have no interest in the answer, but are merely trying to find a place where you can hopefully attack something I've claimed. I'm sorry, I'm not interested in trying to lift your self-esteem with respect to your, er, abilities. Let me know when you want to discuss your question in earnest. You can do this by putting some thought to it.

a mind is a terrible thing to waste,

slayer

[sonrisa]

slayer- Of course I now realize that "Cincinnati Kid" is a name for a different level on TBV.

-- yes, it's special level. Not everybody can attain it. Course the most exalted level belongs to Random, TBV's resident Wizard of Oz. He just doesn't advertize it, modest boy that he is. :)


slayer- But, no, I'm not a gringo.

-- so what r u then, besides a good deal of fun for me & Random, of course. :D

slayer-I enjoyed the joke about the priest and the confessor. Thanks.

-- de nada :)


Sonrisa: -- no, now that I see you are practicing a form of hate-the-sin, love(or at least tolerate)-the-sinner. That isn't what I mean. I'm talking about straight up hard core hate.

slayer -- Well, you're not 'seeing' this, you're imagining it, because I don't practice any such form of hate-the-sin-and-love-the-sinner.

-- I believe we define hate differently. When you told me you hate becuz people don't take responsibility for actions, it struck me that you have an awfully low threshold for hate. That is something I'd put on a pet peeve list, but I wouldn't hate anybody over it. I have a narrower & more hard core definition of hate. It involves hating a person for who they are, for personality traits, more than what they do. (Altho I suppose I can hate somebody for what they do if what they do is repugnant enough, to be honest, I can only think of a couple of people thru out my entire life that I've disliked enough that it bordered on hate) I also define hate as having malice towards a person, wishing to do them violence or see them injured in some way. Obviously that definition allows no room for compassion if you want to see somebody suffer.
But perhaps your definition of hate includes malice as well. Considering your low hate threshold, should we get off the roads when you're behind the wheel?

slayer- I don't separate someones acts from who that person is. If you eat innocent children, then I hate you for being an innocent child eater.

-- HELLOOO Jeffrey Dahmer!! Now there was one sick puppy! Come to think of it Hitler & his goons were pretty sick too. Are you saying you hate sick people?


slayer-Your claim was that if you hate you cannot show that person you hate compassion. I have given you examples of Nazis, whom you characterized as truly hating, showing compassion towards Jews. Yes, they are true story examples. They're stories from Jews themselves. Are you now going to challenge the veracity of these stories from Jews, but yet not doubt the stories you've read or have been told about the marches to the concentration camps? All I need is one example to refute your claim, and I've given one. It's up to you to show why it's not a good example.

--something fuzzy about a Jewish pianist, whathehell are you talking about? This from the dude that's always screaming for the rest of us to back up what what we post with proof! On the other hand I gave you a specific movie- Schindler's List- & a specific book- Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich that you can go check out for yourself.

& this is what I said:
Sonrisa: Not all Germans shared their Fuhrer's hatred of Jews- Speer, at the beginning of his book states he never would have joined the Nazi party if he knew Hitler was going to exterminate Jews. So yeah, there were acts of compassion toward Jews by individual Germans during WWII.

so what makes you think that the Germans who showed the compassion towards Jews hated Jews? You do the Germans a disservice by painting them all with the same Jew-hating brush. Maybe Fu* has a point about you after all.


slayer -- let me quote my prescient self: "Of course you'll qualify this by saying, 'they aren't the Nazis I'm talking about.' Yes, and your claim will die by a thousand qualifications."

-- again, I believe we are talking about 2 different things. You appear to be talking about the seafoam atop the ocean of horror that I am referring to. 1000 looks pretty paltry compared to 6,000,000. Or are you so anal about having to be right that that you twist &/or misinterpret whatever somebody says in a desperate attempt to appear to be correct? But that's OK, it's part of what makes you so much fun! :)

Random's question is valid. How is an 80 year old nazi criminal more deserving of compassion than when he was 40? Are his crimes any less heinous now than the were 40 years ago, or 60 years ago when he committed them? He's had 60 years to live a full life, raise a family, 60 more years than any of his victims did. He got away with his crimes for all these years, why shouldn't he do time for them?

ya know, you appear to know something about prisons. Exactly where are you posting from?

[sahyo]

How is an 80 year old nazi criminal more deserving of compassion than when he was 40? Are his crimes any less heinous now than the were 40 years ago, or 60 years ago when he committed them? He's had 60 years to live a full life, raise a family, 60 more years than any of his victims did. He got away with his crimes for all these years, why shouldn't he do time for them?

happen'ed' not happening....
cannot know happening him
....he not 'was'

:)

[a random hack]

happen'ed' not happening....
cannot know happening him
....he not 'was'

'he' might not think so, tho :D

[sahyo]

'he' might not think so, tho

not whether he thinks so or not ;)

[sahyo]

not about "he" :D

[slayer]

Dearest Sonrisa,

Here we go again.

Sonrisa: -- so what r u then, besides a good deal of fun for me & Random, of course.

slayer -- I'm Latin. I know, you two are just manipulating my emotions. Oh gosh, I wish I was as clever as the both of youz two.

Sonrisa: When you told me you hate becuz people don't take responsibility for actions, it struck me that you have an awfully low threshold for hate. That is something I'd put on a pet peeve list, but I wouldn't hate anybody over it.

slayer -- Pet peeve? Well, if you go back and read what kind of responsibility I was talking about, then you'd know that Hitler would fall under this category. Hitler gets placed on a more ignominious list than my pet peeve list, thanks.

Sonrisa: Obviously that definition allows no room for compassion if you want to see somebody suffer.

slayer -- No, it's not obvious. Why is it obvious? I can hate my enemy, who I'm trying to kill, but yet show him compassion should I capture him. I might judge him a worthy adversary who showed great courage, and thus release him or not torture him. This has happened and happens.

We don't need to rely on "your" or "my" definition of hatred, there's the dictionary. As I read the definitions, I find none that preclude one showing the person you hate compassion. If you find such a definition, you let me know. Until then, it's perhaps your special definition which allows you to think what you think. Try this definition: loathing of someone so much that you cannot show them compassion. It's handy, huh?

Sonrisa: Considering your low hate threshold, should we get off the roads when you're behind the wheel?

slayer -- Even when you're joking you get things wrong. No, you needn't get off the road, because my "low hate threshold" will allow me to show you compassion.

Sonrisa: -- HELLOOO Jeffrey Dahmer!! Now there was one sick puppy! Come to think of it Hitler & his goons were pretty sick too. Are you saying you hate sick people?

slayer -- Well, my friend has the flu, so do I hate him? No. Dahmer and Hitler & goons weren't sick in the same way, so, yes, I hate Hitler and his goons, but Dahmer is another question. I'm not sure if Dahmer was sick in the way that he shouldn't be held morally responsible for his actions. It's not like he was retarded. But some sick people shouldn't be held morally responsible for their actions, so I wouldn't hate these people. So, to answer your poorly thought-out question, I don't hate sick people, when we're talking about the kind that shouldn't be held morally responsible for their actions (such as the extremely retarded) or ones who have the flu.

Sonrisa: --something fuzzy about a Jewish pianist, whathehell are you talking about? This from the dude that's always screaming for the rest of us to back up what what we post with proof! On the other hand I gave you a specific movie- Schindler's List- & a specific book- Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich that you can go check out for yourself.

slayer -- The movie is called The Pianist. What is fuzzy about a Jewish pianist? I didn't think you'd challenge me on this movie, considering it was a popular one directed by Roman Polanski. It's the story of Wladyslaw Szpilman. Jews can play the piano, you know. So well sometimes that at least this one was known, in the 1930's, as the "most accomplished piano player in all of Poland." I didn't even know Jews had fingers. Anyway, I hope things seem less fuzzy now.

Sonrisa: so what makes you think that the Germans who showed the compassion towards Jews hated Jews? You do the Germans a disservice by painting them all with the same Jew-hating brush. Maybe Fu* has a point about you after all.

slayer -- Are you sure you're reading MY posts? One, I never said anything about Germans, but Nazis! Two, you said that the Nazis were a good example of hard-core hate, and so I gave you one example of a Nazi officer who showed compassion. So it was you who characterized ALL Nazis as hating Jews, not me. Funny (funny as in pathetic) how your comment concerned nothing you can rightfully attribute to me.

Sonrisa: 1000 looks pretty paltry compared to 6,000,000. Or are you so anal about having to be right that that you twist &/or misinterpret whatever somebody says in a desperate attempt to appear to be correct? But that's OK, it's part of what makes you so much fun!

slayer -- What you don't get is that I don't even need 1000 examples. I only need 1, because you made an absolute claim about Nazis and about anyone who hates. If you had grasped this, then you might have spared me your childish attempt to get under my skin with your repeated babbling of you and Random having so much fun with me. Whah?

Sonrisa: Random's question is valid. How is an 80 year old nazi criminal more deserving of compassion than when he was 40? Are his crimes any less heinous now than the were 40 years ago, or 60 years ago when he committed them? He's had 60 years to live a full life, raise a family, 60 more years than any of his victims did. He got away with his crimes for all these years, why shouldn't he do time for them?

slayer -- Random asked that question as if I argued in favor of showing 80 year old Nazis more compassion than 40 year old Nazis. I never made that claim. And, again, I never even made the claim that we should show an 80 year old Nazi compassion. And you're just as confused as Random, which is why you ask me these questions as if I had already taken a position.

But you at least give some kind of argument, even if in the form of rhetorical questions. I could simply agree with you and have done with it. Or, I could put some more thought to it and take a side. I'll do that. You seem to be concerned that one wouldn't do the time, but both would do the time, just one perhaps in a lower level prison. This already negates your one objection. Mmm, since I addressed your one point, I'll let you think of another.

Would it be futile to ask you to read more carefully what I write, so you won't continually misunderstand things?

slayer

[sahyo]

ask you to read more carefully


:D

[sonrisa]

slayer-I know, you two are just manipulating my emotions. Oh gosh, I wish I was as clever as the both of youz two.

-- YO RANDOM!! Ja see this?! :D

I'm not manipulating anything Slayer, not even when I was deliberately messing with you. You step right into it all by your lonesome. I cannot count the number of times my jaw has dropped when reading one of your posts & I'm thinking, "OMG, he actually wrote that!??!" Even when I'm attempting to have a serious discussion with you, some of that stuff you post I simply cannot pass up without comment. Then there's your disdain & arrogance- they're like a big old balloon, who can not wanna stick pins into it? But I've never manipulated you, merely ran with the material you gave me. And it was for my own amusement, not to be mean or anything.



Slayer-Try this definition: loathing of someone so much that you cannot show them compassion. It's handy, huh?

-- well that's a start. You left out the malicious angle. The desire to hurt or see the hated individual(s) hurt & in pain. There is a failure on the part of the hater to identify with those s/he hates, to see them, on a lower level than the hater, perhaps even subhuman, as in this qoute from Adolf Hitler- "The Jews may be a race, but they are not human."



Sonrisa: Considering your low hate threshold, should we get off the roads when you're behind the wheel?

slayer -- Even when you're joking you get things wrong. No, you needn't get off the road, because my "low hate threshold" will allow me to show you compassion.

--I never said I was joking.



slayer -- The movie is called The Pianist. What is fuzzy about a Jewish pianist? I didn't think you'd challenge me on this movie, considering it was a popular one directed by Roman Polanski. It's the story of Wladyslaw Szpilman.

--thanx for the info. No I never saw that flick, but then my taste in movies runs towads sci-fi.



slayer -- Random asked that question as if I argued in favor of showing 80 year old Nazis more compassion than 40 year old Nazis.
But you at least give some kind of argument, even if in the form of rhetorical questions.

--Random asked you a straight up simple question. I merely expanded on it. You don't like simple questions? Is that why you haven't answered my simple why/why not questions in Time to Celebrate about the afterlife & souls, a discussion which I find more interesting than this one, but you seemed to have abandoned it...



slayer- Would it be futile to ask you to read more carefully what I write, so you won't continually misunderstand things?

--I'm thinking this whole exercise futile. You keep saying I don't get it, well I can say right back atcha & then some, considering you don't get it to the point where you step in it. Actually I lied before when I said I never tried to manipulate you. I did in my last post when I said that you & I were talking about 2 different things & that we had different pov's re:hate. Then I defned what I meant by hate, hoping that you would see where I was coming from, agree to disagree, & move on from this discussion. Instead you continue ragging on me about how I'm not "getting it", & from the tone of your last post you appear to be rather pissed (so much for my manipulating skills) so now I'm telling you- I'm putting an end to this discussion. The subject matter is gross & I'm not achieving my purpose, so I'm not going to belabor any more points with you. You had been posting about nazis & Jews, so I attempted to use them as an example of serious hardcore hate. I did not want to get bogged down in a discussion about them. So then I attempted to define serious hardcore hate for you so you could see what I mean. So many people (myself included) say stuff like "I hate it when...." or "Don't you just hate that?" when they really don't hate whatever they're referring to, just dislike it intensely. Other intensely felt emotions such as anger, disgust, repulsion, horror, abhorrence, to name a few can be confused with hate. You either don't or won't grasp these emotional nuances & I'm done trying to explain it to you. If you wanna burn hate so bad, well that's your business & I'll leave you to it. But I do find it interesting that you object to being pegged a racist with all the nasty connotations of that word, but you don't seem to mind all the nasty connotations that come part & parcel with the word hate. But again, that's your business, so burn baby burn! Burn yourself out for all I care. That's what generally happens anyhow.

OUTTA HERE!!

:ph34r:

[slayer]

Sonrisa,

I'm glad you've quit on this discussion, this will give me the last say, as seems fitting considering your reading comprehension skills are lackluster at best. Your inability to grasp my most basic arguments is time-costly, considering that I have to defend things I never claimed but which you attribute to me. So, yes, I've grown tired of our discusion also. But I will set you straight once again, even if YOU personally never grasp that fact.

Sonrisa: I'm not manipulating anything Slayer, not even when I was deliberately messing with you. You step right into it all by your lonesome.

slayer -- What you don't get is that I know childish ribbing when I see it. I answer in the way I do because I don't care about it. I don't care if you infer from my responses that you really got me riled up. That is trivial to me, so I respond to the claim. But you keep enjoying your presumed victories over naive slayer. Forgive me, I shouldn't think of depriving you of at least these victories. Man, you and Random sure got my goat.

Sonrisa: -- well that's a start. You left out the malicious angle. The desire to hurt or see the hated individual(s) hurt & in pain. There is a failure on the part of the hater to identify with those s/he hates, to see them, on a lower level than the hater, perhaps even subhuman, as in this qoute from Adolf Hitler- "The Jews may be a race, but they are not human."

slayer -- For the third time! Nothing about desiring to hurt someone precludes you showing them compassion. Since when does Adolf Hitler determine the definition of hate? But even your quote doesn't help you, because hate is most commonly, if not exclusively, a relation between equals. E.g., Humans don't hate animals. Humans hate humans. This is why we don't speak of hating dogs. If Hitler truly thought the Jews weren't human, then how could he hate them? No, he realized they were an exceptional human race. In order to see this, pick out non human things and see if you can speak of hating these things. E.g., Ants are not human but we don't hate ants, even when they bite us and when we want to stomp them out. In fact, the case is best if you say that if something isn't human (e.g., subhuman), then you cannot hate it. There is nothing about the meaning of hate that precludes me from saying that I can hate a person and show him compassion, or from hating a person and showing him compassion.


Sonrisa: Considering your low hate threshold, should we get off the roads when you're behind the wheel?

slayer -- Even when you're joking you get things wrong. No, you needn't get off the road, because my "low hate threshold" will allow me to show you compassion.

Sonrisa --I never said I was joking.

slayer --- Your only reply open is that you aren't joking, but that's beside the point -- your poor logic remains, joke or no joke.


Sonrisa: --Random asked you a straight up simple question. I merely expanded on it. You don't like simple questions? Is that why you haven't answered my simple why/why not questions in Time to Celebrate about the afterlife & souls, a discussion which I find more interesting than this one, but you seemed to have abandoned it...

slayer -- I've explained twice already why I didn't respond to Random's question -- he asked as if I had taken a side. If he wants to start a discussion, then he might add a little something to the topic. But I'm not interested in starting that topic, so I didn't answer his question. I would address claims he might be willing to make, but, otherwise, I'm not interested.

About your Time to Celebrate question, I haven't seen it, so it would be impossible for me to have abandoned that topic or question. Feel free to make more false assumptions though.

Sonrisa: You had been posting about nazis & Jews, so I attempted to use them as an example of serious hardcore hate. I did not want to get bogged down in a discussion about them. So then I attempted to define serious hardcore hate for you so you could see what I mean. So many people (myself included) say stuff like "I hate it when...." or "Don't you just hate that?" when they really don't hate whatever they're referring to, just dislike it intensely. Other intensely felt emotions such as anger, disgust, repulsion, horror, abhorrence, to name a few can be confused with hate. You either don't or won't grasp these emotional nuances & I'm done trying to explain it to you.

slayer -- Yes, you TRIED to define 'serious hardcore hate' so that if we used this definition, then we would see that you couldn't also show the person you seriously harcore hated compassion. And what I did was show you that even with your definition, it didn't follow that I couldn't show the person I seriously hardcore hated compassion. You said the Nazis were examples of people who seriosly hardcore hated and I gave you an example of a Nazi (someone who seriosly hardcore hated, according to YOU) showing the object of his serious hardcore hate compassion. So, you see, it's not that I don't understand all the nuances you mentioned, but that you don't even understand what does or doesn't follow from your own special definition of hate.

I truly hope you don't respond, because then it'll spare me the time of explaining everything yet again to you, as I'm sure you will still not get it.

na-na na na na (<---look, I'm Sonrisa winning an argument),

slayer

[fu*]

Hi Slayer,

Speaking of Hitler, you said....

"No, he realized they (Jews) were an exceptional human race."

ex·cep·tion·al (k-spsh-nl)
adj.
Being an exception; uncommon.
Well above average; extraordinary: an exceptional memory. .
Deviating widely from a norm, as of physical or mental ability: special educational provisions for exceptional children.
Dictionary.com

You also had posted

"resilient, intelligent, rational, and probably most just people to ever exist on this planet."

Seems strange you would hold this view, being "Latin". You are the first person I have run across that thought another race besides his/her own is somehow superior to others.
But if what you say about Hitler is true, I guess he is another one then. You two may have something in common.

Do you have some evidence to explain this view?

Like "they" are more"intelligent" because...
More "resilient" because...
More "just" because...etc.


If you are right, then this next word should not carry a negative conotation. Only truth based on facts

rac·ism (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

fu

[slayer]

Fu: Seems strange you would hold this view, being "Latin". You are the first person I have run across that thought another race besides his/her own is somehow superior to others.
But if what you say about Hitler is true, I guess he is another one then. You two may have something in common.

slayer -- I agree, it is strange coming from someone other than a Jew. If people were more honest, then it wouldn't be so strange though. Every race can't be the most resilient, intelligent, etc.

If Hitler thought of the Jews as I do, then we do in fact have something in common. Do you believe that anything anyone shares in common with Hitler would therefore be a bad thing? Of course you do, which is why you stated what you did. This is a terribly foolish position. Did you know that Hitler was also an art lover? Wow, I have two things in common with Hitler. Ergo, I must be just like Hitler. This is the reasoning you count on, which only shows your desperation to somehow, some way, appear to be winning our arguments. You failed.

But, I said Hitler recognized that the Jews were an exceptional race, not that he thought they were the most resilient, intelligent, rational, and probably most just race to exist. Hitler recognized that the Jews were in a foreign land, as was the case in Europe anywhere Jews were, yet they thrived beyond the native population. This would be a source of embarrassment to any race.---Their current and historic educational accomplishments are well known, but let me just mention Spinoza and Einstein as examples. They have always thrived monetarily also. I will look up the name of the Jews in Israel who devote the majority of their time to study, making them possibly one of the best educated group of people in history, and certainly in our time.-- Hitler used their prosperity against them, but not just their prosperity. Let this be the one way Hitler recognized they were exceptional. It doesn't even follow then that Hitler and I thought of the Jews the same way, but it does follow that we both thought they were 'exceptional.' Of course it matters in what way. But of course you don't want these distinctions to come out. You paint with broad strokes, thus intentionally distorting the truth. This qualifies you as an obscurantist, and not even a clever one.

Fu: If you are right, then this next word should not carry a negative conotation. Only truth based on facts

rac·ism (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

slayer -- Do I now have to explain dictionary terms to you? This is pathetic. I made a claim about Jews being the most resilient (uhm, they survived Hitler, Christians, Muslims, not having a country for two thousand years, and continue to survive now in the middle of the Middle East, the most hostile part of the world for Jews, most intelligent (history is on my side here, as the intelligensia in most European countries in which Jews lived, were Jews. Let me again add Einstein and Spinoza to the list, since you seem to be ignorant of history), most rational because that usually goes with being intelligent, but also because their survival is a testament to their doing what is pragmatically necessary, and probably the most just race because if you knew anything about the way Israel has been attacked, then you'd know that they have had more than ample reason to counter-attack more than it has. In fact, the land Israel currently possesses is because of the land won by the wars which other countries have started with Israel. And the land they had prior to these wars was because they worked the land, giving them just claim to it. The Palestineans were there long enough to have done the same, but they didn't. Israel offered much land to the Palestineans, in the Oslo fiasco, but the PLO rejected a more than generous offer. Israel doesn't have to give back any land, having attained it fairly. Yet they have showed a willingness to do so in the name of peace. You know nothing about Jews and Israel. Maybe you should do some research. And avoid the web, if you do.

Back to why you're so wrong all the time. I'm not a racist because I don't think the Jews are exceptional simply because they are Jewish. Hence, I don't base my beliefs on race. I base them on the qualities that Jews appear to possess.

Why is it that you can't make the most basic inferences? I'm tired of explaining things to you. Your reasoning skills are embarrassing. You and Sonrisa would need a year to find the premises to a tautology.

Tired of swatting flies in the marketplace, Zarathustra journies back to his cave,

slayer

[fu*]

Slayer "If Hitler thought of the Jews as I do, then we do in fact have something in common. Do you believe that anything anyone shares in common with Hitler would therefore be a bad thing? Of course you do, which is why you stated what you did."

That's our Slayer. Always building Strawmen to burn.
I said nothing of "good" or "bad". I don't see things that way. This is something you will not believe or understand, because where awakening/self knowledge is concerned you are less than an infant, so it would be useless for me to explain.

"Did you know that Hitler was also an art lover? Wow, I have two things in common with Hitler. Ergo, I must be just like Hitler. This is the reasoning you count on"

More Strawmen for Slayer to Slay. I will bet though, that the art you love is approved, respected art that you have been told or read is "beautiful". ( It would probably have a lot of dark colors and sharp pointy things in it too)I don't think you would be able to see beauty on your own if it came and smacked you upside the head. I know this because I have seen it happen.

"which only shows your desperation to somehow, some way, appear to be winning our arguments."

Desperately trying to appear to win arguments is Slayers thing. Awakening 101... Your statement is Slayer telling about Slayer. understand that,(no, you wont find it in a book) and you may move to infant status where "awakening" is concerned.

"They have always thrived monetarily also. I will look up the name of the Jews in Israel who devote the majority of their time to study, making them possibly one of the best educated group of people in history"

Oh yes I forgot, you equate intelligence with study/education. Kind of like you equate "I wonder", with "I have concluded".
Keep reading those books, they will win you many arguments. And that's whats important, Isn't it?

" a long paragraph, yada yada yada, and then....Maybe you should do some research. And avoid the web, if you do.

So you would like me to research so I can choose good or bad, right or wrong, up or down? Been there, done that. Fruitless. You wont understand that either. Gosh, wouldn't I be lucky to see things as you do. Yikes

"If people were more honest"

If you would take this advice from yourself, you might start to understand what some have been pointing at.

"Back to why you're so wrong all the time."

I made no "right" or "wrong" statements in my last post.

If I would type a long paragraph with random letters you would pick out just the letters that mean something to you, and argue with them.(and win!) Less than an infant.
If you would recognize what you were doing, now, there is a start.

"I'm tired of explaining things to you"

If you were honest with yourself, as you wish for "others" you would see how ridiculous that statement is. This is what you love, what you thrive on.

"You and Sonrisa would need a year to find the premises to a tautology."

Maybe so. And that would be a totally wasted year.

I am afraid you would need much more than a year without books or intellectual discussions to understand anything I have said, but it would be far from wasted. You may even change your name to Slayer of Self. And be thrilled about it.

fu

ps, I will be away for a few days so if I don't respond to you, you may take it as another knockout blow by the mighty Slayer. Maybe you could print out an award for yourself on your computer. Then you could get one of your intellectual friends to sign it, and it would be an official victory. Hurray!

[slayer]

Fu(lish?), <--- Look, I added a question mark, therefore I didn't call you foolish, but instead only asked a question. This is the type of bs you attempt to pass off as sincere. Let me now reply to another weak and disingenuous post of yours.

Fu: But if what you say about Hitler is true, I guess he is another one then. You two may have something in common.

slayer -- You expect me, or anyone, to believe that your comment wasn't intented to disparage my character by associating me with Hitler? Sorry, I'm not that naive, nor are you that innocent. And what lends to the correctness of my judgment is that you intentionally fudge our similarity, when, as you know, there are important distinctions. You fudged them to suit your purposes. No, it's no strawman I've knocked down, it's your pretense at objectivity.

Fu: Oh yes I forgot, you equate intelligence with study/education. Kind of like you equate "I wonder", with "I have concluded".
Keep reading those books, they will win you many arguments. And that's whats important, Isn't it?

slayer - Well, no, I don't equate intelligence with being well educated, but it is a necessary condition.

As for "I wonder" and "I have concluded" -- I already explained how they can be used in the same way, so I'm not clear why you're bringing up your old defeats.

Okay, I'll keep reading those books. They will win me many arguments, especially when ignorant people speak on matters I've read on. Well, winning arguments isn't what's important, but reasoning well is. Also, being right is. Having an accurate world view is important because your beliefs significantly shape who you are. You really put me in my place for reading those silly books.

Fu: " a long paragraph, yada yada yada, and then....Maybe you should do some research. And avoid the web, if you do.

So you would like me to research so I can choose good or bad, right or wrong, up or down? Been there, done that. Fruitless. You wont understand that either. Gosh, wouldn't I be lucky to see things as you do. Yikes

slayer -- Well, the long paragraph was partly a reply to your question about why I claimed what I did about the Jews. But of course you didn't really want the answer, you just wanted to call me a 'racist.' Of course I debunked that myth by pointing out how I based my claims on the qualities Jews possess, not on the fact that they're Jews. Anyone with the slightest reasoning skills would have seen through your poorly thought-out attack, but that didn't stop you from issuing it anyway.

I would like for you to read and educated yourself so you could know right from wrong, up from down, west from east, and, hopefully, good from bad. You've been there? Now that's amusing. You're incapabable of ever having been educated because you lack the reasoning skills to have achieved that feat. It's no wonder why it was fruitless for you. In fact, fruitless study is your destiny.

Fu: I made no "right" or "wrong" statements in my last post.

slayer -- Wrong again. You make declarative statements all the time, you just try to avoid the typical declarative statement form. You can add as many "maybes" or "may's" as you like, but you're making claims, and only a naive mind would not see this. Just like you can add question marks to some sentences and yet be making claims. First I have to explain dictionary terms to you and now (rather, once again) I have to explain the nuances of English grammar.

previously, slayer : "You and Sonrisa would need a year to find the premises to a tautology."

Fu: Maybe so. And that would be a totally wasted year.

slayer -- Your "Maybe so" made my day. Thanks!

Fu: ps, I will be away for a few days so if I don't respond to you, you may take it as another knockout blow by the mighty Slayer.

slayer -- What you don't realize is that I know they're knockout blows as soon as I write them. So, you could respond in a minute or a year, it won't matter. How did you know that I printed up awards for myself? With this reply my apartment will be completely re-wallpapered. Thanks to you and Sonrisa, mainly.

Goo goo ga ga,

slayer

[fu*]

Slayer :D

You are a trip!

I love the way you post :) Its a great read.

Hope you have a great weekend!

I'll respond some when I get back.

Sincerely
fu

[slayer]

Dear All,

I onced referred to myself as a *bright* (the noun, not the adjective) and Sonrisa asked me what a bright was. I intended to respond, but here's a link to the Bright's homepage, so you can check out it for yourselves.

http://www.the-brights.net/banners.htm

sincerely,

slayer

[rich]

Dear Slayer,

Was wondering if your mommy called you Sunny because you were so B R I G H T ??? :hahaha: :angry: <_< :smash:

[slayer]

Dear Rich,

No, she didn't call me "Sunny." Isn't the expression "Sonny"? Anyway, she used to call me her "slayer of obscurantists and liberals," which was an odd thing to call me considering that, at the time, neither one of us spoke English.

But a *bright (the noun) is a person whose worldview is naturalistic (free of supernatural and mystical elements). There's even a Bright's Movement.

The typical misconception is that brights, in lieu of self-identifying as brights, think of everyone else as *dulls or stupid, which isn't true. The adjectival definition of 'bright' (as in intelligent) isn't part of the meaning.

This label, bright, is probably not for many here (no pun intended), but the associated movement is interesting, which is why I posted the http.

a heathen,

slayer

[sonrisa]

I just dropped in to check on something I posted here, otherwise I never would of saw this...

:goodlaugh: :hahaha:


slayer-- I'm glad you've quit on this discussion, this will give me the last say,

--yeah, you're kind of anal about that, I've noticed


slayer-- as seems fitting considering your reading comprehension skills are lackluster at best. Your inability to grasp my most basic arguments is time-costly, considering that I have to defend things I never claimed but which you attribute to me. So, yes, I've grown tired of our discusion also. But I will set you straight once again, even if YOU personally never grasp that fact.

--yeah you do that


Sonrisa: I'm not manipulating anything Slayer, not even when I was deliberately messing with you. You step right into it all by your lonesome.

slayer -- What you don't get is that I know childish ribbing when I see it.

--where have you seen it?



slayer-- I answer in the way I do because don't care about it. I don't care if you infer from my responses that you really got me riled up. That is trivial to me, so I respond to the claim. But you keep enjoying your presumed victories over naive slayer. Forgive me, I shouldn't think of depriving you of at least these victories. Man, you and Random sure got my goat.

--nice attempt to cover, but ain't buying it



Sonrisa: -- well that's a start. You left out the malicious angle. The desire to hurt or see the hated individual(s) hurt & in pain. There is a failure on the part of the hater to identify with those s/he hates, to see them, on a lower level than the hater, perhaps even subhuman, as in this qoute from Adolf Hitler- "The Jews may be a race, but they are not human."

slayer -- For the third time! Nothing about desiring to hurt someone precludes you showing them compassion. Since when does Adolf Hitler determine the definition of hate?

--no that would be you, wouldn't it, oh High Holy Hatemeister. 10000 pardons Your A-holiness



slayer--But even your quote doesn't help you, because hate is most commonly, if not exclusively, a relation between equals. E.g., Humans don't hate animals. Humans hate humans. This is why we don't speak of hating dogs.

-- as a dog lover I have to respond to this. Some people (the operative word here being some) do hate dogs. They leave anti-freeze out for them to drink. Or they deliberately feed them chocolate, which is poisonous to dogs. Or they do other gruesome disgusting things to them. Ditto for those people who hate other animals. That is what the PCA in ASPCA is for- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Cruelty, of course falling under the malicious angle of hate, which I happened to get from the dictionary, btw, Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary to be exact.


slayer-- If Hitler truly thought the Jews weren't human, then how could he hate them? No, he realized they were an exceptional human race.

--what high school did you go to? Assuming you made it out of the grades, that is. Didn't they teach you anything about Mein Kampf?


slayer-- In order to see this, pick out non human things and see if you can speak of hating these things. E.g., Ants are not human but we don't hate ants, even when they bite us and when we want to stomp them out.

-- and some people hate insects. I would say that stomping ants at a picnic is more of a reaction to their unwanted presence, but what about deliberately pulling off their legs, or pulling the wings off flies & other flying insects?


slayer-- In fact, the case is best if you yadayadaya

Sonrisa -- yawn



slayer--I truly hope you don't respond, because then it'll spare me the time of explaining everything yet again to you, as I'm sure you will still not get it.

-- I already do get it, do you?


slayer-- you and Sonrisa would need a year to find the premises to a tautology.

--and you would need an eternity to find a brain....



slayer-- tired of swatting flies at
the marketplace, Jethro journies back to his cave (sorry, I cannot, in good conscience, use Zarathustra)

-- he's a caveman. That explains alot



slayer--na-na na na na (<---look, I'm Sonrisa winning an argument),

--I never say na na na na, not even when I was in kindergarten, but I'll take the victory, thank you very much!

:goodlaugh: :chairdrop: :rofl:

gotta go, my sides are hurting

[sonrisa]

Richie!! Have a very Happy B'day!!

:dancing: :dance: :dancing:

[slayer]

Sonrisa,

You should have kept your word and stayed away. Now I must, once again, explain the most elementary of things to you. This has grown tiresome.

Sonrisa: Some people (the operative word here being some) do hate dogs. They leave anti-freeze out for them to drink. Or they deliberately feed them chocolate, which is poisonous to dogs. Or they do other gruesome disgusting things to them. Ditto for those people who hate other animals. That is what the PCA in ASPCA is for- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Cruelty, of course falling under the malicious angle of hate, which I happened to get from the dictionary, btw, Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary to be exact.

slayer --- Just because you state that some people do hate dogs, it doesn't follow that some people do hate dogs. Take a year to figure out that I'm right about this. Next. Even if showing cruelty sometimes entails that you also hate, it doesn't follow that if you show cruelty to animals that you therefore hate them. And showing cruelty doesn't always entail hatred. So, whatever dictionary definition you think is helping your case, it's not. And just because the PCA says people hate animals, it doesn't follow that people hate animals. We call this an appeal to authority in logic.

Sonrisa: --what high school did you go to? Assuming you made it out of the grades, that is. Didn't they teach you anything about Mein Kampf?

slayer -- Your reply is a non-sequitur. My point about Hitler is a psychological one about people in general, so nothing that Hitler says speaks against my claim. Yes, he called the Jews rats and dogs, also, but it doesn't follow that he didn't think of them as human. It pains me to think that you actually believe what you're saying.

I can be cruel to a dog without hating it. So when you see someone being cruel to a dog, it doesn't necessarily follow that they hate the dog. I'm talking about the psychology of hating, while you simply regurgitate your claim that people hate dogs. Try addressing my point with a relevant counter-claim. Otherwise, I'm done explaining things to you.

I made specific comments pertaining to your post. For the first time, you might want to address those comments, instead of moving on to another non-sequitur.

Good luck,

slayer

[sahyo]

--I never say na na na na

dear, perhaps re-read the posts you've posted slayer

[sonrisa]

slayer-- You should have kept your word and stayed away.

-- actually I was staying away until I came by to doublecheck something that you, in another topic, claim I posted here. (fyi you misintepreted it) But even if I had changed my mind, that's my perogative. I'm female.



slayer-- Now I must, once again, explain the most elementary of things to you. This has grown tiresome.

Sonrisa: yawn



slayer --- Just because you state that some people do hate dogs, it doesn't follow that some people do hate dogs.

-- and just becuz you attempt to imply that they don't doesn't mean that they don't



slayer-- Take a year to figure out that I'm right about this.

-- don't need to, see the above remark



slayer-- Even if showing cruelty sometimes entails that you also hate, it doesn't follow that if you show cruelty to animals that you therefore hate them. And showing cruelty doesn't always entail hatred.

--no sometimes it entails sickness. Some psychopaths started out being cruel to animals before moving on to humans.



slayer -- Your reply is a non-sequitur. My point about Hitler is a psychological one about people in general, so nothing that Hitler says speaks against my claim. Yes, he called the Jews rats and dogs, also, but it doesn't follow that he didn't think of them as human.

--no, he thought of them as subhuman or as an anti-race



slayer--I can be cruel to a dog
without hating it.

-- why do you want to be cruel to a dog? that is disgusting



slayer-- So when you see someone being cruel to a dog, it doesn't necessarily follow that they hate the dog.

-- agreed, see above remark re:psychopoaths



slayer-- Try addressing my point with a relevant counter-claim. Otherwise, I'm done explaining things to you.

-- yeah, right. Like Fu* sez, you love explaining things. Either that or you're anal about it. Probably a mix of both.



slayer--Good luck,

--thanx! :)


ps, here is a link re:Hitler & Jews. I tried to get quotes from Mein Kampf but this is all the search engine came up with & I don't have a hard copy handy.

it also deals with Hitler's messiah complex (http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Stadium/6712/hitleras.htm)

If I find something better I'll post it, but not right now. The bar around the corner is having their annual green breakfast & I'm off to get me some.

Top o' the mornin to ya! :)

[slayer]

Sonrisa,

This will be my last reply to you, because I've deemed you utterly incapable of good reasoning. It's too exhausting explaining why almost everything you say is irrelevant or just plain wrong. If you ever come to understand what I'm about to write, it'll dawn on you, as it has on me, that you're irrational.

LOGIC LESSON ONE.

(previously) slayer --- Just because you state that some people do hate dogs, it doesn't follow that some people do hate dogs.

Your response -- and just becuz you attempt to imply that they don't doesn't mean that they don't

slayer -- First, my point was correct. Second, I didn't IMPLY it, I explicitly stated that people can't hate animals. Third, I gave a reason: namely, hate is a relation between equals. You could have asked me to eloborate on that particular reason, but that's not what you did. You simply have regurtitated your opinion that people hate animals, citing dictionary definitions which don't give you what you need and with appeals to authority in the name of the PCA.

LOGIC LESSON TWO.

(previously) slayer-- Take a year to figure out that I'm right about this. (This is in reference to my first "slayer" claim above).

Your response: -- don't need to, see the above remark

slayer -- This is a non sequitur. Nothing about what I am supposedly doing (re: your referencing of my supposed simply stating the contrary) is relevant to the point I've made.

LOGIC LESSON THREE.

(previously) slayer-- Even if showing cruelty sometimes entails that you also hate, it doesn't follow that if you show cruelty to animals that you therefore hate them. And showing cruelty doesn't always entail hatred.

Your response--no sometimes it entails sickness. Some psychopaths started out being cruel to animals before moving on to humans.

slayer -- Off topic. Psychopaths being cruel to animals doesn't imply they hated animals. Psychopaths being cruel to humans doesn't imply they hate humans.

LOGIC LESSON FOUR.

(previously) slayer -- Your reply is a non-sequitur. My point about Hitler is a psychological one about people in general, so nothing that Hitler says speaks against my claim. Yes, he called the Jews rats and dogs, also, but it doesn't follow that he didn't think of them as human.

Your response --no, he thought of them as subhuman or as an anti-race

slayer -- This is you, YET AGAIN, screaming your conclusion at me without giving reasons. Again let me point out, that you're not responding to my claim, a psychological one about humans and hating. Again, it's immaterial what Hitler said. See "slayer" claim above for explanation why.

LOGIC LESSON FIVE.

(previously) slayer--I can be cruel to a dog
without hating it.

Your response-- why do you want to be cruel to a dog? that is disgusting

slayer -- This is laughable. Where have I expressed the desire to be cruel to a dog? I'm making a claim about what I COULD do without hating. It doesn't imply, suggest, or entail, that I desire to do this act.

END OF LESSONS.

You think that my "loving" to explain things is somehow a bad thing? You agree with Fu and characterize it as anal. But explaining things is just what you do in philosophy, in order to help understand the argument or phenomenon. That you consider my penchant for explaining things a bad thing speaks volumes for my claim that you are an obscurantist and uneducated (in the strict sense).

You've stated on a couple of occasions how you've read Kant and are reading on this or that topic, but you'll never grasp Kant or anything remotely complex, because you're incapable of reading well. You're incapable because you lack reasoning skills. And the basis for my claim is everything you've ever posted. This post alone exposes your poor reasoning.

piercing his own skull with his fingers,

slayer

[sonrisa]

slayer--This will be my last reply to you

( Yo, Asheera!! :lol: )

-- does this mean I get the last word?



slayer-- It's too exhausting explaining why almost everything you say is irrelevant or just plain wrong.

--I've told you before, if you're tiring out we can always stop. It's only a discussion. :)




slayer--If you ever come to understand what I'm about to write, it'll dawn on you, as it has on me, that you're irrational.

-- :goodlaugh:



slayer -- I explicitly stated that people can't hate animals.

-- ok then. Just becuz you explicitly state people can't hate animals doesn't follow that they can't



slayer-- I gave a reason: namely, hate is a relation between equals.

-- your POV. I have already come to realize (& stated so) that you & I have different POVs re:hate. Infact something happened yesterday that made me wonder, do we really know what another person is feeling? Even if we think we do? I opened this can of worms becuz I didn't think you were really burning hate (according to my POV re:hate) & was trying to determine, before I got derailed into this Hitler thing, if you were actually burning some other strong emotion instead. Forgive me if this sounds trite & lame, but the only thing that comes to mind is what grown-ups tells kids- if it feels like abuse then it probably is. So if if you feel like you are burning hate then you probably are. My only question is why waste your time doing so, especially, if as you claim, you're only living this one life & then you'll fade to black? I wouldn't waste any of my lives doing something so non-productive, so I can't see why you would waste your one & only life doing so. Besides, my dear Mr Spock, it is illogical to burn hate.



slayer--You could have asked me to eloborate on that particular reason, but that's not what you did.

-- maybe becuz I don't really want to prolong this. If I ask you to elaborate, will you prolong this?



slayer-- Even if showing cruelty sometimes entails that you also hate, it doesn't follow that if you show cruelty to animals that you therefore hate them. And showing cruelty doesn't always entail hatred.

--what does it entail then? Surely you don't think that people who are cruel to animals actually like them



(previously)--no sometimes it entails sickness. Some psychopaths started out being cruel to animals before moving on to humans.

slayer -- Off topic.

--how so? I merely suggested a reason other than hate, why some people are cruel to animals.



slayer -- Your reply is a non-sequitur. My point about Hitler is a psychological one about people in general, so nothing that Hitler says speaks against my claim. Yes, he called the Jews rats and dogs, also, but it doesn't follow that he didn't think of them as human.

This is you, YET AGAIN, screaming your conclusion at me without giving reasons.

-- ok, your talk about non-sequiturs threw me yesterday morning. I now realize that it refers to a question I asked in response to your claim that Hitler did not hate Jews & instead thought they were exceptional. My question- what high school did you go to?- was a reference to the fact that Hitler's POV re:Jews is part of standard high school history curriculums. You do not need to get into some specialized area of study, or go off & find books on your own to learn about it becuz it will be taught to you at some point in high school (my case, junior year) whether you want to learn it or not. I'm not sure about the messiah stuff. I didn't find out about that in HS, but that doesn't mean they aren't teaching it these days. If they are, I doubt they get into it much becuz that stuff gets pretty weird, weirder than that link I posted.

I attempted to find direct quotes from Mein Kampf about Hitler's POV re:Jews, but was unsuccessful. Besides, why should I? Most libraries carry Mein Kampf, you may even find it in bookstores if it's still in print. Go read for yourself Hitler's opinion of Jews in his own words. Instead I should be asking you to back up your, um exceptional, shall we say, claim re:Hitler & Jews, but I won't, for fear of prolonging this.



(previously) slayer-- I can be cruel to a dog without hating it

your response-- why would you want to be cruel to a dog? that's disgusting

slayer -- This is laughable.

-- like hell



slayer-- I'm making a claim about what I COULD do without hating. It doesn't imply, suggest, or entail, that I desire to do this act.

--ok hypothethically then, if you were being cruel to a dog, then how would you be feeling? and why?



slayer--You think that my "loving" to explain things is somehow a bad thing?

--nope


slayer--You agree with Fu and characterize it as anal. But explaining things is just what you do in philosophy, in order to help understand the argument or phenomenon.

-- I came to that conclusion all by my lonesome before Fu* stated it. But thanx very much for explaining why you do it



slayer--You've stated on a couple of occasions how you've read Kant

-- no Mgregory's reading Kant, not me


slayer-- piercing his own skull with his fingers,

-- I make jewelry if you want some rings for those holes..... :)

[sahyo]

--I
never say
na na na na


yo :dancing: ' sonrisa


does debating require imagining
as though a ' we , ' sonrisa ' hack ' fu , funning right ,
' slayer wrong?

though ' sonrisa ' hack ' fu noticing , ' slayer noticing aswell
. . . and though ' slayer may sometimes miss ' sonrisa thinking ' pointing ,
' sonrisa often missing ' slayer thinking ' pointing

' slayer ' veryvery fine intellect , and intellect ' logic can be used
as though a ' thorn dissolving as though a ' thorn

only called
' sonrisa
' slayer
' fu
' hack


:D

[rich]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Mar 15 2004, 04:09 PM
Richie!! Have a very Happy B'day!!

:dancing: :dance: :dancing:


richie dancing all over the net.

Thanking sonrisa for B'day Greeting and dancing W/ me . :dance:

Are you going to go floating again, on July 4th?

:scatter: :tao: :lol:

Only 5 months away.

[sonrisa]

let's boogie Richie :D

:dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:


I don't think I'll be on a float this year but, ynk. Probably next year, when my friend runs for City Council again.

[sonrisa]

ya know asheera, I'm thinking that viewing this topic is like watching a train wreck in slo-mo, no matter how bad ya wanna walk away ya gotta keep on watching....

this topic has gone beyond oxymorons to bordering on the bizarre, or so it seems to me. Let's see, you can be compassionate to those you hate, & cruel to dogs but not hate them becuz people can't hate dogs, so does it follow that people can't love them then? Oh yeah, & Hitler did not hate Jews to the tune of a 6,000,000 body count. Maybe that makes sense to you, but it it illogical to me. So are we all thorns to you too?

what I do know is I luv dogs.
:)

[sahyo]

Let's see, you can be compassionate to those you hate, & cruel to dogs but not hate them becuz people can't hate dogs, so does it follow that people can't love them then? Oh yeah, & Hitler did not hate Jews to the tune of a 6,000,000 body count. Maybe that makes sense to you, but it it illogical to me.

post wasn't
referring rightwrong,
but:


does debating require imagining
as though a ' we , ' sonrisa ' hack ' fu , funning right ,
' slayer wrong?


So are we all thorns to you too?

thorn wasnt referring 'we'

what I do know is I luv dogs.

I? know?

sweeting...
you imagained the post saying
which wasn't saying,
then imagined concluding
based on which imagined

[fu*]

Hi Slayer,

I do apologize for seeming to ignore your paragraph about the Jewish people. It is not that I think another side cannot be presented, but it would be disingenuous for ME to post it. Picking sides is not my ambition.

"Having an accurate world view is important"

I dont believe that having an "accurate" world view is even possible. It is based on perception. Every separate person has a unique perception. Is there one perception that is "right", or are they all "wrong"?

"because your beliefs significantly shape who you are"

Yes, They certainly do.

Thanks for posting the "Brights" site. Looks like a lot of good intent there. It seems they would agree that beliefs shape the 'who'. Where god/religion is concerned, exposing beliefs as just beliefs and not "truth", would be grand.
From reading some of the forum posts, it seems that there is some debate about just where the line is between belief, and truth.

I found this post very interesting
( I hope I am not breaking any laws by posting this reply from the "brights" site)

>>>>Let's look at your example of evolution. You claim to know "based on supportable evidence from which I conclude that the interpretations provide a consistent, defensible explanation of an aspect of the natural world," in your own words. However, the idea that this evidence is supportable implies that you consider thethose who collected it as well as their tools and methods to be accurate and correct to some degree.

I'm assuming you did not inspect every stage of evolutionary research that led to current theories, and unless you're quite a lucky person indeed you haven't discussed theory with Richard Dawkins, the late Stephen J. Gould, et alia. Your declaration that you know evolution is a fact implies some sort of belief that the research was done using techniques and tools that would yield a correct result. Furthermore, theories are not laws -- they can be disproven. Your statement leads one to understand that you also know somehow that a credile counterexample won't be found against evolutionary theory. That's plenty of belief already!

Let's not forget the implication of faith in your own senses - that you could read text and watch film properly, that you perceive things the way they were meant, that it isn't all just an hallucination, etc.

Backing a naturalistic worldview or scientific ideas implies some sort of faith in our senses and perceptions, and supporting a theory as fact involves even more belief.

EDIT: As a side note, if you ask a very religious person, they're liable to tell you that they know God exists.

Even if the world is too complicated for us to verify every statement, and therefore asks from us a certain amount of trust (in what this scientist says, what this other theory claims, etc.), it is essential that one *always* keep in mind that nothing is ever final, nothing can be stated for certain. There are various degrees of likelihood, and this is something one has to learn to live with the hard way, because the loss of certainties is very painful for many.

In particular, the statement "there is no god" should be recognized as being just as meaningless as the one that says that there is a god, and this because the word "god" has no understandable meaning: so, what would "I am an atheist" mean if I have no idea of what a "god" is? This is what it means to have a naturalistic world-view, in my opinion. To hang on to the slim thread of "I am an atheist" is already making a huge concession to the religious wing.

Involution. <<<<

This could pertain to nearly any claim couldn't it? Including an "accurate world view"?

When I said that I had had conversations with Vincente about his political leanings, it was not about why his "leanings were not accurate, it was about forming any "leanings" at all. And that has been much of my postings to you. (although I dont think you may have been perceiving it that way)

I have enjoyed your er, "challenges", and have learned much more about word definitions and logic etc.. I also got to see Sonrisa in a different light. ( If I was a cub bear, I would want her for my mother :) )

On the flip side, we may have been missing out on some insightful humor from hack, or the kind, gentle posts from Richie. I like all the "colors"

If I knew more about Philosophy, or you were more interested in the subject of "awakening", I think our "back and forth" might be a little more meaningful.

We will see what happens.

Sincerely
fu

[fu*]

Hi Asheera, :)

I was wondering when you were going to point out the "bulls buttiing heads" I am not above that. Sometimes, it just feels good when the ego is peirced, and gives me an opportunity to find the source of that "pain" :duh:

fu

[rich]

My dear friend, fu* now Avatarring, Madame Curie, the widow of Pierre, has flattered me, by saying: "On the flip side, we may have been missing out on some insightful humor from hack, or the kind, gentle posts from Richie. I like all the "colors" "

I think this is the closest I can get, to the color of radium, your discovery . Giving you this color, because you like all colors, and you are radiating. Watch out for the radio-activity. :examine: :goodlaugh: :cheesy:

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by asheera@Mar 19 2004, 08:24 AM

post wasn't
referring rightwrong,
but:


does debating require imagining
as though a ' we , ' sonrisa ' hack ' fu , funning right ,
' slayer wrong?


So are we all thorns to you too?

thorn wasnt referring 'we'


sweeting...
you imagained the post saying
which wasn't saying,
then imagined concluding
based on which imagined[/color]

umm, perhaps I did then, I think

but there is no right or wrong in a discussion, for me at least. Only different pov's

glad to know that we're not thorns becuz when I posted (Yo Asheera!!) I was thinking of this-

This will be my last response to you unless you manage to express yourself better

I'm hoping I'm in good company :)

ps to Fu*- right back atcha, but I'm thinking maybe we could be more like sibs.... :)

[sahyo]

:D fu

I was wondering when you were going to point out
the "bulls buttiing heads" I am not above that.

perhaps wording wasn't clear
since wasn't pointing "bulls buttiing heads"
or that weren't "above that" :)

Sometimes, it just feels good when the ego is peirced,
and gives me an opportunity to find the source of that "pain" :duh:

.. B)

imagined ego
can seem as though real

[sahyo]

but there is no right or wrong in a discussion,
for me at least. Only different pov's

sonrisa post di :think: sagreeing slayer
just to disagree?

does seeming'need' need posting asthough"p :think: ov's"?

does di :think: scussing seeming'fulfull'
as though aseeming'need'?

[slayer]

Hello Fu,

I'm a little bit late in responding myself, because I had written you an extensive reply only to lose it. It's taken me this long to get over the frustration.

You stated: I dont believe that having an "accurate" world view is even possible. It is based on perception.

slayer -- Implying that our perceptions are misleading, I take it? First, by an accurate world view I didn't intend a perfect world view -- I mean, sometimes we'll get things wrong. And an inaccurate world view isn't inaccurate such that everything we perceive is somehow not quite right, it's just getting it wrong sometimes or a lot of times. There are 'more accurate' world views than others. For some, they get the majority of things right.

But why the distrust of the senses? Why are you so skeptical? Although , to be honest, I don't think you mistrust your senses at all. I think you merely are holding a philosophical position which your everyday actions belie. For instance, go stand in traffic right now, and I promise you that when your eyes and brain tell you there's a car coming straight for you, you'll move.

To put it philosophically: from the premise "sometimes our senses deceive us", the conclusion "we should never trust our senses" does not follow.

You stated: Every separate person has a unique perception. Is there one perception that is "right", or are they all "wrong"?

slayer -- That every person has a unique perspective (and perception) is trivial. If you and I are standing next to each other and you believe there's no car approaching and I believe there is, well, you'd be wrong if there was a car coming. So your perception would be inaccurate; mine accurate. Is this something you wish to challenge? If so, how so? There could be a room full of us, and if there was an apple in the room and we all believed there was an apple in the room, then we'd all be correct: correct about one specific belief. If anyone of us thought differently, then he'd be mistaken. I don't see the problem with this type of reasoning. Yet from the fact that we sometimes makes perceptual mistakes, you want to conclude that we can't know anything. Nothing motivates this conclusion.

You stated: Your declaration that you know evolution is a fact implies some sort of belief that the research was done using techniques and tools that would yield a correct result. Furthermore, theories are not laws -- they can be disproven.

slayer -- Here, I think you've attributed something Thomas has claimed to me. I'm not in complete agreement with Thomas on this, but I do believe that evolutionary theory is the best theory out there, and it is based on facts. Therefore, in light of an even almost equally strong counter-theory, it's what I believe is accurate - that is, I find it compelling. The reason a theory is compelling is usually for two reasons: One, it's based on empirical data, and, Two, it has strong explanatory power. The scientific method, the means by which we test our theories, is a very dependable method -- historically correct results are the basis why we think it's dependable.

You're right, theories are not laws, but not all theories can be disproven -- that is, correct theories cannot be disproven. And this is partly why I think Thomas calls evolutionary theory a fact, because he feels it is the correct theory. He has much reason to believe this.

You stated: Let's not forget the implication of faith in your own senses - that you could read text and watch film properly, that you perceive things the way they were meant, that it isn't all just an hallucination, etc.

slayer --- You really do abuse the term "faith" when you apply it as you have above. When I look at my car parked in front of my house, it's not a matter of faith that I believe it's there. It's not faith because my very dependable senses, especially in those circumstances, are my justification for having a strong belief (more than that, knowledge!) that it's there.

Your hallucination remark is just the old Argument from Illusion. This argument suffers from the same defect that I mentioned earlier: the existence of hallucinations doesn't motivate the conclusion that we should never trust our senses, or that they're always mistaken.

You stated: EDIT: As a side note, if you ask a very religious person, they're liable to tell you that they know God exists.

slayer -- What epistemic state a religious person claims to have regarding the existence of God is irrelevant. If I say I know there are martians, it doesn't follow that I know there are martians. That is, there are criteria that determine knowledge, so the pertinent thing to ask the religous person is: How do you know? When I say that I know I'm sitting in front of my computer, I have the right justification: I see it in front of me, I believe it's in front of me, and it's true that it's in front of me. The truth of this can be confirmed by others. This is the scientific method at work. When you claim that there's an afterlife, there is no one that can confirm this, which is partly why that belief is a matter of faith.

There just are distinctions between 'faith,' 'belief', 'knowledge,' and 'certainty,' and what you are doing is arguing that because we can't be certain, that therefore everything is a matter of faith. Nothing of the kind follows. I don't even concede that we can't be certain about some things. I won't argue this point though, because I owe Owen a related response which I've been remiss about posting.

You stated: Even if the world is too complicated for us to verify every statement, and therefore asks from us a certain amount of trust (in what this scientist says, what this other theory claims, etc.), it is essential that one *always* keep in mind that nothing is ever final, nothing can be stated for certain. There are various degrees of likelihood, and this is something one has to learn to live with the hard way, because the loss of certainties is very painful for many.

slayer -- Here's what I'm talking about. You think that the "loss of certainty" compels a matter of trust from us about the world. Yet, the notion of knowledge doesn't entail certainty. And knowledge is quite a powerful epistemic state. Our knowledge of the world (by which I mean 'universe') has allowed us to send a man to the moon and satellites to specific destinations. This is impressive enough, but it would have been a mere matter of luck had our confidence in our data and technology been a matter of trust or faith.

You stated: In particular, the statement "there is no god" should be recognized as being just as meaningless as the one that says that there is a god, and this because the word "god" has no understandable meaning: so, what would "I am an atheist" mean if I have no idea of what a "god" is? This is what it means to have a naturalistic world-view, in my opinion. To hang on to the slim thread of "I am an atheist" is already making a huge concession to the religious wing.

slayer -- I'm not clear why you say that the word "god" has no understandable meaning. Let me give one meaning: the creator of the universe. The expression "creator" is meaningful and the expression "universe" is meaningful, so why wouldn't this be meaningful?

You might argue that this notion of a creator of the universe is logically incoherent. The same way, you might say, that a square-circle is logically incoherent. So you'd be claiming that logically incoherent notions are strictly meaningless. I'm not sure this position is right, but it at least has something going for it. Yet you might think that it makes sense to say that there are no square-circles. But if this makes sense, then doesn't "square-circles" make sense? How could it be meaningless and yet the proposition that there are no square-circles be meaningful? I'm not taking a position on this, but it is something to think about.

So far so good. But then you go too far, I believe, when you say that the notion of an atheist doesn't make sense if the notion of god doesn't make sense. This claim needs clarification. One definition of an atheist is the rejection (the denial) that a god exists. But another definition of an atheist is one where you just don't accept that a god exists. There's an important difference between the two. On the second definition, I could be an atheist and "god" could be meaningless, yet it makes perfect sense for me to claim that I don't accept the existence of a god. The same way I could be an atheist about square-circles. Someone could say, "square-circles" exist, and I could respond, "I don't accept that as true." I'm not so sure that simply to deny that square-circles exist is to acknowledge the meaningfulness of "square-circles." If not, then what you say doesn't even hold for our first definition of an atheist.

sincerely,

slayer

PS. I have to agree with you about Sonrisa: If I were a bear cub, I'd want her as my mother too. But because human mothers strongly influence what their children ultimately believe, I wouldn't wish any human baby Sonrisa as a mother.

[sonrisa]

(sonrisa)
but there is no right or wrong in a discussion,
for me at least. Only different pov's

sonrisa post di :think: sagreeing slayer
just to disagree?

--nope


does seeming'need' need posting asthough"p :think: ov's"?

--nope


does di :think: scussing seeming'fulfull'
as though aseeming'need'?

not necessarily, depends

ps to slayer, the only way I would have you for a son is if we were gerbils or some other species where the parents eat their young

[sahyo]

sonrisa care "pov's"?

[sonrisa]

ummm, sometimes....

enjoy exchanging pov's
otherwise would not be here

enjoy reading your poems....


:)

[sahyo]

then posting 3 haikus sonrisa the dancing thread

[sonrisa]

I'll go check them out!

[sonrisa]

my Uncle sent me this.... not sure where to post it, I guess here is as good as anywhere.... enjoy!


Subject: Granma's driving

The other day I went up to a local Christian bookstore and saw a honk if you love Jesus bumper sticker.

I was feeling particularly sassy that day because I had just come from a thrilling choir performance, followed by a thunderous prayer meeting, so I bought the sticker and put it on my bumper.

I was stopped at a red light at a busy intersection, just lost in thought about the Lord and how good He is and I didn't notice that the light had changed.

It is a good thing someone else loves Jesus because if he hadn't honked, I'd never have noticed.

I found that LOTS of people love Jesus. Why, while I was sitting there, the guy behind started honking like crazy, and when he leaned out of his window and screamed, "for the love of God, GO! GO!" What an exuberant cheerleader he was for Jesus.

Everyone started honking! I just leaned out of my window and started waving and smiling at all these loving people.


I even honked my horn a few times to share in the love. There must have been a man from Florida back there because I heard him yelling something about a sunny beach...

I saw another guy waving in a funny way with only his middle finger stuck up in the air. When I asked my teenage grandson in the back seat what that meant, he said that it was probably a Hawaiian good luck sign or something.

Well, I've never met anyone from Hawaii, so I leaned out the window and gave him the good luck sign back.

My grandson burst out laughing, why even he was enjoying this religious experience.

A couple of the people were so caught up in the joy of the moment that they got out of their cars and started walking towards me.

I bet they wanted to pray or ask what church I attended, but this is when I noticed the light had changed.

So, I waved to all my sisters and brothers grinning, and drove on through the intersection.

I noticed I was the only car that got through the intersection before the light changed again and I felt kind of sad that I had to leave them after all the love we had shared, so I slowed the car down, leaned out of the window and gave them all the Hawaiian good luck sign one last time as I drove away.

Praise the Lord for such wonderful folks!

Share Granma's letter with your friends


:D
|

[a random hack]

:goodlaugh: :lol: rotflol

[sonrisa]

Thomas, can we have a little dude for the Hawaiian good luck sign? :D

please? :D

[komptin]

Originally posted by asheera@Mar 20 2004, 09:43 PM
but there is no right or wrong in a discussion,
for me at least. Only different pov's
Arggggh, I hate that philosophy... I think there's right and wrong, but sometimes it's darn near impossible to tell. I do believe in a middle ground though: Ignorance. If someone asks me if the Nick Berg beheading video was faked, I'd say "I have no idea." Because I don't. So I've taken a "genuine middle ground," since I immediately think all middle ground positions are poppycock. Which may not be a good thing, but that's why I'm making a post.

[sonrisa]

hello komptin, & welcome to TBV. Sorry it has taken me the better part of a month to reply to your post above, for those words are actually mine, not asheera's. We were discussing somebody who used to post here who was in the habit of dissing anybody who has a different pov from his- calling them stupid, wrong, & worse- & quite frankly, I had had more than enough of it. Wouldn't you agree that sharing different pov's is at least partly the reason for posting in a discussion forum? If everybody thought exactly the same way about everything, then what would be the point of even having discussion forums, since we'd all know what everybody else was thinking. This is what I had in mind when I posted what I did about pov's & discussions.

Of course a post can be empirically right or wrong, & going by your rather gruesome example, I take it that's what you are getting at. (either the video was faked or it wasn't) For instance, if you scroll back a few pages from where you picked up that quote you posted, you'll read that that same jackass I was referring to earlier posted that Hitler didn't hate Jews, when of course, Hitler's hatred of Jews has been documented- by Hitler (in Mein Kampf) So obviously that post is empirically inaccurate, erroneous, hell, just plain wrong! But I wasn't referring to empirical accuracy when I posted those words you quoted.

What I was referring to is, well, I think your Nick Berg example is gross. Somebody else reading this may chide me for being missish or sqeamish, whatever. Does that make my pov wrong? Does it matter?

"Right" & "wrong" (as opposed to empirical accuracy & inaccuracy) is generally determined by popular opinion & acceptance. Beheading is an acceptable form of capital punishment in Muslim countries (except when the person is innocent, but that's the next paragraph) It was also the preferred method of capital punishment in France as recently as the late 18th century. The guillotine, fyi, was invented by some French MD to be a "humane" way to behead somebody, which suggests that the French may have been starting to lose their collective stomachs for it, at any rate, these days the practice has long since been banned. But does that mean that those 18th century French were "wrong" to be chopping off peoples' heads with their guillotines?

Popular opinion holds that it's wrong to execute innocent people ( & that's generally what prompts death penalty moratoriums) & whatever "suspicious activity" Nick Berg was being held in custody for, he was innocent of torturing people in Abu Gharib, for which he was executed. Yet I have heard people shrug it off, saying, well there's a war on, he knew it was dangerous over there, etc... one person even said it was his own fault he was beheaded!?! Now, while I agree with those who say it was stupid for him to go over there & that if he hadn't, he'd be walking around today with his head on his shoulders, I think the ultimate blame rests with those who did the beheading. Then there's the FBI, who apparantly visited him 3x in jail & left him flapping. Why didn't they get him transferred into their custody? And of course, the idiots over at Abu Gharib, whose actions prompted the beheading. But that's my pov. It's not "right" or "wrong", just my pov, from what I know about the situation.
You may agree with it or disagree. It doesn't make you "right" or "wrong", just sharing your pov. And when folx share their pov's, I think we should respect their right to post what they think, just as we want to be respected when we post. Sorta like the golden rule for posting, I guess. :)

Anyhow, I hope this clears things up 4 u. :)

[slayer]

Hello Ms. Jackass (a.k.a., Sonrisa),

I see that you have no problem with saying we shouldn't call others names in here but yet feel comfortable calling me a jackass. How hypocritical of you. No surprise. What's also not surprising is that you still haven't figured out what I was talking about in our discussion about hate. Here's your MORONIC interpretation.

[Sonrisa...] you'll read that that same jackass I was referring to earlier posted that Hitler didn't hate Jews, when of course, Hitler's hatred of Jews has been documented- by Hitler (in Mein Kampf)

I never claimed that Hitler didn't hate the Jews, you simpleton, I said that Hitler recognized them as exceptional human beings. You can both hate them and recognize them as such. So stop misrepresenting what I've said. You are utterly incapable of reading well because you are a dumb ass. Wow, I'm insulting you again. Yet the difference is that my insults seem to fit, as proof you have my arguments exposing all your foolish claims. But you insult me unjustly because your support is always mistaken, as you are generally mistaken.

So, talk about me all you want, but stop misrepresenting me.

You really should be tired of your own stupidity by now, instead of worrying about my insults.

love and kisses,

slayer

[pnklphnts]

come on now guys, GROUP HUG!
now isnt it all better?

[NeverMind]

Heterosexual Hippo (oxymoron and alliteration) :D

[sonrisa]

ok. I can see the alliteration, but how is it an oxymoron? Are you saying hippos are gay?

[NeverMind]

YES. It's commonly known that all hippopotomi are homosexual. They only reproduce when absolutely necessary. :nono:

[sonrisa]

oh really? they're teaching that in Biology class these daze?

[NeverMind]

Well you can't spell "days." That shows a lot about Cincinatti, doesn't it.
Aha! Burn!
I'm sorry, that was kinda rude. I just couldn't think of a witty comeback so i resorted to insults.

[sonrisa]

well, you can't spell Cincinnati. And I take it that the answer to my question is no?


oh LOOK!! nearly missed this:

HE'S BA-ACK!!

goody goody gumdrops!! fun fun fun!! :dancing:

:devilish:

now let's make dead bloody certain we all know exactly who this post is for...

slayer--Hello Ms. Jackass (a.k.a., Sonrisa),

-- hello oh High Holy Jackass (u no hoo u r-- well, mebbe not)


slayer--I see that you have no problem with saying we shouldn't call others names in here but yet feel comfortable calling me a jackass.

-- I try to call em as I see em....


slayer--How hypocritical of you.

--how so? I merely post to you the same way you post to everybody here.
The golden rule of posting, bubbala- the way you post to us around here, well, I figure that's how you want us to post to you in return. So that's what I do. And I've only been doing it after you started in with me. Long as you were spewing your dreck on everybody else around here, I let it slide (hey, they can take care of themselves) but when you went & made it personal... well that's when you declared open season on yourself. And I've already walked you thru this, are you losing memory cells or something? Or do you have poor reading/comprehension skills? Or are you just lame? These are questions, btw, not insults. there's a difference.
Course, I spose I could take the high road & ignore your snarky crap. But that wouldn't be much fun. And darlin, you are soooo much fun!

slayer--What's also not surprising is that you still haven't figured out what I was talking about in our discussion about hate.

-- & I don't care. Becuz I wasn't talking about hate when I posted this:

[Sonrisa...] you'll read that that same jackass I was referring to earlier posted that Hitler didn't hate Jews, when of course, Hitler's hatred of Jews has been documented- by Hitler (in Mein Kampf)

I was demonstrating empirical inaccuracy. That Hitler nonsense was/is so ludicrous that it immediately came to mind as an example. And it was posted in this very topic to boot, so I didn't have to go searching for an example. Which is why I didn't bother to go back & doublecheck the exact wording. Oops!! My bad!
Oh, & lastly, I didn't want to embarrass anybody who is currently posting here by using one of their posts for my example. So I used the Hitler thing becuz it was authored by somebody I thought was no longer posting here. How was I to know that, when I figured you had finally made good on your promises to blow this forum, you'd blow back in here not 12 hours later, like some brat who's alla time whining about running away but never does? So how come you aren't over at the other oh so wonderful forum if it's so all that? They get enough of your sorry arrogant butt & kick it off their site? Is that why you're back here?


slayer--I never claimed that Hitler didn't hate the Jews, you simpleton, I said that Hitler recognized them as exceptional human beings. You can both hate them and recognize them as such.

-- well, in the spirit of putting the horse after the cart, I just went back & found the post I was referring to. It's on page 10, & it's phrased, in part, as a question:

[slayer...]
If Hitler truly thought the Jews weren't human, then how could he hate them?....Infact, the case is best if you say that if something isn't human (eg. subhuman), then you cannot hate it.

--well, that's just it Gomer, Hitler thought the Jews weren't really human, but some sort of untermensch. He said, "The Jews may be a race, but they are not human." What do you think those cattle cars (as opposed to regular passenger cars) were all about? So, if Hitler thought the Jews weren't really human, but subhuman.... well you do the math, my dear Mr Spock.

As for your comment about Hitler thinking the Jews were exceptional, whatever that is.... actually exeptional can refer to several things, but I don't believe "subhuman" is one of those things.

So, since Hitler actually did hate Jews to the tune of a 6,000,000 body count, your remarks are empirically inaccurate.


Yo Komptin, here's another empirically inaccurate statement....

slayer-- you are a dumb ass.

--becuz, well, actually Gomer, I'm a smartass. Or why do you think I always have such a good ol time messing with, well, whatever that thing is that's attempting to pass as your pinhead? If you haven't figured that one out then you're lamer than dubya. And just what is that thing anyhow? Seriously.



slayer--But you insult me unjustly....

--when? Look Gomer, if I ever choose to gift you with an insult you will know it. In no uncertain terms


slayer--You really should be tired of your own stupidity by now, instead of worrying about my insults.

--what, me worry? :goodlaugh:

slayer--love and kisses,

--why thanx! I prefer Hersheys! No almonds please, putting up with one nut around here is plenty, thank you very much

welcome back from your very own personal Hawaiian good luck sign! :hug:

ps to pnklphnts- group hug is :grouphug:

[slayer]

Dear Sonrisa,

Everytime you post you make my case that you're just an intelligent crustacean. The following dissection of your poor reasoning won't be for your puerile mind, but for those who can comprehend the following math problem: You're a moron!

Let's begin.

I complained to you that you had misrepresented, and misunderstood, what I had said about Hitler, namely that he did hate the Jews, but also recognized them as an exceptional race.

To this you respond with the following.

-- & I don't care. Becuz I wasn't talking about hate when I posted this:

*
[Sonrisa...] you'll read that that same jackass I was referring to earlier posted that Hitler didn't hate Jews, when of course, Hitler's hatred of Jews has been documented- by Hitler (in Mein Kampf)


I was demonstrating empirical inaccuracy. That Hitler nonsense was/is so ludicrous that it immediately came to mind as an example. And it was posted in this very topic to boot, so I didn't have to go searching for an example. Which is why I didn't bother to go back & doublecheck the exact wording. Oops!! My bad!

How cavalier of you not to care. Listen, if you want to give an example of an empirically false claim, then you have plenty of examples to choose from from your own posts. You don't need to go searching anywhere other than your miniscule mind. And, more importantly, you misrepresented what I said. So it might not be a big deal to you, but it is a big deal, especially considering the words you put in my mouth. Of course if you could read well, then this "example" would never have come to mind in the first place, because I never made that claim. So, yeah, your bad for not doublechecking. Although we both know that doublechecking wouldn't have changed anything, because you misunderstood me then as you do now.

Spare me your idiotic rhetoric also.

Uhm, Sonrisa, why are you such a moron?
Uhm, Sonrisa, why can't you form a simple argument?
Uhm, Sonrisa, why are you so painfully stupid that I have to explain everything to you three times before you half-understand it?

Oh, these aren't claims, these are just questions. YAWN!

[Sonrisa...] Oh, & lastly, I didn't want to embarrass anybody who is currently posting here by using one of their posts for my example. So I used the Hitler thing becuz it was authored by somebody I thought was no longer posting here.

Oh, so if I didn't post here anymore it would have been okay to misrepresent what I said? Nice. Trust me, you have only embarrassed yourself, by displaying your drossy intelligence.

-- well, in the spirit of putting the horse after the cart, I just went back & found the post I was referring to. It's on page 10, & it's phrased, in part, as a question:

*
[slayer...]
If Hitler truly thought the Jews weren't human, then how could he hate them?....Infact, the case is best if you say that if something isn't human (eg. subhuman), then you cannot hate it.


--well, that's just it Gomer, Hitler thought the Jews weren't really human, but some sort of untermensch. He said, "The Jews may be a race, but they are not human." What do you think those cattle cars (as opposed to regular passenger cars) were all about? So, if Hitler thought the Jews weren't really human, but subhuman.... well you do the math, my dear Mr Spock.

That quote of mine isn't an argument for Hitler not hating the Jews. It's an argument in favor of something that makes more sense than saying he didn't recognize them as human and yet that he hated them. And my argument was that we don't hate non-human things. So if he does hate the Jews, then it makes more sense to think that he recognized them as humans.

And yet you're still missing the point of our discussion. The point was about the psychology behind hating. What Hitler says is immaterial. We granted that he hated the Jews because of what he did to them and why he did it, and from this we were arguing whether he thought of them as human or not. You kept giving quotes, which I kept saying were immaterial, as I continue to say (but of course you still don't understand why). Yes, Hitler spoke of the Jews as subhuman. So what? If the psychology of hate is such that you can't hate a non-human, then nothing Hitler says matters. Jesus, when will this sink in with you!?

Why the cattle cars? Oh, I don't know, genius, because that's what was available?! Because his whole rhetoric about the Jews would have seemed inconsistent to his people if he treated them any other way?! Because he hated them?!

[Sonrisa..] As for your comment about Hitler thinking the Jews were exceptional, whatever that is.... actually exeptional can refer to several things, but I don't believe "subhuman" is one of those things.

Wow, what a load of irrelevant crap that was. Knock knock! Who's there? Dumbass. Dumbass who? Dumbass Sonrisa! I have been saying that he didn't think of them as subhuman, so why would there be a problem for me to say that he also thought of them as exceptional?

And exceptional is an adjective that can modify almost any noun, certainly 'subhuman.' For instance: You're an exceptional moron. Or: Sonrisa is an exceptional subhuman who can tie her own shoes. See. Easy peasy.

[Sonrisa...] So, since Hitler actually did hate Jews to the tune of a 6,000,000 body count, your remarks are empirically inaccurate.

And after all this, we get this completely mind-numbing claim. Uhm, my remark was that he hated the Jews and killed over 6 million of them. And yet -- and yet! -- if I HAD said he didn't hate the Jews, your numbers wouldn't show that he did, simple one. Don't salivate over this too long, I said "if I HAD." I like how you still don't see that you've misrepresented me. Truly amazing.

Your gay ass nonchalante demeanor is not fooling anyone, Sonrisa, because your stupidity is on display yet again. You try too hard to pretend my dissections of your moronic opinions don't bother you, but it's obvious that they do. As well they should, I'd be embarrassed too.

Just disengage from talking to me, and I'll consider not philosophically undressing you anymore.

Oh, you liked that talk, huh?

slayer

[Mental Gremlin]

Blah, blah, blah

what a whiner.

[pnklphnts]

well fine then :grouphug:

[sahyo]

hehe :D

[NeverMind]

we definitely need more hugging.

[sonrisa]

yeah, Mental G, I agree with you about the whining, but there's one thing in all that garbage that needs to be set straight...

from page 10 *
[slayer...]
If Hitler truly thought the Jews weren't human, then how could he hate them?....Infact, the case is best if you say that if something isn't human (eg. subhuman), then you cannot hate it.

slayer--That quote of mine isn't an argument for Hitler not hating the Jews. It's an argument in favor of something that makes more sense than saying he didn't recognize them as human and yet that he hated them. And my argument was that we don't hate non-human things. So if he does hate the Jews, then it makes more sense to think that he recognized them as humans.

And yet you're still missing the point of our discussion. The point was about the psychology behind hating. What Hitler says is immaterial.

--becuz his words (re: his thoughts on Jews) blow your words straight out of the water. The facts are as follows:
a) Hitler hated the Jews
b ) Hitler thought the Jews were less than human

what I'm seeing is that these facts turn your precious little theory into- guess what!- an oxymoron! Oh I see the point you're trying to make, but the facts simply don't fit it. So, you ignore one of them (fact b ) in order to make your theory work. Funny, Hitler used to do that too. Or else alter the facts to fit his half-baked theories.

Look, I have no desire to reopen this can of worms. I have accomplished what I wanted to do, which was to demonstrate empirical inaccuracy. You can think whatever you want (I never said you weren't entitled to your pov) but I am not going discuss this sort of thinking in a public forum becuz it is dangerous. You may agree that Hitler hated & murdered Jews (don't say I never gave you anything) but other people will go from, "Hitler didn't really think the Jews were less than human" to "Hitler didn't really hate the Jews" to "the Holocaust didn't really happen" becuz that's where your stupid theory leads & you're damn bloody f'ing straight I'm gonna blow holes in that sort of crap whenever I see it.

Another reason I'm not discussing this with you further is that I have a growing suspicion you don't really know what you're talking about. Ya see, this Hitler/Jews thing gets really strange- hell, downright bizarre- & I'm starting to think you don't know about the strange part. Don't feel bad, most folx don't, it's not something they teach in History class. And not something I'm gonna post on a public discussion board.


slayer-- Dumbass. Dumbass who? Dumbass Sonrisa!

--I already told you I am a smartass. Proud of it too. So please stop misrepresenting me
:rolleyes:



slayer--Your gay ass nonchalante demeanor

--this is derogatory. Same as using a racist adjective. Or maybe you don't mind being labeled a bigot?



slayer--Just disengage from talking to me

--are you serious?!? No flippin way!! You're too much fun!

slayer--I'll consider not philosophically undressing you anymore

--yeah, you wish. But you're just gonna have to settle for getting that philosophical blow-up doll out of the philosophical closet & giving her a philosophical workout instead, arentcha? Or does she stay in your philosophical bed 24/7?

philosophically speaking, of course.



ps to Nevermind- :grouphug:

[slayer]

Sonrisa,

How obtuse can you be!? This, hopefully, will be the last time I need to explain why you're still wrong and not understanding our discussion about hate and Hitler.

[Sonrisa...] --becuz his words (re: his thoughts on Jews) blow your words straight out of the water. The facts are as follows:
a) Hitler hated the Jews
b ) Hitler thought the Jews were less than human

what I'm seeing is that these facts turn your precious little theory into- guess what!- an oxymoron! Oh I see the point you're trying to make, but the facts simply don't fit it.

Listen, simple one, if Hitler says he hates the Jews it doesn't follow that he hates the Jews. If Hitler says he thinks the Jews are subhuman, it doesn't follow that he thinks they're subhuman.

We agreed that Hitler hated the Jews because of what he did to them, not simply because he said, "I hate the Jews." We then discussed the PSYCHOLOGY of hate. I said that the psychology of hate was such that you couldn't hate non-human things. E.g., you can't hate a rock, a rose, a dog, or a number. So, I said, that since Hitler hated the Jews, therefore it couldn't be that he thought of them literally as subhuman. Instead he must have recognized their humanity. I added that he recognized them as an exceptional human race, but nothing rests on this addition.

And what do you continually do! You quote me Hitler. When will it sink into your 'nanomind' that your quotes are immaterial? When will it sink in that because Hitler says "I hate the Jews" it doesn't follow that he hates the Jews? If the psychology of hate is such that you cannot hate anything subhuman, then no matter what Hitler says will make it the case that he thinks of the Jews as subhumans. His hate towards the Jews will preclude that he could think this.

So take some time to comprehend what I've taken time to explain to you, yet again. Then perhaps you'll stop repeating your misrepresentation of what I said.

And I use my blow up doll to practice discussing things with someone of your intelligence,

slayer

[NeverMind]

Slayer,
insulting people makes them more adament with regards to oppising you. It is not a good tactic to employ if you are attempting to convince people you are correct. When you insult them, they become more defensive of themselves and their opinions. Just a thought.

[slayer]

Nevermind,

Shut up, you moron! Just kidding.

Yes, I appreciate that my tone is not going to help Sonrisa see the light. I have given up though on Sonrisa, as I have explained that particular point to her at least three times now. She is beyond grasping what I've been saying.

Now, are you telling me that you can't understand my objection to Sonrisa, and why she is wrong to say that I said Hitler didn't hate the Jews? Do you not see my point that if the psychology of hating was such that you can't hate non-humans or subhumans, then Hitler couldn't have thought of the Jews as subhuman if he hated them? No matter what he says!

Yes, people get defensive when you call them morons. And if I were trying to persuade Sonrisa, then I would change tactics, but when someone misrepresents what you've said to the tune of 'Slayer claims that Hitler didn't hate the Jews,' then you're likely to get a little pissed off, especially after you correct her mirepresentation, only to have her insist that she's right.

My posts with her are so other people can read them and make up their minds about what I did or did not claim. I have long given up thinking that she can be reasoned with. You'll find this is true for other regulars in this forum, but I won't bias you by naming names.

a nice man,

slayer

[sahyo]

but I won't bias

... :lol:

on another forum when registered and posted a few short posts:


slayer Posted: May 1 2004, 05:29 PM


Confident


Group: Members
Posts: 43
Member No.: 113
Joined: 25-April 04


To All,

I know Asheera from another forum. She is one reason why I stopped posting in that forum. First, she makes claims all over the place but will almost never give an argument. She holds very odd views which she can't and won't give arguments for. She clutters up the board with her opinions without attempting to reasonably persuade. She is fond of responding to claims with "perhaps" and question marks, which she thinks make her case.

All of her replies stem from her view of the world, which is an odd view.

One, she thinks that words can't be used to communicate things about the world. As she would poorly phrase it: Words cannot say. If you think I'm being cruel in saying she writes poorly, you'll soon see yourself that I was being kind.

Two, she doesn't think we can understand things about the world. She doesn't think we can have thoughts, only "imaginings," whatever that's supposed to mean -- and she won't articulate her position.

Three, she is a relativist with respect to the truth. No wait, she doesn't think there are truths, not even relativist truths.

All of these things wouldn't be so bad if she only would argue for them. But she doesn't, she simply responds as if her worldview was correct and not in need of defense. This makes attempting to discuss things with her very frustating, if not nearly impossible. The majority of the time, after you've taken the trouble of trying to understand what she is saying, you'll get the response that you didn't understand her claim. She doesn't understand that the onus is on her to write at least well enough to be understood. And what's more frustrating is that she won't even correct you as to your mistake, that is, she won't then articulate what she actually meant.

I'm complaining now because I sincerely hope that our moderators will ban her from this site as soon as possible. She does not contribute to a reasoned discussion. I of course don't expect her to be banned owing to my word, but hopefully if you're warned about her then you'll realize sooner that she shouldn't be allowed to clutter our discussions here.

I'll let her posts speak for themselves now.

sincerely,

slayer

[sahyo]

slayer referring sonrisa:
I have long given up thinking that she can be reasoned with.

slayer referring asheera:
She does not contribute to a reasoned discussion.

does slayer imagine people should conform
to slayer desiring imagining reasoning?

[slayer]

I'm sorry, Asheera, come again? Are you trying to say something to me? Are you trying to communicate through language?

Stop wasting my time with your mindless drivel. Make a claim , own up to something, or else stop wasting my time. And stop cluttering up this forum with your "contributions" such as smiley faces, irrelevant pictures, and emotes.

Learn English; otherwise, I can't talk to you.

a competent English speaker,

slayer

[sahyo]

I can't talk to you.

exactly

[slayer]

Exactly!

Because by your 'exactly' you mean that we (that is, no one!) can communicate because language doesn't allow us to. This is ridiculous, but my point is that you're obviously understanding what I've been saying to you -- hence, your very disingenuous attempt to change the original meaning of what I said.

Of course I said that I can't talk to you in the sense that you're just too illogical for me to talk to, which you understood perfectly well.

So, thank you for making my point. Thank for you conceding to me in responding in the disingenuous manner that you have. Oh, and you're not only illogical, but you're a disingenuous person. Try picking a belief system -- perhaps a religion even -- that will allow you to better your character, instead of one that would have you be disingenuous in order to maintain your idiotic contentions. Your disingenuity nauseates me, Asheera. Your lack of intellectual integrity nauseates me. .

still a competent English speaker,

slayer

[sahyo]

wasn't saying:


can communicate because language doesn't allow us to.

[NeverMind]

I think Asheera is a fine individual. Stop ragging on the liberals just cuz they're liberals and also the other people that are too lazy to state facts. Laziness is an illness! Not a crime!

And I wanna be and anarchist-Sex Pistols :huh:

[slayer]

I'm ragging on her because she's a disingenuous liberal simpleton, not because she's a liberal.

Take her last quote. She quotes me. And while yes, I did write "can communicate," it's obvious that "can" is a type, and I intended "can't." I wrote "can" because when I added the paranthetical "no one", then "can" obviously was the proper verb to complement "communicate." Anyway, it's something anyone interesting in not misrepresenting me would have gleaned. It isn't something difficult to have figured out, which is why she doesn't get the benefit of the doubt that she simply thought I meant 'can communicate.' Especially so if you consider my line in my other posts to her. No, she knows what I meant and she knows what she was doing in quoting me precisely there -- misrepresenting me.

So what does she do? She takes advantage of this obvious typo to quote me as intending to say that we cannot communicate because language doesn't allow us to.

Now, is anyone here denying that her contention that language doesn't allow us to communicate, to "say", as she contends, is ridiculous? and certainly unsubstantiated, if not contradicted by her own posts? I seriously doubt anyone can honestly deny this.

Now, is anyone here denying the obvious disingenuous quote? Again, I seriously doubt someone will.

And is anyone fooled by her denial that she honestly believes that language can't communicate in the face of her continued posts, responses to posts, and replies to me? Of course not.

She is disingenuous. She offers claims without arguments. She is a liberal without reasons, which makes her an ignorant liberal. This is why I rag on her. And what is no longer surprising is that no one else here is calling her out on her claims, disingenuous posts, and her lack of reasons for her claims.

This is on par with this site, which is why it really is a good-idea-gone-bad. Other forums like these are very enriching, and the reason why this forum is as terrible as it is is because of the ignorance of the regulars here. I have ceased posting regularly because sooner or later one must leave the market place, but I will not allow idiots like Sonrisa to misrepresent me, nor disingenuous nimrods like Asheera to make ridiculous claims and then refuse to give an argument. She flouts the guidelines for posting in this forum with every post she submits.

Enjoy the sharing of your same poor opinions,

slayer

[sahyo]

does slayer think imagined reasons can prove
and labeling can define?

:)

[sonrisa]

Hello NM, Thanx for your attempt to mediate, but unfortunately it's a waste of time. Like I already told your buddy Cam, I've been dealing with this jackass for some months now & have long since given up attempting a serious discussion with him. Besides, what's the point of attempting a serious discussion with anybody who insists they're the flippin king of flippin France (yeah, & I'm the Empress of India :rolleyes: ) So anymore I just play with him since his entertainment value is pretty high. But that was a nice try on your part.

now let's have some fun, shall we?



slayer--This, hopefully, will be the last time I need to explain why you're still wrong

-- :shakehead: & here we go with the wrong/right thing again..... as Asheera would say, not about wrong/right slayer...


slayer--and not understanding our discussion about hate and Hitler.

--oh I understand it alright, more than you realize. I disagree with your pov. I'm also pretty certain you don't know what you're really talking about



slayer--Listen, simple one,

-- I believe I'll take that as a compliment, since I've always leaned towards William of Occam.....



slayer--if Hitler says he hates the Jews it doesn't follow that he hates the Jews. If Hitler says he thinks the Jews are subhuman, it doesn't follow that he thinks they're subhuman.

--this is what's convincing me that you don't know what you're really talking about, becuz if you did, then you'd know the motivation behind the Holocaust



slayer--I said that the psychology of hate was such that you couldn't hate non-human things.

--and just becuz you say that (people) couldn't hate non-human things it doesn't follow that they don't



slayer- you can't hate a rock, a rose, a dog,

-- Gomer, I already walked you thru this on page 11:
sonrisa
Some people(the operative word being some) do hate dogs. They leave antifreeze out for them to drink. Or they deliberately feed them chocolate, whuch is poisonous to dogs. Or they do other gruesome things to them.

please note I'm referring to what these people do, not what they say.....



slayer--I added that he recognized them as an exceptional human race, but nothing rests on this addition.

--nothing rests on any of it


slayer--And what do you continually do! You quote me Hitler. When will it sink into your 'nanomind' that your quotes are immaterial? When will it sink in that because Hitler says "I hate the Jews" it doesn't follow that he hates the Jews?

--oh ok! Sort of like, just becuz you say we're morons & simpletons here, it doesn't follow that we are

just becuz you say you're the flippin king of France, it doesn't follow that you are

(aside to NM: just becuz he sez he's a nice man, it doesn't follow that he is
& just becuz he sez he doesn't live in his Mama's basement, it doesn't follow that he doesn't. Look, we're all online- for all any of us know, he actually is living in his Mama's basement)

oh, & finally, Gomer- just becuz you say that just becuz somebody sez something, it doesn't follow that what they say is so, it doesn't follow that it's so (whew!)

Sometimes that is the case, however. It's known as lying, as in, just becuz dubya sez there are WMD's in Iraq, it doesn't follow that there sre WMD's in Iraq. But you are abusing this principle by applying it to whatever you don't agree with, esp when it concerns your precious little theory. So let's just dispense with it.


slayer--If the psychology of hate is such that you cannot hate anything subhuman,

--but people can- & do. From the Holocaust, to the killing fields of Cambodia, to lynching n*ggahs, the reason otherwise normal people commit these atrocites against their fellow (wo)men is becuz they've managed to convince themslves that their victims are somwhat less than human, or at least not as human as they are, as in putting those n*ggahs in their "place" (somewhere below whitey) for instance



slayer--then no matter what Hitler says will make it the case that he thinks of the Jews as subhumans. His hate towards the Jews will preclude that he could think this.

--oh really? Then you really don't know the motivation behind the Holocaust, do you

Since you don't seem to get what I've been saying in not so many words, I will now say it in so many words. Unminced. Here goes: your insipid little theory blows. Big time. So do you. Even bigger. Now what part of that don't you understand?

on misrepresentation:

slayer--all of (asheera's) replies stem from her view of the world

-- as it is with us all

slayer-- "she simply responds as if her world view is correct & not in need of defense. This makes attempting to disuss things with her very frustrating, if not nearly impossible. yada,yada, you'll get the response that you didn't understand her claim"
& "she is disingenuous"

--actually slayer is not talking about asheera here. Slayer is talking about slayer. Slayer thinks his worldview is correct & not in need of any defense. God forbid that anybody should offer up a pov different from his own, since he will dis you for it. He is disingenuous in that he shifts the "rules" (largely of his own making since this forum has very few rules) of a discussion- he will insist on "proof", only to discount it whenever somebody proves or disproves something he disagrees with. He will claim you didn't understand his previous post(s) & even say you have poor reading skills. If he's really desparate he will attack your spelling &/or grammar. Which makes attempting a disusson with him very frustating, if not downright impossible. Which is why I just play with him anymore.

His real beef with asheera is that he doesn't like her free form method of posting, which is unusual at first, but not all that hard to learn to comprehend. Asheera explains her reasons for posting this way on page 3 of Reason S'il Vous Plait (y'all will have to read it there, pasting it here would take up too much space) But even if she posted the way she does simply becuz she wanted to post that way, well, that's her perogative.

Slayer misrepresents the folx here all the time. I let it slide as regards to myself becuz I really don't want the likes of him knowing all that much about me. So every time he does misrepresent me I can think, (with some relief) you don't know what (or who) you're talking about....


slayer-- my posts with her are so other people can read them and make up their minds about what I did or did not claim

slayer (from various forums)
"Let me address the latest simpleton..."

"No you stupid ass"

"you are a moron"

"you are a dumb ass"

"How about I call you dumb shit instead?"

"Look dimwit"


pnklphnts (from The Draft)
you, sir, are an ass.

--yeah, pnklphnts, I'd say you pretty much summed him up.
even those kids can see thru you, Gomer


slayer-- (asheera) is one reason why I stopped posting in that forum (here)

--but you haven't, have you? So why are you back here, Your A-holiness? They kick your royally arrogant derriere out of the other forum, or what?


slayer--(this forum) really is a good-idea-gone-bad

-- if that's how you really feel then why don't you just go on down to the bowling alley? Or better yet, go find those 2 kids. A couple of highschoolers using your sorry btt for a football, now that's entainment!!



slayer--And I use my blow up doll to practice discussing things with someone of your intelligence,

--practice?!!? you need to practice?!!?:goodlaugh:
I'll bet she kicks your used-up butt in those practice sessions too!

don't practice too loud- wouldn't wanna wake Mama up!

[slayer]

Sonrisa, you are still posting the same ole drivel.

The most simple thoughts elude you.

Why would it be inconsistent of me to say that I will stop posting, then stop posting for a brief period of time, then begin posting again? Does it mean that I never stopped? Of course not. If you thought that, then you don't understand the English langauge. People quit smoking all the time, but they start up again. I can be running, say I'm going to stop, stop, and then start again. English isn't your first language, is it? Yeah, I'm making fun of your lack of English skills.

If you understood my argument that if the psychology of hate was such that you can't hate non-human things, then why would you offer up quotes of Hitler saying he thought of them as subhuman as an argument against me? This is precisely what you did. No, what you should have done was challenge that you can hate non-human things. Your quotes are evidence that you didn't understand our discussion. And this is proof that you can't reason well. It's not true because I say it's true, it's true because of the evidence.

All your gaybob talk about me living in my mama's basement is childish. Why wouldn't this claim hold for everyone in this forum, considering that you've already admitted that none of knows to the contrary regarding each of us. Stop arguing from ignorance -- it's a logical fallacy. This is how you argue: Uhm, nobody knows that God doesn't exist, therefore he must exist. GAYBOB!

Why I claimed to be The Present King of France was explained in my posts. I don't expect you to ever understand why I did it, even though I explicitly explain way, but it's there for anyone with moderate intellence to understand.

Why wouldn't our discussion be about right and wrong. I'm claiming that you're understanding of what I said is wrong. It's either right or wrong, so it is a matter of right and wrong. So, please, spare me your relativist nonsense. What was hilarious was that you quoted Asheera, as if she were an authority on anything. I can see though why you might look up to her as an intellectual authority.

The reason why nothing rests on the addition that Hitler recognized them as exceptional human beings is because what's argued is that he recognizes them as human beings. Adding the adjective 'exceptional' doesn't add or take away from my claim.

And Asheera's reasons for posting the way she doesn't are immaterial. She needs to post according to the guidelines of this forum. She needs to present claims with reasons. She doesn't do this. Her posts are ungrammatical -- another breach of the guidelines. She posts irrelevant posts, as already testified to once by Thomas, the person who runs this forum. She is a moron, as testified by all her posts. The same applies to you.

And Asheera needs to give arguments when she offers claims that are counter to our intuitions. Such as, the world is just an illusion and words can't be used to communicate. Her worldview is counter to our intuitions, therefore, she is obligated to argue for her contention that it's what she says it is. When Vicente argues that Jesus Christ never existed, then he has to give an argument, which he didn't do. We have many historical records as to the existence of Jesus Christ. Whether he was the Son of God, or anything other than a man is a different story, but that he existed is pretty well documented. So the onus is on Vicente to argue for why the records are wrong. Is any of this sinking in?!

My claims about your stupidity and poor reasoning skills rest on the things you've said. I've exposed your poor reasoning skills on many occasions, while you have yet to do the same with me. So I have evidence of your stupidity. This is why my claim that you are isn't a simple matter of me saying that you are -- it's my saying it and having reasons for saying it. You have no reasons.

So, feel free to enlist the moral support of Asheera, Hack, Fu, Nevermind, his dumb friend Cam, or whoever you want, when bashing me. It matters not. What matters is that I can produce dozens of examples of your poor reasoning, while you can't produce any of mine (because you don't know of any).

So, I'll continue to have sex with my blow up doll. Oooh, you sure got me good. I'll continue to live in my mama's basement. Oooh, you sure got me good again! Enjoy your chuckles.

Enjoy bliss,

slayer

[sahyo]

And Asheera needs to give arguments when she offers claims that are counter to our intuitions. Such as, the world is just an illusion


asheera didn't say that

called world not illusion,
but imagining as though ayou which seems separate
and-or notseparate is

if wasn't happening thinking confused, slayer wouldn't saying people saying which not saying

:)

[sahyo]

My claims about your stupidity and poor reasoning skills rest on the things you've said. I've exposed your poor reasoning skills on many occasions, while you have yet to do the same with me.


often slayer posts distorting which imagines has read
(perhaps if weren't so intent on trying proving and displaying
"I've exposed your poor reasoning skills on many occasions,
while you have yet to do the same with me.")

[sahyo]

She posts irrelevant posts, as already testified to once by Thomas, the person who runs this forum.



below which thomas posted referring "topic"
when happened confused about the use of the paintings on the thread:


I certainly like the paintings, and I have a great interest in Asian art myself, but I agree with Slayer that they are irrelevant to the topic. Asheera, if you would like to share these paintings kindly open another thread and place them there. Multiple images on one page have a negative effect on the download time and may be perceived as disruptive.

[sahyo]

does imagining:


What matters is that I can produce dozens of examples of your poor reasoning, while you can't produce any of mine (because you don't know of any).


feel as though comforting, slayer?



is it possible slayer fears that slayer may "poor reasoning skills"
so is trying to prove slayer doesn't ?

[sonrisa]

.....same ole drivel..... :shakehead:


slayer--If you understood my argument that if the psychology of hate was such that you can't hate non-human things, then why would you offer up quotes of Hitler saying he thought of them as subhuman as an argument against me? This is precisely what you did. No, what you should have done was challenge that you can hate non-human things.

--obviously you have poor reading skills. Please try to reread remarks concerning hating dogs, providing that isn't beyond your capabilities, of course (hint: these remarks can be applied to other animals as well)



slayer--Why wouldn't our discussion be about right and wrong.

-- oh so now it's about right & wrong. I thought it was about hate. No wait, the psychology of hate. How disingenuous of you to keep switching the topix. If I was having a real discussion with you, this would be very frustrating, but since I'm just messing around- (shrug) whatever floats your boat


slayer--What was hilarious was that you quoted Asheera, as if she were an authority on anything.

-- again, we're all online. And we all gotta pay the rent. For all any of us know, asheera very well could be an authority in whatever line of work she's in



slayer-- English isn't your first language, is it? Yeah, I'm making fun of your lack of English skills.

All your gaybob .....yadayadawhinewhine.... GAYBOB

&

Asheera's reasons for posting the way she doesn't are immaterial. She needs to post according to the guidelines of this forum.

Forum Rules:

(1)Respect each other.
(2) Abstain from abusive, violent, hateful, threatening, and obscene language.
(3) Do not assume the identity of another user or person.
(4) Do not upload copyrighted material to thebigview.com.
(5) Do not publish material posted to thebigview.com somewhere else without the permission of its author.
(6) Do not post spam and advertisements.
(7) Do not try to disrupt the discussion board service.
(8) Adhere to basic netiquette:

- Do not post a quote without making it clear who said it.
- Do not complain about orthography or grammar in other people's posts.
- Do not post facts or quotations without a reference to their source.
- Do not post in ALL CAPS.
- Do not edit your post after it has already been responded to.
- Do not post large images or other things that mess up the forum's table alignment.
- Do not post using an excessively large custom signature (no more than a few lines please)


--there is nothing in here prohibiting Asheera's free form method of posting. There are rules concerning complaining about another member's grammar, flaming, using derogatory language, being respectful, & using basic netiquette.

At any rate, Asheera is entitled to post as she does, per this forum's rules, & the 1st Amendment



slayer-- So, I'll continue to have sex with my blow up doll. Oooh, you sure got me good. I'll continue to live in my mama's basement. Oooh, you sure got me good again!

--evidently I did

[sahyo]

happened read this today, slayer:



Intellect is a heavy thing, intelligence is more total. Intellect is borrowed, intelligence is your own. Intellect is logical, rational; intelligence is more than logical. It is super-logical, it is intuitive. The intellectual person lives only through argument. Certainly, arguments can lead you up to a certain point, but beyond that, hunches are needed.

Even great scientists who work through reason come to a point where reason does not work, where they wait for a hunch, for some intuitive flash, for some light from the unknown. And it always happens: if you have worked hard with the intellect, and you don't think that intellect is all, and you are available to the beyond, someday a ray penetrates you. It is not yours; and yet it is yours because it is nobody else's. It comes from God. It comes from your innermost center. It looks as if it is coming from the beyond, because you don't know where your center is to be intuitive.

Buddha uses intelligence in the sense of awareness, in the sense of mindfulness. The Sanskrit word, SADHUMATI, is very beautiful. MATI means intelligence, and SADHU means sage: sagely intelligence; not only intelligence, but sagely intelligence. There are people who may be rational but are not reasonable. To be reasonable is more than to be rational. Sometimes the reasonable person will be ready to accept the irrational too - because he is reasonable. He can understand that the irrational also exists. The rational person can never understand that the irrational also exists. He can only believe in the limited logical syllogism.

But there are things which cannot be proved logically, and yet they are. Everybody knows they are, and nobody has ever been able to prove them. Love is; nobody has ever been able to prove what it is, or whether it is or not. But everybody knows - love is. Even people who deny - they are not ready to accept anything beyond logic - even they fall in love. When they fall in love then they are in a difficulty, they feel guilty.

But love is.

And nobody is ever satisfied by intellect alone unless the heart also is fulfilled. These are the two polarities inside you: the head and the heart.


http://www.osho.nl/New-Osho-NL/EnglishPear...htIntuition.htm (http://www.osho.nl/New-Osho-NL/EnglishPearls/InsightIntuition.htm)


* word 'god' isn't used like people somtimes imagine god

[sahyo]

oh sllllllaaaaaaayer


Reasoning


A meticulous scientist was making a correlation on factors related to the jumping power of fleas.

He took a flee and said: "Jump, flea". The flea jumped one meter, which he recorded in his diary.

He chopped another leg from the flea and repeated: "Jump, flea". The flea jumped 1/2 meter, which was duely recorded as well.

He did the same chopping and record keeping till he had chopped all six legs from the flea, and lastly said: "Jump, flea!" But the flea remained stationary.

The fellow put in his notes: "Siphonaptera parasites seem to loose hearing when fully dismembered. Further research recommended."

[sahyo]

;)

[a random hack]

:lol:

[sahyo]

:D

[NeverMind]

One baby to another said I'm lucky to have met you
I don't care what you think unless it is about me
It is now my duty to completely drain you
I travel through a tube and end up in your infection

With eyes so dilated i've become your pupil
You've taught me everything without a poison apple
The water is so yellow i'm a healthy student
Indebted and so grateful vacuum all the fluids

Think about what i say

[pnklphnts]

ah nirvana... it gives me an orgasim. opps... 2.

[NeverMind]

Oops, I skeet-skeeted my pantalones. Damn you, Kurt Cobain! You made me spooge on myself!

[sahyo]

One baby to another said I'm lucky to have met you
I don't care what you think unless it is about me
It is now my duty to completely drain you
I travel through a tube and end up in your infection

With eyes so dilated i've become your pupil
You've taught me everything without a poison apple
The water is so yellow i'm a healthy student
Indebted and so grateful vacuum all the fluids



B) B) B)

absorbing sips
like evaporating dewdrips