Someone like Locke was better on politics, and Hume had a better analysis of morality.
Plato already prefigured and transcended Hume if you would bother to read him. Hume grounded morality in public usefulness, which is similar to views expressed by Glaucon and his brother in the Republic. This is true, but it misses a deeper side of morality - the way it fulfils one's own nature, and contributes to one's own wellbeing. Hume's views with regards to the importance of sentiment are also incorporated by Plato, as Plato did not think, like Kant, that the emotions are unimportant, quite the contrary, the Platonic project started in the Republic aimed at harmonising the different needs of the soul, including the affective and the rational parts.
Same with regards to Nietzsche - how is the (im)morality that Nietzsche advocates different from the view on morality that Glaucon proposes towards the beginning of the Republic for example? Nietzsche certainly thought that he had escaped Plato, that he was doing something above and beyond Plato, while in truth Nietzsche was nothing more than a mere character in Plato's dialogues.
Okay, so then let me ask you, how is Hume's analysis of morality better than Plato, when Hume is a mere character in Plato's dialogues? How is that possible?
Okay, so then let me ask you, how is Hume's analysis of morality better than Plato, when Hume is a mere character in Plato's dialogues? How is that possible?
Hume can't be reduced to a mere character in one of Plato's dialogues, and his analysis just makes more sense to me, and is more reflective of reality, than Plato's.
Hume can't be reduced to a mere character in one of Plato's dialogues, and his analysis just makes more sense to me, and is more reflective of reality, than Plato's.
[quote=Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy]...the positing of the ‘Forms’, as the true nature of all things, culminating in the Form of the Good as the transcendent principle of all goodness.[/quote]
I find misguided.
Wheras stuff like this:
[Quote=Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy](1) Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the “slave of the passions”. (2) Moral distinctions are not derived from reason. (3) Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action.[/quote]
Wow wow wow slow down. That's metaphysics now, not ethics. You should compare ethics with ethics.
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:(1) Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the “slave of the passions”.
And doesn't Plato say what Hume intended to only that much better? Plato distinguishes between three parts of the soul - appetite (Hume's passions largely), spirit (largely the will), and reason (that which seeks after truth). He does note that the appetite governs the other parts of the soul for most people, hence why they are in disarray and do not experience internal harmony. The Republic is a treatise aimed at precisely the establishment of this internal harmony (which occurs when the rational part of the soul mobilises the will in order to channel the passions towards the fulfilment of the whole being), even though it talks about it through the metaphor of the perfect society. Seems to me like Hume only saw those kinds of people (where passion dominates reason), and proceeded, against his own methodology, to perform an induction from a few cases to what the truth absolutely is. Since Plato acknowledged Hume's view, but saw much more than Hume, that means that Hume is nothing but a tiny character in Plato's dialogues. Furthermore Plato was capable to make a distinction between the passions and the will, which Hume was not. For Hume, the passions were the will - something that is clearly false.
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:(2) Moral distinctions are not derived from reason. (3) Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action.
This is an incomplete view of morality, since it expects that morality is equivalent to a series of sentiments (feelings of approval, disapproval, etc.). Whereas, in our everyday interactions we don't call something moral merely because it arouses our feelings of approval. It is true that true morality does involve such feelings, but that's not all that is involved. It's ultimately a very partial and undeveloped view, which when taken to its logical conclusions will lead to an entirely different position.
For example, someone suffering from gluttony (which is a vice) isn't immoral simply because I have a negative feeling associated with thinking about him (although it is true that I have such a feeling). But Hume doesn't investigate why do I have such a feeling? Or why do I pity the miser who hoards money? And clearly I pity them because I think they're missing out on some essentials aspects of existence and are therefore unfulfilled themselves - they are repressing and ignoring some aspect of their own souls (or in other words, they're ruled by their passions ;) )
Wow wow wow slow down. That's metaphysics now, not ethics. You should compare ethics with ethics.
No, that's metaethics, which has to do with the analysis of morality. :-}
I [i]did[/I] compare like with like. One says that moral distinctions derive from the Form of the Good, the other says that moral distinctions derive from the moral sentiments.
We're very close! :P Looks like you are a "Logician" - you are a pretty rare one too :P 3% of the population! I'm "Architect", I'm also rare at around 0.8% according to the website. Seems like you are more spontaneous and perceiving while I am more planned and judging - otherwise pretty similar.
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:...the positing of the ‘Forms’, as the true nature of all things, culminating in the Form of the Good as the transcendent principle of all goodness.
Plato didn't say moral distinctions come from the Form of the Good here (although they do, since everything comes from the Form of the Good).
I did compare like with like. One says that moral distinctions derive from the Form of the Good, the other says that moral distinctions derive from the moral sentiments.
Yes, except that you don't understand what the hell Plato even meant by the Form of the Good - so you actually have no idea if what Plato is saying includes what Hume said or not. It's like me telling you that morality comes from God (which is true by the way). But you can't understand that. So I might as well speak to you in the language of the cave, which you are capable to understand at this point in time. This is part of what Plato meant with the allegory of the cave too - so it's okay Sappy, I promise to keep this in terms of the shadows rather than the real things so as not to overstep your understanding and confuse you X-)
Reply to Sapientia By the way, I meant to say that I re-evaluated Marx from terrible to ok. At least he perceived the faults in capitalism, which is quite good especially back in his day. But his solution is still terrible.
Here is a reasonably amusing web site that demonstrates how one's browser activity is tracked. There is text, but the amusing part is the voice over.
Is this site a virus? :s the link looks very weird lol (just joking), but it doesn't work on my browser/computer - neither does the other one linked in the article. Although I am fully aware of what stuff it can track just through the browser.
If you're really paranoid you can hop onto a VPN by paying like what 6 usd/month and combine that with some JS blocking to hide everything :P
Plato didn't say moral distinctions come from the Form of the Good here (although they do, since everything comes from the Form of the Good).
Did you presume that I was unaware of what was said in the quote? Even though I quoted it myself? I thought that it was nevertheless consistent with what Plato argued - who, of course, I have never read, and have never read anything whatsoever about, despite having a keen interest in philosophy for many years, and despite Plato's reputation as one of the most important philosophers.
Yes, except that you don't understand what the hell Plato even meant by the Form of the Good - so you actually have no idea if what Plato is saying includes what Hume said or not.
No, I'm not an expert, but I think I do have some idea, based on my readings. I don't think you're an expert either, but you probably know more about Plato than I do if you've dedicated more time to that purpose than I have.
It's like me telling you that morality comes from God (which is true by the way). But you can't understand that. So I might as well speak to you in the language of the cave, which you are capable to understand at this point in time.
If you've gotten this foolishness from Plato, then that's not a good advertisement for the man.
No, I'm not an expert, but I think I do have some idea, based on my readings.
Okay, but the salient point here is that reading is not sufficient to understand something. I've never claimed you haven't read Plato, nor assumed that. One key element that is required is experience - Plato himself said as much, you need the mystical insight, because what Plato is referring to through the Forms and especially Agathon is not something you encounter in the cave, which is the everyday reality most of us are brought up in and are used to think in.
Is there anything in your experience that you can identify as the Agathon? If no, then you don't really know what Plato is talking about, because you either lack the experience, or you don't acknowledge the experience. Whatever you literally understand the Agathon to be is nothing but an empty concept. If you cite a sentence to me what the Agathon is according to Plato, that doesn't show you've understood it. You need to be able to point to it in your experience. Otherwise it has no reality for you. I don't understand why you'd think you'll be capable to understand the metaphysical issues that Plato is discussing just by reading it, certainly his students back in the Academy would devote their entire lives to seeking after such understanding and most of them would never achieve it either.
That's why I prefer to leave the metaphysics and Forms alone. We can talk about morality without talking about the forms.
We're very close! :P Looks like you are a "Logician" - you are a pretty rare one too :P 3% of the population! I'm "Architect", I'm also rare at around 0.8% according to the website. Seems like you are more spontaneous and perceiving while I am more planned and judging - otherwise pretty similar.
You are 0.8% if you are a woman in that category. :P Otherwise it is roughly 2% of the total population. By the way, I am most assuredly not spontaneous. I expect most people here would be categorized in the Analyst group.
Reply to Agustino What was amusing about it was the guy with the Dutch or Nordic accent offering little droll comments like, "Hmmm, he's finally clicked the button -- slightly sooner than most" or (after doing nothing for a while) "This is so fucking boring -- why doesn't he do something?" Meanwhile, matter of fact text statements describe what it is you have been doing.
It worked the first two times I accessed it, then it stopped working. My guess is that this is deliberate -- "point made, that's enough" now go away. Sometimes European sites don't work in North America and visa versa.
Makes me look back fondly to that time when that guy with a name like Borat purchased a forum at an extortionate price and then we all fucked off. What better way to form a new beginning than schadenfreude?
Makes me look back fondly to that time when that guy with a name like Borat purchased a forum at an extortionate price and then we all fucked off. What better way to form a new beginning than schadenfreude?
Mr. Porat was a very good businessman >:O . I can't actually believe someone paid 20K for PF, how stupid can one be... Man 20K is quite a bit ... really... why didn't he use that as downpayment to buy an apartment and rent it out or something? :s
What was amusing about it was the guy with the Dutch or Nordic accent offering little droll comments like, "Hmmm, he's finally clicked the button -- slightly sooner than most" or (after doing nothing for a while) "This is so fucking boring -- why doesn't he do something?" Meanwhile, matter of fact text statements describe what it is you have been doing.
Haha yeah unfortunately I can't see that funny guy :P
Keep 'em coming. I wouldnt want to get too complacent. Aizen made that snake guy his right hand man knowing full well that he planned to kill him since he was a child. Keep your friends close but enemies closer. Sometimes... you know, one in a millionth try... their hits land. Id give that up for nothing else.
My favorite owls catch phrase was "come inside or go away."
The other day at canada day festival at the park there was this girl country singer and she sang her headline song entitled "papa come fast" which cracked me and my sister up pretty good.
Plato and Aristotle made this distinction way before Kant ever opened his eyes - and they made it much better than Kant did.
Lol. Says you. Maybe they did. I will certainly be returning to them in my studies, but that doesn't discount the fact that, for me, Kant has provided an epistemic framework that is largely coherent and matches my experience of the world.
Schopenhauer's system is nice. But the problem with it is that it's unnecessary. Why do we even need it?
A very silly question. I for one needed it to reawaken an interest in religion. If you care at all about re-Christianizing the West, as you vigorously appear to want, then to the extent that it can lead someone to faith, it's surely quite necessary. Apart from that, it's necessary to have a proper understanding of the history and development of philosophy. It's also just a pleasure to read. I would beware denouncing thinkers who've obviously had such an important impact on you and have lead you to where you are now. The world needs more people who are grateful, not resentful.
Yes. But what does this mean? I'm a realist the same way Plato/Aristotle are realists. I simply don't think there's another coherent position. Other positions are language games which can be deflated via Wittgensteinian analysis.
Then we're simply engaged in semantics. If you want to call Plato a realist, then I'm a realist.
Do you know about the whole tradition of Hesychasm for example? Do you know that Catholics have a negative view of theosis - the goal of mystical practice? That's why Eckhart was deemed a heretic for example. Yes there are mystical movements within the Catholic church - even Aquinas towards the end of his life - but these are much less open or emphasised. Certainly theosis plays no significant role and isn't very developed in Catholicism (and this includes their practice of mysticism). I think you'd benefit sometime during your life from a trip to Mount Athos in Greece, to see and speak with Eastern Orthodox monks. You'll see that the approach is very different. Closer to Buddhism and other Eastern forms of spirituality actually.
I thought as much. This is quite shallow and uninformed analysis, if I may be frank. Hesychasm was historically viewed with some suspicion in some quarters of the Western Church, but it was never considered heretical and nor is it now. Because of Eastern Catholic Churches like the Melkite Church, the principal exponent of Hesychasm, Palamas, can even be considered a saint in the West. So there are no theologically binding reasons for a Catholic to reject the practice. Moreover, you can find basically the same thing in Western mysticism.
Catholics do not have a negative view of theosis. This idea was common among the Church Fathers and has parallels, I would argue, in certain Latin-derived notions, like the beatific vision.
Meister Eckhart was not deemed a heretic. There were a few select passages from his texts that the pope deemed misleading. Eckhart himself was happy to clear up any misunderstandings and assert his orthodoxy, but he died along route to doing so. Since his death, he has been significantly rehabilitated by the Catholic Church thanks to the Dominicans. See Bernard McGinn's material on Eckhart if you want to know more details. He was and is mostly certainly not a heretic. Aquinas, as you may or may not know, had certain of his propositions condemned as well, but he too was rehabilitated after his death, not to mention sainted and made a doctor of the church.
Theosis isn't the sole criterion for what counts as mysticism. Also, to say that mysticism within Catholicism was "less open or emphasized" is bizarre and certainly false. There's an almost endless list one could point to of mystical movements within the Catholic Church.
I know about the monks at Mount Athos. I revere them greatly, but there are countless monastic orders in the Catholic Church whose monks practice much as the Athosian monks do.
Well there is a LOT of empty space between Phoenix and California, so everyone on the West coast can take 100 miles to the East of where they are and we should be alright. (L)
Afterwards, our neighbors to the West can have Winter homes in New Korea.
[quote=Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy] [...]Plato felt encouraged to develop such a view in dialogues that no longer confine themselves to the ‘negative way’ of questioning the foundations of other people's convictions. The requisite unity and invariance of entities like ‘the holy’, ‘ the beautiful’, ‘the just’ or ‘the equal’, necessarily prompts reflections on their ontological status and on the appropriate means of access to them. Given that they are the objects of definition and the paradigms for their ordinary representatives, there is every reason not only to treat them as real, but also to assign them a state of higher perfection. And once this step has been taken, it is only natural to make certain epistemological adjustments. For, access to paradigmatic entities is not to be expected through ordinary experience, but presupposes some special kind of intellectual insight. It seems, then, that once Plato had accepted invariant and unitary objects of thought as the objects of definition, he was predestined to follow the path that let him adopt a metaphysics and epistemology of transcendent Forms. The alternative of treating these objects as mere constructs of the mind that more or less fit the manifold of everyday-experience clearly was not to Plato's taste. It would have meant the renunciation of the claim to unassailable knowledge and truth in favor of conjecture and, [i]horribile dictu[/I], of human convention. The very fact that mathematics was already an established science with rigorous standards and unitary and invariant objects must have greatly enhanced Plato's confidence in applying the same standards to moral philosophy. It led him to search for models of morality beyond the limits of everyday experience. This, in turn, explains the development of his theory of recollection and the postulate that he refers to in the Meno, and argues for in the Phaedo, of transcendent immaterial objects as the basis of reality and thought.
[...]
What kind of ‘binding force’ does Plato attribute to ‘the Good’? His reticence about this concept, despite its centrality in his metaphysics and ethics, is largely responsible for the obscurity of his concept of happiness and what it is to lead a good life, except for the claim that individuals are best off if they ‘do their own thing’. In what way the philosophers' knowledge provides a solid basis for the good life of the community and the—perhaps uncomprehending—majority of the citizens remains an open question, beyond the claim that they benefit from good order in the state. What, then, is ‘the Good’ that is responsible for the goodness of all other things? A lot of ink has been spilt over the much quoted passage in Republic book VI, 509b: “not only do the objects of knowledge owe their being known to the Good, but their being ([i]ousia[/I]) is also due to it, although the Good is not being, but superior ([i]epekeina[/I]) to it in rank and power.” The analogy with the sun's maintenance of all that is alive suggests that the Good is the intelligent inner principle that determines the nature of every object capable of goodness so that it fulfills its function in an appropriate way. How such a principle of goodness works in all things Plato clearly felt unable to say when he wrote the Republic.
[...]
Why does Plato burden himself and his readers with such a complex machinery and what does this heavenly instrument have to do with ethics? Since the human soul is formed from the same ingredients as the world soul (albeit in a less pure form) and displays the same structure (41d–e), Plato is clearly not just concerned with the order of the universe but with that of the human soul as well. He attributes to it the possession of the kinds of concepts that are necessary for the understanding of the nature of all things, both eternal and temporal. The soul's ingredients are here limited to the purely formal conditions, however. A theory of recollection of the nature of all things is no longer being advocated. There are (a) the most important concepts to identify and differentiate objects in the way necessary for dialectical procedure; there are (b) the numbers and proportions needed to understand numerical relations and harmonic structures of all sorts; and there is (c) the capacity to perform and comprehend harmoniously coordinated motions. This, it seems, is all the soul gets and all it needs in order to perform its various tasks. The unusual depiction of the soul's composition makes it hard, at first, to penetrate to the rationale of its construction, and it must remain an open question to what extend Plato expects his model to be taken in a literal rather than in a figurative sense. His overall message should be clear, however: the soul both is a harmoniously structured entity, that can in principle function forever, and it comprehends the corresponding structures in other entities and therefore has access to all that is good and well-ordered. This last point has consequences for his ethical thought that are not developed in the Timaeus itself, but that can be detected in other late dialogues.[/quote]
Lol. Says you. Maybe they did. I will certainly be returning to them in my studies, but that doesn't discount the fact that, for me, Kant has provided an epistemic framework that is largely coherent and matches my experience of the world.
A very silly question. I for one needed it to reawaken an interest in religion. If you care at all about re-Christianizing the West, as you vigorously appear to want, then to the extent that it can lead someone to faith, it's surely quite necessary. Apart from that, it's necessary to have a proper understanding of the history and development of philosophy. It's also just a pleasure to read. I would beware denouncing thinkers who've obviously had such an important impact on you and have lead you to where you are now. The world needs more people who are grateful, not resentful.
Okay, my point isn't that Schopenhauer is a bad philosopher or he can't be helpful to you, etc. I would categorise him along with Wittgenstein as good philosophers in the list that Sappy gave. Schopenhauer has also been helpful to me, and of course I appreciate that.
However, the point I'm making is that whether or not Schopenhauer, etc. have been helpful to us, or if they can be helpful to people like us, is irrelevant. Because we're not in the question here. The hoi polloi are what matters for re-Christianising the West. People like us - the intellectual elite - are responsible with educating the hoi polloi and this mission is one where Schopenhauer unfortunately can provide little help. Schopenhauer's intended audience was never the common man. The fact that Schopenhauer can help reawaken interest in religion for 1/1000 people isn't of relevance. Remember what I said:
however I must say I've become quite disillusioned with a lot of religious philosophy. There's several problems with it. First problem is that it lacks capacity to move people. Even someone like Thomas Aquinas - his writings are useful to DEFEND the faith, but that's nowhere near enough. That's why religion is losing because it's all defence and no attack. It's useless to have a palace that no one can attack when everyone is ignoring you. Religion needs a Nietzsche - with a philosophy capable of moving people.
Second problem is that it's very dry and not easy to communicate. This is multiplied by the fact that us believers often have a tendency to speak to unbelievers in terms of God wants this and God wants that. That's terrible - basically creates a rift of communication between the two parties.
Third problem is that many times religious philosophies descend into mysticism - which isn't bad in itself - however the issue with this is that mysticism isn't available to most people. So it cannot really be used to communicate effectively. Think Wayfarer for example - very focused on the mystical side which cannot affect many people anyway, and very little focused on the moral side which plays a much more practical and significant role in the everyday lives of most people.
I count Schopenhauer as a religious philosopher, whose philosophy does descend into mysticism. Same with Aquinas as well. Obviously Aquinas is my favorite philosopher, so I do appreciate him (and Schopenhauer) but this doesn't change this fact. I'm disillusioned with their potential of being of help in re-Christianising the West - and rightfully so I'd say.
The main enemy to re-Christianising the West is libertarianism/liberalism, especially of a social kind, which is very intertwined with corporate "crony" capitalism, sexual promiscuity & technological development. Go to Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. - you reckon you'll find Christians there? No. You'll find Christians labouring away on construction sites and the like, but not at the large corporate behemoths, especially those that are driving technology - they are as progressive as your college Marxists and postmodernists are.
These people control (1) technology, (2) education (via the Academia), and (3) culture (via the Media and Hollywood, including the internet). Remember what Marx said:
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production [ TECHNOLOGY ], and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. … Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned …
And remember also who Marxists opposed - it wasn't the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie, it was the proletariat AND the bourgeoisie vs what he termed as the Reactionaries. It is the Reactionaries who are opposed to the dialectical process of proletariat-bourgeoisie - the dialectical process which leads to COMMUNISM - the abolition of private property. No bourgeoisie - no capitalism. No capitalism - no proletariat. No proletariat - no communism. The Reactionaries are hence identified as "feudal socialists" and "half echo of the past, half menace of the [Communist] future". The secret behind this is that CAPITALISM IS COMMUNISM.
So control of technology is absolutely critical - it is this control which guarantees the survival of the bourgeoisie. This control is associated with profaning what is holy, creating everlasting uncertainty and agitation, disturbing social conditions. That's why the CEO of Facebook and your Marxist university professor share the same goal. Indeed corporations are the way through which Communism will manifest itself. As time goes on, everyone will be renting, not owning property, and people will have less and less to pass on to their descendents - apart from debts. So we are actually approaching at a fast rate the Communist paradise.
Now, the continuous quest for new and better technologies at all costs leads to the structuring of education (the Academia is now controlled by corporations which finance it) to fulfil the needs of technology. Corporations need technology in order to maintain their dominance over the means of production. Culture is likewise geared to fuel more and more consumption - sexual promiscuity for example is merely a justification for our consumerism. Consumerism is required to fuel increased sales, which are required to fuel increased production and market diversification.
Clearly if anyone wants to re-Christianise the West, they need to stop this process. One cannot serve both God and Mammon. Most philosophers aren't that helpful in this, precisely because this is a new and modern phenomenon. And the first steps are (1) the unity of all who oppose this process - in the West this would mostly be Christians, (2) wrestling back control of the key areas - technology, culture and education - and for this we need Christian entrepreneurs/politicians, Christian artists, and Christian teachers. Also, we need to find a replacement for capitalism. We need an economic system which does NOT demand more and more production, but which has other demands instead. That's why I like distributism - it's aimed at maximising economic freedom/independence (and hence private property and small businesses). That's also why many Christians of the past have appreciated and liked distributism including G.K. Chesterton, and Russell Kirk (the father of modern American Conservatism whose economic views are very close to distributism).
Once this process is stopped, then the pastors and the preachers can do their thing, and the West will naturally become Christian once again. At this moment, their message very often falls on deaf ears, because people are controlled by the values and ideology passed onto them by their corporate masters who have enslaved them.
Notice:
“not only do the objects of knowledge owe their being known to the Good, but their being (ousia) is also due to it, although the Good is not being, but superior (epekeina) to it in rank and power.”
How can you top a morality which starts with the assumption that good is superior to being?
Hot yoga two days in a row! Hadnt managed a full one in like a year. Also walked for three hours straight yesterday. Started listening to jordan petersons maps of meaning lecture courses. Though only saw lectures eight and up, so i listened to 8 and 9. I discovered that my right center line has become stiff (middle finger, left side). I feel indescribably different having gotten it moving.
In every moment im attaining it. If you arent gaining ground then youre losing it.
My head seems too full of rocks to ever get too light. Yeah thats from bleach. It was a super villain though, but they all lose their composure and start temper tantruming when thing stop going their way, and start getting hard. I should really watch that... lol
Notice:
“not only do the objects of knowledge owe their being known to the Good, but their being (ousia) is also due to it, although the Good is not being, but superior (epekeina) to it in rank and power.”
How can you top a morality which starts with the assumption that good is superior to being?
Too obscure and abstract. Not very useful. Relating morality to moral sentiment is, well, more relatable, and more useful.
Yes, but Plato doesn't negate that aspect of morality. But that's a low-level incomplete understanding of morality, that is the problem with it.
No, the problem with Plato is that he falls into the category of many who went before Hume, in that they try to go beyond what can be known. Plato "presupposes some special kind of intellectual insight", "assigns higher perfection", talks about a "world soul", things "eternal", and "transcendent Forms". Codswallop. It fails the test of credibility. Commit it then to the flames.
No, the problem with Plato is that he falls into the category of many who went before Hume, in that they try to go beyond what can be known. Plato "presupposes some special kind of intellectual insight", "assigns higher perfection", talks about a "world soul", things "eternal", and "transcendent Forms". Codswallop. It fails the test of credibility. Commit it then to the flames.
Indeed, he does, but I'm quite sure you don't understand what these terms actually mean, so you say commit it to the flames more because you don't understand what it's actually trying to say, than otherwise. You have no clue what transcendent Forms are - it's probably the equivalent of gibberish to you (and largely to me too, as I don't claim to have that mystical insight). That's why it's good for us to keep the discussion away from that level of generality, since that's not going to be productive. Better to speak in terms of the shadows in the cave. The shadows are still useful mind you, and even at that level Plato is much superior to Hume's myopic view of morality.
Metaphysician UndercoverJuly 07, 2017 at 01:23#841380 likes
Too obscure and abstract. Not very useful. Relating morality to moral sentiment is, well, more relatable, and more useful.
The issue is what provides the best foundation for morality, not what is relatable and useful to you. You like to relate morality to your own moral sentiment, but moral sentiment varies from person to person. So this does not provide a foundation for morality in the same way that relating morality to being does. Being is something we all have in common, therefore giving us something to agree on. We disagree concerning our moral sentiments.
Oh i killed a poor deer! First time i hit anything... coming back from dropping my little sisters stuff at my moms (got rid of her, got them to make up, then was all like youre going home now, muahahaha), sun was going down and eye level and that arkells song knocking at the door came on the radio so i was busy singing that like an idiot... (my dad told me that id hit something not paying enough attention doing that... fuck i hate it when hes right) and then a deer came out of the sun beam and i slowed down and swerved and managed to miss it, but there was a second one further in the sun beam... but luckily i was only doing about 80 km when i hit it. So just dented the hood a bit, but fucked the deer up pretty good. Shattered hip most likely. Shock then death from either the shock or internal injuries. Not much i could do but feel awful. Visibility in car is shitty, plus its really the vehicle i always make dad drive. I was taking it to save on gas. Probably would have saw them with plenty of time in my truck...
Back in the day the buddhist monks had a "three hands" rule, in that they could eat meat if it pass through three hands. Therefore they could be reasonably sure that it wasnt killed for them, and we're about harm here, not purity.
Theres also a good one about one of those upper class dudes, (brahmins maybe?) trying to gain a good insight, but instead just bothering his teacher with his attempts at coming up with something that convinces the teacher that he had, so he is told to go into the wilderness and not come back until he has gained an insight. On like the third day of starving and meditating a huntress comes along with a fresh kill, and slices off a piece and give it to him. Rather than being both above her, and above such a thing he eats it.
I wouldnt be above eating the blame* (not shame...) really, im just not sure whether or not it would be legal, and also live in a small trailer park, and doubt that they would like that, and just now realize that im giving consequential reasons as to why i didnt do it, when it probably was the right thing to do... i guess i have no excuse, besides just having not considered it at the time. I should have finished it off and taken it with me. I will if it happens again.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 07, 2017 at 13:11#842240 likes
Mother Nature looks out for all of her creatures and we are one of them Wosret so let your heart be healed and your mind eased. (L)
I ought to have been lending her a hand, and taking the driving more seriously. I left at a bad time, didnt clean the windshield even though it was suggested, didnt wear sunglasses, and was on auto pilot singing along, with lots of arm and hand gestures thrown in too... i feel like i definitely could have done more to avoid it, but i was being sloppy, and then something died for it.
Ill do better than get over it, ill not get too comfortable like that again.
I almost hit someone at a crosswalk once, and i also slowly eased off the the breaks and lightly rearended someone at the stop light digging for fries before. I just gave them both my awkward guilty endearing smile and they let me off with it...
Reply to Wosret Just be grateful you didn't hit a velociraptor -- much worse collision. Besides which, if it were a big one, it would be very irritated and would have taken you and your car apart.
I'm told if you encounter a deer on the road, square up and knock the shit out of it. If you brake hard or swerve sharply, you pose a greater risk of harm to yourself or others. That's what I do at least. I also get out and piss on its face for good measure, but that's an advanced procedure.
"Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy whips out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps, "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says "Calm down. I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says "OK, now what?"
Id heard people say that youll do less damage at a high speed, but thats silly... besides where i live ive already dodged like fifty of them, once three in one day... i centered a chipmonk that i seen at the last second a couple months ago as well. Usually i have more time... but that one appeared right in front of me out that sun beam, and i barely had a second to react, and the second one i didnt see until id already hit it, it was completely hiden in the sun...but when i hit it we made eye contact for the whole thing, which seemed like a long time...
When shit like that happens executive control is stripped from the neocortex in order to increase reaction time, though it will be all undeliberated instinct. It literally appears like time slows.
Oh, lol. Was it while lighting a cigarette? I havent seen the movie, but i believe that that part may have already been spoiled for me, though i dont recall where from.
Internet guy is actually coming in an hour or two, then ill get to be off this damn phone for awhile, and get to listen to music of my own chosing again... and youtube... oh youtube how ive missed you.
Another cool biological thing to note is that the cones of the eyes make up the center for resolution and clarity, but the rods that make up the peripherals sacrifice resolution for better motion tracking. So while tracking moving objects its better to not look directly at them, but rods also do better in the dark than bright light.
Reply to Wosret I don't know all about this medical shit, but I do know that you continuously blame the sunbeams, like they're a malicious force in your universe. It's due time you realize that you suck as a driver, that you're a menace on the roadways (assuming Canada has actual roads), and that you might want to hand the keys over to your dad and have him haul you around town.
Hes hit a shit ton more things than i have, and wretched a few cars. He isnt allowed driving more than like a half hour. He has sleep apnea.
I didnt just blame the sun beam. If id have cleaned the windshield like my sister suggested, or had been wearing sunglasses (preferably both) then the sun probably wouldnt have been an issue. I blame my awesome singing and groving to the music less so. I was definitely too wreckless, and didnt take preventative measures that i ought to have. Now ill be super paranoid for a few months, and then probably become complacent and lazy again...
The issue is what provides the best foundation for morality, not what is relatable and useful to you. You like to relate morality to your own moral sentiment, but moral sentiment varies from person to person. So this does not provide a foundation for morality in the same way that relating morality to being does. Being is something we all have in common, therefore giving us something to agree on. We disagree concerning our moral sentiments.
Being relatable and useful are factors which contribute towards being the best foundation for morality. That [i]being[/I] is something we all have in common is utterly insignificant and useless. What the heck is one supposed to do with such a truism? Useless. So, the good is superior to
being, is it? So what? How is that helpful? What's the great insight supposed to be?
Alas, I don't agree with your statements, but I'll come back to this tomorrow as this post is already quite large.
I will not budge from thinking your statement that Orthodoxy is somehow more mystical and apophatic than Catholicism to be false. If you try and come up with more examples to prove your point, I will offer counter examples, which is quite easy to do. In fact, judging by quantity alone, the West has produced vastly more mystical and apophatic literature than the East, so you're not only wrong, but precisely the reverse of what you claim is true.
I read the rest of your post but don't feel I have much to add to it in reply.
If you try and come up with more examples to prove your point, I will offer counter examples, which is quite easy to do. In fact, judging by quantity alone, the West has produced vastly more mystical and apophatic literature than the East, so you're not only wrong, but precisely the reverse of what you claim is true.
Again, this only illustrates that you don't know about it. The West has by no means more apophatic literature than the East - remember that Saints like Dionysius the Areopagite and the like are EASTERN Saints first and foremost, not Western (he was Greek for example). The only difference is that a lot of what exists in the East is not translated in English, or is not famous. Is the goal of Catholic practice UNION with God?
If you read one single book, namely Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, you'll see that these are profound differences between the two.
Again, this only illustrates that you don't know about it. The West has by no means more apophatic literature than the East - remember that Saints like Dionysius the Areopagite and the like are EASTERN Saints first and foremost, not Western (he was Greek for example).
But this is absurd. Orthodoxy doesn't get to claim a pre-schismatic figure like Dionysius as solely its own simply on account of his being or writing in Greek. All the Church Fathers form part of the deposit of faith in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, whether they wrote in Latin or Greek or Syriac or whatever. Moreover, Dionysius had an enormous influence on Latin writers. In fact, it would be impossible to be a theologically educated Latin writer and not have read him. As I warned you about, for ever example you give, I can provide several counter examples if need be.
If you read one single book, namely Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, you'll see that these are profound differences between the two.
As I warned you about, for ever example you give, I can provide several counter examples if need be.
But this isn't the point of this conversation really. It would be quite silly to duel in who can provide more names. I can name some Saints that you probably haven't even heard about, but so what? :s
I see. Does Catholicism claim that when we describe God positively (cataphatically), the res significata we ascribe Him, refer to God as having a perfection which is nevertheless different from the kind of perfection that could be found in creatures?
Okay, because from the books that I know are available in English on Orthodoxy (especially on mysticism and comparison with Catholicism) it's one of the best. I would quote some stuff from it to you, but I don't have an English translation of it, which makes things a bit more difficult.
Also, forgive my slow answers, as I've been quite busy these days...
Can you prove this, instead of simply declaring it to be so? And note once again that I will be ready with counter examples.
I would be hard pressed to "prove" to you, since a lot of what I'm saying is based on my experience with Eastern Orthodoxy, including going to Mt. Athos two times and living with the monks, conversing with them, having read literature that isn't available in English, etc. It seems you're more interested to "win" this argument rather than anything, and quite frankly you can consider you've won it, because it doesn't mean much to me anyway.
Can the Orthodox Church claim that the treatment of a certain Saint's works, in this case Dionysius, by the Catholic Church is incorrect?
Dogmatically? To my knowledge, it has never done so and I see no reason why it should. It would first have to be clarified what the "the Catholic Church" refers to and how, exactly, "it" got Dionysius wrong.
But this isn't the point of this conversation really. It would be quite silly to duel in who can provide more names. I can name some Saints that you probably haven't even heard about, but so what?
Yes it is the point! You said that Orthodoxy was "more" mystical, Platonic, apophatic, etc than Catholicism. I have consistently challenged this claim. How is one to challenge it? Well, it depends on what "more" means. Does it mean the numerical total of thinkers on each side who correspond to such adjectives? If so, then you're wrong, as I'm quite confident I could put together a list of figures of the West that dwarfs what you could put together from the East. At the very least, you couldn't claim that one church possessed "more" than the other. If "more" means that one Church has, in its doctrinal statements, favored one set of theological modes and influences than another, then you're still wrong. Look through the documents of both churches, and you will be hard pressed to find great differences in this respect. So how else am I supposed to take your claim? You just have a priori knowledge that you're right?
I see. Does Catholicism claim that when we describe God positively (cataphatically), the res significata we ascribe Him, refer to God as having a perfection which is nevertheless different from the kind of perfection that could be found in creatures?
This isn't something I would think the Catholic Church has a formal position on. You'd have to consult what different theologians have to say. That being said, inasmuch as I understand the question, the Catholic Church has certainly leaned toward analogical modes of ascription as opposed to univocal ones. But again, that wouldn't be a de fide doctrine.
It seems you're more interested to "win" this argument rather than anything, and quite frankly you can consider you've won it, because it doesn't mean much to me anyway.
Yeah, I suppose I am, but only because you're wrong.
I would be hard pressed to "prove" to you, since a lot of what I'm saying is based on my experience with Eastern Orthodoxy, including going to Mt. Athos two times and living with the monks, conversing with them, having read literature that isn't available in English, etc.
So, anecdotes. That's all well and good, but a Catholic could just as easily say they went and visited the monks at La Trappe or what have you and have read Latin literature not available in English, etc....
Look, from my experience, the dichotomy set up between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, whereby the former is legalistic, Aristotelian, kataphatic, etc and the latter is mystical, Platonic, apophatic, etc is largely invented. It doesn't match reality but is used as an altogether too neat and tidy way of generalizing the intellectual histories of each church, usually for the purposes of partisan bickering. It's not interesting and it's not helpful.
Dogmatically? To my knowledge, it has never done so and I see no reason why it should. It would first have to be clarified what the "the Catholic Church" refers to and how, exactly, "it" got Dionysius wrong.
I think it certainly thinks the way St. Thomas Aquinas used the neo-Platonic works was wrong at least in the case I will illustrate below.
This isn't something I would think the Catholic Church has a formal position on. You'd have to consult what different theologians have to say. That being said, inasmuch as I understand the question, the Catholic Church has certainly leaned toward analogical modes of ascription as opposed to univocal ones. But again, that wouldn't be a de fide doctrine.
So St. Thomas Aquinas for example takes it that apophatic theology is a corrective to the limits of cataphatic theology, correct? The Orthodox Church takes this as wrong. Apophatic theology isn't a corrective to cataphatic theology, but absolutely superior. Analogically assigning properties based on creation to the Uncreated is wrong, indeed a category error. The Uncreated is beyond understanding and can only be experienced through theosis. Indeed, according to Orthodoxy, the unknowability of God is foundational - God isn't just unknowable because He hasn't fully revealed Himself or our understanding is too weak - rather God is unknowable in and of Himself. Certainly sounds more mystical to me.
Look, from my experience, the dichotomy set up between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, whereby the former is legalistic, Aristotelian, kataphatic, etc and the latter is mystical, Platonic, apophatic, etc is largely invented. It doesn't match reality but is used as an altogether too neat and tidy way of generalizing the intellectual histories of each church, usually for the purposes of partisan bickering. It's not interesting and it's not helpful.
Yes, the dichotomy as you put it here is largely invented. HOWEVER, there is a dichotomy in the emphasis that each places on things, which does make one more cataphatic and the other more apophatic or mystical. This is almost undeniable to me. This isn't to say that Catholicism doesn't also have mysticism, of course it does, but it's emphasis is different.
Yes, and I hold by that point. That point doesn't say that Catholicism doesn't have mysticism though.
You haven't shown to me that your point is correct. Of course Catholicism has mysticism. That's uncontroversial. But when asked to prove that Orthodoxy is somehow "more" mystical, all I get are anecdotes from trips to Mount Athos. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
God isn't just unknowable because He hasn't fully revealed Himself or our understanding is too weak - rather God is unknowable in and of Himself. Certainly sounds more mystical to me.
But you can find plenty of Western writers who say this.... :-d Aquinas is just one guy, an important guy, but not the only one who took quill to sheepskin. If you read JPII's encyclical, Fides et Ratio, you'll notice that Aquinas is highly praised but that the Church doesn't simply enshrine everything he said as dogmatic.
But you can find plenty of Western writers who say this.... :-d
Like who? People like Dionysus? I know he does, but the Catholic Church largely doesn't interpret him that way. You should at least know that Catholicism has historically been quite skeptical of the Eastern Orthodox apophaticism/mysticism. For example:
Western attitudes towards theosis have traditionally been negative. In his article, Bloor highlights various Western theologians who have contributed to what he calls a "stigma" towards theosis.[15] Yet, recent theological discourse has seen a reversal of this, with Bloor drawing upon Western theologians from an array of traditions, whom, he claims, embrace theosis/deification.
In some ways, this is a misleading dichotomy. One cannot exist without the other. In any case, you want to say that Orthodoxy has more thinkers who stress apophatic theology? Once again, I think that's highly debatable.
Like who? People like Dionysus? I know he does, but the Catholic Church largely doesn't interpret him that way. You should at least know that Catholicism has historically been quite skeptical of the Eastern Orthodox apophaticism/mysticism.
I know John the Scot does, and I'd be willing to bet money I could find it in other thinkers as well, like Eckhart, the Cloud of Unknowing author, the German Theology author, John of the Cross, and many others.
Western attitudes towards theosis have traditionally been negative
To some extent, this is true. The worry has been that, misinterpreted, or taken too far, it leads to pantheism. Regardless, the Catholic Church has not rejected it and it doesn't make Orthodoxy any more apophatic.
Catholicism has more spiritual autobiographies and retellings of mystical experiences, however this does not make it more mystical. One of the main reasons for this is that Catholicism holds that cataphatic and apophatic theology are both needed, whereas Orthodoxy takes a lot of the mystical experiences as private matters that cannot even in principle be communicated, and that remain between God and the believer.
To some extent, this is true. The worry has been that, misinterpreted, or taken too far, it leads to pantheism. Regardless, the Catholic Church has not rejected it and it doesn't make Orthodoxy any more apophatic.
I never said the Catholic church rejects it, only that the emphasis isn't on theosis the way it is in Orthodoxy.
whereas Orthodoxy takes a lot of the mystical experiences as private matters that cannot even in principle be communicated, and that remain between God and the believer.
Sigh.... Catholicism and many Catholic mystics recognize that such private, incommunicable revelations can and do exist, too.
I never said the Catholic church rejects it, only that the emphasis isn't on theosis the way it is in Orthodoxy.
I can agree with this. Still, I don't think the doctrine of theosis, on its face, is an apophatic doctrine any more than the visio beatifica is. And so just because Orthodoxy has historically talked more about theosis doesn't mean that, by virtue of this fact, it is "more" (again, undefined!) apophatic.
Reply to Thorongil Maybe not more mystical, but darker, less rational, monks who've never read a bible, church services that are just continuous and people wander in and out as if to a dream world and back. That's their heritage.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 10, 2017 at 14:15#850930 likes
This week I am not doing the inventory on Corvette parts as my Pop in law is out of town. So to fill in the gap, I am ranch sitting for a friend and her horses and furry babies. I am not sure which I enjoy more: mucking or figuring out the price of carburetors that might be 60 yrs old and it's value today. I can tell you I am enjoying the sun and after work there is the pool thing, so really no complaints. I just hope the fires stay away.because having to move horses in a crisis is not a fun experience. Now this wouldn't be my first fire evacuation of horses but it would be my first time with two Stallions and two mares in heat. Dear God in Heaven that WOULD be a.rodeo. But with the threat of fire evacuations comes, yes you.guessed it, mmmmmm fire fighters ~swooning ~
whereas Orthodoxy takes a lot of the mystical experiences as private matters that cannot even in principle be communicated, and that remain between God and the believer.
Not really, since the dogmas use cataphatic language.
No, dogmas are fixed statements, which don't necessarily use cataphatic language at all. They are however useful to practice and interpretation of mystical experiences. For example, there are passages of Scripture which are quite apophatic in nature.
And so just because Orthodoxy has historically talked more about theosis doesn't mean that, by virtue of this fact, it is "more" (again, undefined!) apophatic.
Orthodoxy is keenly aware of the difference between creature and Creator, and Catholicism is not. For them, the distinction is natural-supernatural - or revealed-hidden. But for Orthodoxy God is incomprehensible - not because He hasn't fully revealed Himself, or because of the weakness of our intellect, but in-Himself He is incomprehensible. This fundamental divine incomprehensibility illustrates a more profound apophatic understanding of the Orthodox, which makes the difference between creature and Creator clear.
No, dogmas are fixed statements, which don't necessarily use cataphatic language at all.
Poppycock. Cataphatic just means "positive" in Greek. The creeds and other dogmatic statements use nothing but positive statements. That doesn't mean they directly entail perspicacity on the part of the reader, but they're making positive truth claims all the same.
Orthodoxy is keenly aware of the difference between creature and Creator, and Catholicism is not. For them, the distinction is natural-supernatural - or revealed-hidden. But for Orthodoxy God is incomprehensible - not because He hasn't fully revealed Himself, or because of the weakness of our intellect, but in-Himself He is incomprehensible. This fundamental divine incomprehensibility illustrates a more profound apophatic understanding of the Orthodox, which makes the difference between creature and Creator clear.
Again, this is much too generalized and misleading, it seems to me, so I'm not going to take your word for it. This might be my last post on this topic, as I find the dozen-word sentences of the kind, "Catholicism is X and Orthodoxy Y" infuriating.
I wrote it to explain to you why Orthodoxy lacks autobiographical material with regards to mystics in comparison to the West. However, a theologian around here isn't someone who deals with arguments and reasons for God, but rather one who prays, strives for communion with God, and practices asceticism.
Poppycock. Cataphatic just means "positive" in Greek. The creeds and other other dogmatic statements use nothing but positive statements.
Cataphatic refers to statements which positively describe God - to theology. A lot of dogma doesn't do this, but rather dictates the means to achieving communion with God, offers moral guidance, teaches the fundamentals of prayer, etc. There's nothing "cataphatic" or "apophatic" about those instances. There are some cataphatic statements - God is a Trinity - and some apophatic statements - like this one:
Exodus 33:20:But He [God] said, “You cannot see My face; for no man can see My face and live.”
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 10, 2017 at 21:00#851970 likes
Thanks for trying to dampen my lust for the heroes in yellow but that silver Duct tape on the legs of their turn outs just takes me away in wonderment of what's beneath ;)
Same last name as my mom's maiden name, plus he was also born on June 12, just like me. Isn't that fucking weird? I'd really like to meet him. I will attempt to some day.
A guess is exactly what it is, and a guess is not very helpful. The book (or books) in question is (or are) not the Bible, and I am not a Christian. It doesn't have all of the answers, and not all of the answers in it have been found satisfactory. Hence the criticism both from myself, and from many others, including the author of the SEP article that I quoted. I'm guessing you wouldn't come back with a remark like that to her.
Reading the book (or books) [I]again[/I] would probably refresh my memory and help improve my understanding, but redirecting someone to what they're criticising as a response to what they're criticising, rather than actually addressing it, can look a little evasive and hand-wavy.
The book (or books) in question is (are) not the Bible, and I am not a Christian. It doesn't have all of the answers, and not all of the answers in it have been found satisfactory. Hence the criticism both from myself, and from many others, including the author of the SEP article that I quoted. I'm guessing you wouldn't come back with a remark like that to her.
The criticism from yourself and from those lunatics you quote suggests you've all never read the texts properly to be honest :P
Reply to Agustino I know everything about you. For example, I know that you have secret sexual fantasies about those guys with their tops off in public who you criticise so harshly, and I know that in your mind, Plato was nothing less then the second coming of Christ, even though he preceded him.
If Hume was just a character in a book, then Christ certainly was.
Well granted that Plato foreshadowed Christ, that does mean that Christ was a "character in the book", but also much more. Christ was an actual Person - the Living Truth.
So it's true because he said it? Or rather, it's true because almost two thousand years ago, it was written that he said it, several hundred years after the claimed events took place?
Well granted that Plato foreshadowed Christ, that does mean that Christ was a "character in the book", but also much more. Christ was an actual Person - the Living Truth.
Yes, he was probably an actual person, like Socrates. Nothing Special deserving of Capitalisation.
According to Wikipedia, and this doesn't include all scholars nor does it reflect what I actually believe but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Composition:Scholars date both Matthew and Luke to around 80-90 AD
So definitely not several hundred years after. Again, you have no clue what you're talking about, which isn't that infrequent amongst atheists. So no, you google it, and tell me what shit you're smoking too :P
So it's true because he said it? Or rather, it's true because almost two thousand years ago, it was written that he said it, several hundred years after the claimed events took place?
The latest date I can see is John, which was around 110 AD.
I actually made the link between Plato and Jesus if you got my book of the end reference... the return of Aeon, the Demiurge... discussed in Plato's Timaeus, and in the Gnostic Gospel of Judas...
*whistles*... surely you're all immune though.
History, and tradition is actually pretty interesting you know, and modern culture didn't pop out da void at least a hundred years ago...
Truth is honesty... truth saying. It isn't saying the right stuff, it's saying the stuff you actually believe. You don't actually know what the right stuff is, that's a process, that begins and ends in truth saying.
Which of us is the one that believe in a special kind of Truth then?
Why are you doing that weird capitalisation thing? Out of the two of us, I am the one who acknowledges the obvious distinction, evidenced by the fact that people can and do honestly utter non-truths.
Because, you're implying a belief in some kind of special metaphysical truth... almost certainly just stuff you've heard, and take on authority, but can't believe, because you don't even understand it in the first place -- but saying anything else is wrong and false, you're told, so best all repeat the Truth.
Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all.
Because, you're implying a belief in some kind of special metaphysical truth... almost certainly just stuff you've heard, and take on authority, but can't believe, because you don't even understand it in the first place -- but saying anything else is wrong and false, you're told, so best all repeat the Truth.
No, you're just exaggerating and trying to make the ordinary sound absurd and ridiculous. You also seem to be committing yourself to an untenable position which can be refuted by a reduction to the absurd. It's quite naive. You'd have to deny that anyone ever can, has, does, or will honestly utter a non-truth.
Reply to Wosret So you conflate truth and honesty, whilst others such as myself acknowledge the distinction. Okay, have fun with that, but it's pointless and won't achieve anything.
Reply to Wosret I'm saying what needs to be said and little else. It's called succinctness. You're just resorting to a ridiculous characterisation.
You're making a definitional error which I've explained, and it seems pointless to continue arguing against you if you stubbornly refuse to budge and just keep conflating the one with the other, when I'm trying to draw your attention elsewhere, to what you refuse to look at.
You know, I think I've come around to Wosret's point of view. A person can not honesty utter a non-truth and a feather is not dark. Truth is just honesty and light is just the opposite of dark.
We should have Theresa May debate someone like Joey Essex. Aside from the hilarity, it would give Wosret a good glimpse of the variety in British accents.
I'm not equivocating, as I began by criticizing the mystical truth that you believe in, that is stuff you heard, and nothing you can actually check with real experience, but you'll repeat words like "evidence" and "proof", just meaning that on faith, you believe that someone reliable checked... but none of that even really matters to you. All that matters is believing that you're smarter than most. You're just falling into megalomania... just look at what it's doing to your core bro...
Reply to Michael Yes, even in Essex, where I have always lived, there is a variety of accents. There's quite a difference between how I sound and how Joey Essex sounds.
You should be on my side here, aren't you good at just telling people what they want to hear, and reflecting people back at themselves in order to get by?
You should be on my side hear, aren't you good at just telling people what they want to hear, and reflecting themselves back at themselves in order to get by?
But you're Canadian, so don't deserve my support. Does that make me racist?
Reply to Wosret That's a straw man, though. What I referenced is not mystical and can oftentimes be checked empirically. A true statement is a statement of truth. Truth corresponds to fact, and many facts can be checked.
I don't know how I sound. It's been years since I've heard a recording of myself.
I can make that happen. Just give me your address, and I'll post you that recording I made of you singing in the shower last week. The video footage contains audio.
Also, for the right amount, I can make that video disappear.
Although most Irish accents are not British accents. Let's not confuse our North American friends. Besides, I want to stay neutral in this grand battle of truth vs Truth.
He'd have to pay off all of us who have a copy. But wouldn't it be easier if he just paid it all into a single account and it was then distributed amongst the others? Well, I'm just the person you're looking for. You can trust me, I'm an owl. Owls are known for their trustworthiness.
He most certainly could. I'm sure of that. Most of capitalism is based in turning shit into gold, and look how well it works. You'd swallow it if you were there.
Jordan Peterson has a great talk about how you'd be a nazi if you were a German at the time.
You should take that very seriously. Underestimating others may make you feel good about yourself, but it isn't very practical.
Depends what you're referring to. I do take things seriously from time to time, but it takes a special sort of person to really believe that Jesus turned water into wine.
Like Nietzsche said, a casual troll through an insane asylum will show you that faith doesn't prove anything.
Also, Hume went over a story about a Persian prince that refused to believe that water became hard at below zero temperatures, and explained that although this didn't jive with his experience, it also didn't actually contradict it. His conviction then was misplaced.
You may say that things do not jive with anything you've seen, but it is just convictions (based on judging some to be competent and others not) that makes you so sure, not any real evidence that it's impossible.
Also, Hume went over a story about a Persian prince that refused to believe that water became hard as below zero temperatures, and explained that although this didn't jive with his experience, it also didn't actually contradict it. His conviction then was misplaced.
There are things I believe which don't jive with my experience, because there are other good reasons to believe. Contrast that with something where there's no good reason, and perhaps you'll see the problem.
You may say that things do not jive with anything you've seen, but it is just convictions (based on judging some to be competent and others not) that makes you so sure, not any real evidence that it's impossible.
I didn't actually say that it's impossible. The claim doesn't have to be impossible to be false or for there to be good reason not to believe it. It's not just conviction. I think we both know that it's more than that, at least deep down, buried in denial, in your case.
I know that he could. You know why everyone pretends? Everyone deludes themselves about the power of their intellect, and the beauty of their souls? Because they hate themselves, because they're failing themselves. I could make you do something atrocious if I wanted to, while telling you that I was going to the whole time, within weeks of hanging around ya. You think you have control? Your souls a turncoat, because you're failing it. It's not hard to make people think you're the greatest ever, and do anything that you want, see anything that you want, be anything that you want.
I can see exactly why he'd do it too, it's hard not to feel like a wolf, while surrounded by sheep.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 11, 2017 at 15:06#855190 likes
Wosret, Sapientia and Michael if I just happened upon this conversation without knowing you all for years, I would think I had walked into a Twighlight Zone bar. Instead, scarily, I can not only understand your banter but now I too want to hear accents!
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 11, 2017 at 15:39#855380 likes
Does anyone else here think of Mars Man? I mean did his virtual friendship and the loss there of mean the same as a face to face friend? I mourn the loss of a friend I never met face to face but we worked on a project together. A song will come on that I know he wrote to when he had writers block or when someone says something that I know he would have had a snarky response to, those things make me miss him and encourages me to tell those who mean something to me now, while I still can. (L)
Robert LockhartJuly 11, 2017 at 15:54#855430 likes
Proposition: 'It can be unambiguously accepted as, ‘a given’ that scientific methodology – the omnipotently successful describer of our sensorialy perceivable experience – nonetheless would in principle be incapable of describing a non-sensorialy perceived experience.' - I’m alluding of course to that sole irreducibly non-sensorialy perceived experience we’re appraised of which we call Consciousness, which is perhaps an enigma in scientific terms. - Though it's perhaps a bit incongruous to submit it in the 'Chat box' - anyway does anyone agree with such a seminal contention?
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff In my neck of the woods, water is "wa'uh" and "ball" is "baw". Otherwise you're posh. For some, "hello" is "allo", but I pronounce my h's, which I suppose makes me slightly more posh than others.
My circadian is screwed up from the total destruction of my old schedule, and my sleep patterns have become wacky, so I decided to stay up for the night, and all day today, and reset them, so that I can wake up early and rested to take on da world tomorrow!
Monks do read the Bible actually, every day they read it, including during their morning prayers. I've lived with them before, and trust me, they take the Bible very seriously. You seem to have the idea that only Protestants read their Bible, but that's absolutely wrong.
I bet they were a barrel of laughs. Wild parties every night?
They go to sleep really early actually, and wake up really early - 4-5am wake up time :P They crack the whip on you with loud bells and stuff to get out of bed.
But regarding the laughter - laughter is very common in the monasteries I've visited on Mt. Athos, and many monks are quite funny and have a good sense of humor. They take lots of pleasure in the simple things, like basic food, etc. They appreciate things a lot generally - but there's also quieter monks who don't engage in socialising as much.
Reply to Wosret I recently noticed that Canada isn't as big as it seems to be. The earth gets smaller and smaller the further into Canada you go. It's like a dimensional rift, I think.
Does anyone on principle have any issues with seeing a small ad on the top of the page? I really think its a matter of being pragmatic and deriving the benefit from seeing a small ad every now and then to help support the page. Obviously I would click on it just to generate revenue. With my miserable financial situation as perhaps with many or some others it could be a good idea for the less fortunate members to contribute financially somehow.
Yeah, names don't carry much meaning about the things they name generally... I think that names that actually describe things, rather than merely attribute credit would be nicer, and a lot easier to remember...
Reply to Wosret For us, maybe. There's a town down here called Etowah. Even experts don't know what language it comes from or what it means. There's a theory that it means something like "high place."
Does anyone on principle have any issues with seeing a small ad on the top of the page? I really think its a matter of being pragmatic and deriving the benefit from seeing a small ad every now and then to help support the page. Obviously I would click on it just to generate revenue. With my miserable financial situation as perhaps with many or some others it could be a good idea for the less fortunate members to contribute financially somehow.
I wouldn't mind, so long as the ads aren't hentia women or bikini girls, (Y)
Just Python at the moment. Its not important for my major (economics) but I heard its pretty useful and versatile nevertheless. I still need to finish my degree after dropping out but I have to get on disability first and then declare bankruptcy.
Reply to Question Python is my favourite programming language and it has steadily grown over the years, even though it has never had a glamorous reputation. The best way of learning fast is to actually do a project for money. I learned Python by building small websites with Django, and I still use Django, Flask, and other Python libraries as the server side API for the application I develop and maintain.
Unfortunately I have to use JavaScript for the browser app, but it's not so bad really.
Ahhh that language that I never officially studied or learned properly except by writing it >:O It feels very strange how one learns some things by doing them, without ever studying much of the theory behind. I have worked with Java before though which was a huge help, although some of the syntax of JS is still different and it's annoying when I write it. Java is definitely more complex though, and more difficult to work with too overall. But really fundamentally once you get the knack of it all programming languages are the same. Once you understand what you have to do, and how to break down problems/algorithms to implement them, you can work quite easily in different languages, you'd just need to change the terminology and investigate how to actually write what you want to write in them (and how to create the data structures you need).
The best way of learning fast is to actually do a project for money.
The first month I started working I built a website from scratch by myself - it was a presentation website, and afterwards I contacted some small construction companies, car companies, bakeries, etc. to do websites for them - there's a lot of such work to do in Eastern Europe you just have to find the companies - we're still behind tech wise, and there's many places that still don't have an internet presence.
I'm not sure if in this day and age he can jump straight to a for-money project in the US :s - I imagine it's quite competitive there. Not to mention that a for-money project would likely be full-stack and the number of technologies he has to learn for that will take quite a bit unless he subcontracts? The easiest thing to do would be the low-hanging fruit of Wordpress websites. But would still need some PHP, CSS and HTML knowledge at minimum. With hard work I think I'd hazard to guess that it would be possible in say 2-3 months to make a (decent but not great) income in the US with it starting from scratch in today's age.
Ahhh that language that I never officially studied or learned properly except by writing it >:O It feels very strange how one learns some things by doing them, without ever studying much of the theory behind. I have worked with Java before though which was a huge help, although some of the syntax of JS is still different and it's annoying when I write it. Java is definitely more complex though, and more difficult to work with too overall. But really fundamentally once you get the knack of it all programming languages are the same. Once you understand what you have to do, and how to break down problems/algorithms to implement them, you can work quite easily in different languages, you'd just need to change the terminology and investigate how to actually write what you want to write in them (and how to create the data structures you need).
To be honest I just hate the curly brackets, semicolons, and all that stuff. Python is a haven of tranquillity and clarity. By the way, JavaScript isn't related to Java, although it looks similar.
Otherwise, yeah, I didn't know it at the time but it's somewhat irresponsible to build small web sites for very small companies using Python frameworks as I did when I started out, because when you don't want to work for them any more or maintain their sites, your clients will find it hard to get cheap developers to make changes, unlike with Wordpress. Years after building several small web sites, I'm still in the position of maintaining some of them, and it's a hassle. But Python and JavaScript are a winning combination if you want to move away from little sites and into application programming.
To be honest I just hate the curly brackets, semicolons, and all that stuff. Python is a haven of tranquillity and clarity. By the way, JavaScript isn't related to Java, although it looks similar.
I know but syntax can be quite similar. Very easy for me to read, but I can get in trouble when writing it (cause Java generally has a lot of other syntax that JS doesn't) :P
But Python and JavaScript are a winning combination if you want to move away from little sites and into application programming.
Yes that makes sense. PHP is not very great for a backend, but it's quite simple to setup and modify in combination with Wordpress. But you are right, I think I might brush up my Python and look into Django - that would certainly allow a bit more specialised/niche work which isn't necessarily bad.
I didn't know it at the time but it's somewhat irresponsible to build small web sites for very small companies using Python frameworks as I did when I started out, because when you don't want to work for them any more or maintain their sites, your clients will find it hard to get cheap developers to make changes, unlike with Wordpress.
One of the reasons why Wordpress is so popular, but some of the people I've worked with had their sites hacked :s - many people just assume that setting up basic .htaccess + up-to-date Wordpress themes is enough, but Wordpress is actually quite vulnerable (especially since people setup stupid passwords that they can easily remember). There's also people who get some other developer or just start mindlessly installing plugins to do all sorts of things, and it becomes difficult to debug. Some also just think if they put a site up people will come to them, and that's actually not the case - so then they're upset they don't have customers. I've also had clients who made me add each and every little product image, etc. that they had, which is a pain. It's a difficult choice - because people aren't generally willing to pay extra until something bad happens for me to install them some security, CDN, etc.
I've been moving a bit away from Web development with existing clients where I still do a bit of website management for them. Some marketing services - PPC, Facebook advertisements, etc. - work well as offers to existing clients, especially those running some kind of online store.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 12, 2017 at 14:55#858610 likes
Reply to Agustino I've been moving a bit away from Web development with existing clients where I still do a bit of website management for...
That is where the cheese has been moved to. Managed services ;)
I read the transcripts of some of his lectures on the mirror image, and the development of self-consciousness, but don't recall reading any of his books.
Yeah, I like psychoanalysis a lot, and psychology in general. People are the most complex things in the universe, super interesting, slippery little buggers.
I've been able to maintain hypertrophy for like three days straight. It's pretty great, today my chest is cracking like mad, and I even woke up flush. Being so pumped makes me a tad aggressive probably. keeping my right arm in good alignment is the difficult part, it's like the opposite of flexing it. The right side is so much stronger, gotta be really subtle and soft to keep it open. Hand alignment, and things getting caught up in the wrist is probably due to the fact that being able to rotate the wrist is fairly new. Homo Erectus couldn't do it, and no other primate can. Need to be able to for good spear chucking though...
I pulled the rug outside and washed it with the hose in an attempt to cleanse it of the dog piss that had accumulated over the years. The water ran yellow for a while until it was clear and crisp, like a mountain stream that previously was flooded with dog piss.
It dries now, hung over the deck railing in the oppressive Georgia heat, soon to be ravaged by an oncoming storm, starting over the drying cycle and leaving me another day without being able to cuddle in a ball on my favourite rug.
Here is a pic of my recently acquired in joint shoulder, which is quite the rarity, and I'm super proud of. That's not like flexing or anything either, it's just normal posture. I also spend practically all of my time sitting around, and only attained this recently, which is what allowed me to sustain gear second for so long (also gots me a blender, and there is so cheap, and super close fruits and vegetables, so I'm having awesome smoothies everyday!). I'm likely about 15% body fat, but I'm fairly confident that it's all above the muscle, and no longer any rippled through it, and I just look kind of pinker a bit in my non-tanned spots, and not as flush as I do in my tanned places.... so yeah, showing off time.
That's the way it is supposed to look. Also, if you look up high vs low lats, you'll be told that you have one or the other, which is genetic, but I have both, cause I've been everywhere man, and they're my largest ones. Probably why I'm so fast that you can barely detect my movements.
Not done though, can't quite do lotus yet with proper balance, hip flexers are still pretty tight, but they're loosening up, definitely within a couple months I figure.
Luckily, we atheists can now avail ourselves of Truth Premium (patent pending), which trumps Truth.
When I've missed Shoutbox for a day or two I read it backwards, it somehow makes more sense that way. Anyway I came to this and liked it :) Truth Premium gives you unlimited cloud access, I should expect. Provides comprehensive solutions whatever your -ism. Plus, you look better in the mirror without plastic surgery and your poems are all brilliant.
So, I booked a Jeep in Hawaii. I have never driven on the right-side of the road before, and in rugged terrain no less. Why not, right?
Yeah. Just sharing the Aloha.
Me I like driving on the wrong, i.e. right side of the road. Somehow it feels more logical to me. I once hired a jeep in Cuba and it was great, plus the public transport system had broken down so we met loads of Cubans by giving them rides. One woman took us home to her village and said next time they would kill a pig for us - but there hasn't been a next time. not yet anyway. And soon, I presume, Cuba will become another offshore USA outpost. Anyway, enjoy Hawaii.
Me I like driving on the wrong, i.e. right side of the road. Somehow it feels more logical to me. I once hired a jeep in Cuba and it was great, plus the public transport system had broken down so we met loads of Cubans by giving them rides. One woman took us home to her village and said next time they would kill a pig for us - but there hasn't been a next time. not yet anyway. And soon, I presume, Cuba will become another offshore USA outpost. Anyway, enjoy Hawaii.
I had a Beduoin family in Jordan who secretly wanted me for their son say they would slaughter a goat in my honour. It took some time trying explain the baffling concept of "vegetarian" to them. An interesting experience in cultural relativism.
Cuba would be amazing. I guess you are right, it is logical since I am right-handed so it would be interesting using my right hand to change gears, but most of my trip will involve trekking or being a beach bum eating doughnuts. The summit of Mauna Kea and checking out the volcanos I think would just top the experience.
I have been sick all week in this blistering cold, so counting down.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 13, 2017 at 14:47#862140 likes
In St. John, you drive on the left side of the street, but they use American cars, so you're on the wrong of the car. If you go through a drive through window it's especially confusing.
In Canada, they drive on the left side of their motorcycles. They do that for two reasons: (1) they're stupid, and (2) it makes no sense.
Reply to Cavacava It would seem that low-gluten wafers are permitted, so this is a non-issue, I think. But, y'know, fuck the Catholic Church. Goddamned wheat police.
Also, you're allowed to drink from the chalice instead of taking the wafer, if you can't take the latter. Taking one or the other is to receive the whole Eucharist.
Reply to Agustino I'm not about to take Putin as an authority on anything other than his own ego. He thinks Eastern Orthodoxy is closer to Islam than to Catholicism? That's completely nuts. I want to know who these "scholars" are who think that.
I wonder why Cardinal Robert Sarah spent the time to write the letter to the world bishops on this topic if it is a "non-story"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40545023
I never liked the Larsen Ice shelf, and I'm glad it has gone to sea--all trillion tons of it. Fie upon it. Really, I don't like any of the ice shelves around Antartica. They have nothing interesting to say, they don't follow me on Tumblr, and they haven't sent me any money recently. What are they good for?
It's as big as Delaware. Delaware can fall off too, for all I care. Good riddance.
Reply to Mongrel
"The lay faithful who are not able to receive Holy Communion at all under the species of bread, even of low-gluten hosts, may receive Holy Communion under the species of wine only, regardless of whether the Precious Blood is offered to the rest of the faithful present at a given celebration of Mass." here
I think there may be more to this story. There is a battle going on in the Catholic Church, between Frances and the conservative branch of the Church. He may be taking the doctrinaire approach on this issue to pacify some of his differences with them.
Reply to Cavacava I'm tired of all this gluten free nonsense. 95% of "gluten sensitive" people (mostly women, probably) following this fucking foolish feminine food fad are fakes. Don't want to eat the gluten in the body of christ? Fine. Excommunicate them on the spot. Accuse them of witchcraft. Prepare the stake.
Granted, people who really are celeriac, who have irritable bowel syndromes or only annoyed colons have real problems.
Reply to Bitter Crank Biden would keep all the progressive voters (Dem, Ind, or Green) home on election day, as would Harris and Booker. Hillibrand would be a better pick if she commits to Medicaid-for-all.
yes there is a lot of nonsense, but it is driven by the fact that
Celiac disease is one of the most common intolerances in the world. Data from screening studies reveals that approximately 1% of the population is affected worldwide.
Reply to Bitter Crank
Lol :-!
We laugh now, but ice shelves are known to have cold hearts and long memories, being around for so long. Better not to cheese them off. Or else sometime this winter, you'll look out the window and wonder if that is ordinary snow, or is it the ice shelf about to smash a window and get revenge! :-O
Reply to Cavacava Baloney. At least 25% of the population (that's 80 million) want excellent fresh baked bread and can't get it. Why aren't they worried about THAT untapped market.
Although it is understood that the prevalence of celiac disease in North America is approximately 1%, only approximately 10 – 15% % of these cases are actually diagnosed [7]. While there has been an increase in the awareness of celiac disease there remains a low rate of diagnosis.
How do they know that 1% are celeriac, when 85% of the alleged 1% haven't been diagnosed? It's like saying, 85% of burglaries are never reported. If they are never reported how would one know they happened?
(I'm totally sympathetic to people with real allergies.)
Reply to 0 thru 9 I am sublimely confident that an iceberg the size of Delaware will be unable to steam up the Mississippi River from New Orleans to Minneapolis and menace my windows with heavy snow.
Besides, if it did get that close, why wouldn't it do something more drastic than merely breaking a window. Why wouldn't it crush my house and me all together?
They do studies on numbers of people, and from that information they extrapolate....using well tested measures to apply such results. There are many references suggesting its prevalence in populations around the world, some areas much more than in others.
They do studies on numbers of people, and from that information they extrapolate....using well tested measures to apply such results. There are many references suggesting its prevalence in populations around the world, some areas much more than in others.
I don't doubt that maybe 1% of the population is gluten intolerant. I note in the map to which you linked that between 2-3% of Swedes and Finns are celeriac -- and of course Minnesota is where a lot of them ended up.
But it isn't the people who are actually allergic to gluten that I find annoying -- it's the people who, for some strange reason, like to hobble themselves with disorders they don't actually have.
Reply to Bitter Crank
Ok, good... good. The whitewall tires are a nice touch. Is the dog a trained ice-sniffer, though? That would help. Also, I highly recommend getting a flame thrower. You know... just in case.
:D
Bernie needs to take someone under his wing. The DEMs are going down the tubes with the Clintons. Have you seen what's happening with Michael Bloomberg, leader of Climate America. I think his efforts to align states & cities with the world desire for climate control, aside from the Feds, will pay-off for him if he decides to run.
I'm not about to take Putin as an authority on anything other than his own ego. He thinks Eastern Orthodoxy is closer to Islam than to Catholicism? That's completely nuts. I want to know who these "scholars" are who think that.
>:O I'm not sure, but Putin is by far not the only Eastern Orthodox who I've heard say that. However, I haven't studied comparative religion with regards to Eastern Orthodoxy and Islam. In addition Islam is probably the religion I know least about, so I'm not really fit to pronounce myself as to who the scholars Putin referred to would be.
However, Eastern Orthodoxy is similar in some regards with the way people dress & the manner ceremonies are carried out. Other stuff is similar, like the way our prayer beads are designed, they're quite similar to Islamic ones for example. And from the little I know about Islam, the concept of God there is closer to the EO concept than the RC is in some ways.
At the request of Pope Francis, gluten-free bread used to celebrate the Eucharist is forbidden. Not fully bodied enough? My guess.
Those damned celiacs, I knew they were evil. But no matter. I'm sure that with adequate sum set aside to purchase an indulgence, they will reduce their punishment time in purgatory.
Ladies, this a jubilee year so if you are Catholic there still is time to get your plenary indulgence.
For the 100th anniversary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima in Portugal, Pope Francis has decided to grant a plenary indulgence opportunity throughout the entire anniversary year, which began Nov. 27, 2016, and will end Nov. 26, 2017.
Three ways to obtain your Indulgence: 1) Make a pilgrimage to Fatima, 2) Say a public prayer in front of a statue of Our Lady of Fatima on the 13th of each month through October 13, 2017. 3) the old, sick & disabled may say a prayer on the 13th of each h in private.
Robert LockhartJuly 14, 2017 at 16:18#866180 likes
Some remarks on the ‘Free-Will’ question: When we ask whether humans could have a capacity for free will we don’t really mean to enquire whether we might have a capacity for amoral autonomy – like whether we could truly autonomously decide what sweet-meat to prefer for dessert – but rather whether we might have a capacity for autonomy regarding morally relevant descions. In this regard it might be observed that moral ‘knowledge’ is not apprehensible intellectually and therefore acquirable vicariously but in practice is a type of understanding inculcated only through personal experience. Ex: That there exists a fundamental distinction between happiness and pleasure is commonly received as an intellectual truth yet presumably we can all accept that in practice most adherents to this precept paradoxically exhibit behavioural patterns ostensibly seeming oblivious of it. So it seems to be the same with the personal observation of, for example, the general moral precepts outlined in the biblical Ten Commandments: Moral understanding of the nature of say, Theft, as an act, is an entirely distinct thing from an intellectual acceptance of the iniquity of such a transgression, the latter type of acceptance being in practice perfectly reconcilable with a capacity to commit the offence the former, in contrast, perhaps being logically irreconcilable with such a capacity, like for another ex – albeit it’s a bit of a cliché – the combat hardened soldier’s avowal consequent on his personal acquisition of a knowledge of the nature of killing as an act that he is fundamentally incapable of killing again. – There exists a theory that such ‘knowledge’ could enable a capacity for individual moral autonomy that logically need not be regarded as contingent on establishing as a prerequisite a neurologically based capacity for amoral autonomy.
Pope Francis put this on his hotel room door..."No Whining" under it
“violators are subject to a syndrome of always feeling like a victim and the consequent reduction of your sense of humour and capacity to solve problems”.
Reply to mcdoodle So far so good. A lot of it is familiar to me. Fink has a bug about scientific approaches to mental health. I need to talk to him and straighten him out about that.
Yea, I am lucky. I have a good friend who almost died until they figured out he has celiac disease. He is happy about all the new gluten-free products on the market.
TL mentioned indulgences, you mentioned sacrifices & burning--ceremony. Indulgences are ceremonial, you say a prayer based on certain instructions, like say it in public on the 13th of the month (wear a sack cloth} or something along those lines.
Temporal relief from the purifying fires of Purgatory, offer good through November 26th, 2017.
It is a process, not a place. "Purgatory is like a purifying fire burning inside a person, a painful experience of regret for one's sins," so a temporal dimension.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 15, 2017 at 01:03#867960 likes
I am very pleased with it Question but if you only knew the hill she had to climb to get there.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 15, 2017 at 01:12#867970 likes
I am in need of getting ahold of Greg aka Mayor STAT if anyone knows of a number.please pm me so I may give him mine. My God children's mother has had Pulmonary Embilism (sp?) On a plane at Austria's airport, coded 3 times and is now in a medically induced coma in the ICU on a vehnilator and her father is flying over to Austria within 12 hrs and I am trying to give them an English speaking contact, an ex Pat.
She and I are the same age....scary shit
Is that what the universities are for? Creativity? Not dissection? "Intellectuals" dissect, and discuss grand ideas. Philosophers are the founders of the universities, and philosophers are "lovers of wisdom", not creators of wisdom. That's a sage. The values and ideas that found civilization on the individual level have always come from the bottom. The institutional structural values that shit all over those, imposed on society from the top are more what come from the "intellectuals". The word "creator" itself comes from "craftsman".
This is why Jesus was a carpenter. This is why Spinoza refused professorship positions, and Da Buddha wouldn't even step inside the palace when he went back to see his family.
So far so good. A lot of it is familiar to me. Fink has a bug about scientific approaches to mental health. I need to talk to him and straighten him out about that.
Oh, that's good, too much Erving Goffman on Asylums and Laing/Cooper anti-psychiatry as a youth, I have that same bug!
Oh, that's good, too much Erving Goffman on Asylums and Laing/Cooper anti-psychiatry as a youth, I have that same bug!
What's your view? Is all mental healthcare voodoo and word-magic is just better voodoo? Or do you think the scientific approach is actually detrimental? Or what?
Yea, I am lucky. I have a good friend who almost died until they figured out he has celiac disease. He is happy about all the new gluten-free products on the market.
Years ago I'd lost about 50 pounds and was skin and bones for unknown reasons. Could not even climb two flights of stairs without getting winded. It was a gluten allergy, this was before it was really well known. But now if i take a digestive enzyme (such as Glutenease) i can eat wheat, oats, barley etc. Don't know if it would work for everyone though. It was no fun watching people eat pizza and not be able to have any!
What's your view? Is all mental healthcare voodoo and word-magic is just better voodoo? Or do you think the scientific approach is actually detrimental? Or what?
I had a very Laingian view and then in our mid-thirties my then-partner went crazy for quite a long time. Removal from a stressful work situation and medication eventually brought her round - although some medication made her worse and it needed family members to intervene with doctors to stop her being iatrogenically made madder - and love and friendship and a new start in another city made her a somewhat different person.
I was left then with the uncertain view I have now, 30 years on. I see some but only a little scientific 'progress' in relation to mental distress, taking the long view. After Foucault: we change our institutional arrangements but do we improve matters? Anti-depressants, for example, barely do better than placebos. CBT is still all the rage here but seems awfully short-term to me.
It was noticeable after my ex's crisis that I felt, and feel, ok with people in mental distress, and realise how friends often shrink from people behaving oddly. One mad friend settled for a life on benzodiazepine, another saw their madness as an encounter with devils and became Godly, and there was successful suicide. I didn't find mental healthcare helpful in my own darkest depression with the minor exception of a drink counsellor, and worked my own way out of it. My ex thinks her breakdown was both awful and the best thing to happen to her, it stopped her being a workaholic freak.
My view then, is a muddle of specifics. What's your view?
Robert LockhartJuly 16, 2017 at 16:22#873400 likes
-Thought I’d make some more remarks here about the possible validity of the idea of Free Will: We could presumably all accept that personal experience is capable of conferring insights that could not in principle be acquired vicariously – for example how a soldier’s personal experience of killing could possibly have conferred on him a knowledge of the reality of killing as an act which his training regime - no matter how sustained and rigorous - had not enabled him to anticipate. Suppose then, equipped with this type of knowledge, inimical of course to being ‘bought’, such a soldier were to subsequently avow that he was fundamentally incapable of killing again, even though it be logically justifiable in the defence of his country. Although in principle only the individual concerned could behold the true nature or otherwise of his avowal, is it impossible that such a concept by its nature, were it validly beheld on the part of an individual, could be capable of knowingly transcending the otherwise unconscious neural determinants constituted by external environmental influence and thus constitute a capacity of moral autonomy, thus exemplifying an example in practice of acquired ‘Free Will’? – Any takers?
I hope that it's alright to post this here...if not, moderators do what you must...I started a high school philosophy class, with a large section on eastern (Zen, Taoism, Buddhism, advaita vedanta, Vivekananda, Krishnamurti etc)... if anyone has any interest here are the links...all the best
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCInRoNWuJqqQdcosJbn2YAUaZ5gMtA-k
Reply to Heister Eggcart thanks...i picked 50 philosophers from Thales to Rawls, both east and west, and teach to HS seniors...been putting together a book/curriculum guide showing how I teach each philosopher, with hopes that other schools might implement...I recall Dewey saying something about democracy only working if schools provide an inquiring and critically thinking populous
Reply to Lao Does your high school also teach the world religions? I think it's important for kids to be educated in both religion and philosophy, albeit in different classrooms.
Reply to mcdoodle I think you're saying that there may be some wisdom in a bout of mental illness that a scientific approach might thwart.
Problem is some mentally ill folks don't have patient's rights due to impaired decision making. The community is involved now. It's values are in play. Since such bouts can be lethal, that has to be respected as the default.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 16, 2017 at 20:56#874330 likes
Just for anyone who might be following my shouts, our friend who had a medical crisis in Austria came off the ventilator today. All signs point in the right direction but her brain is still not all awake. Like she can move her head on command but when she opens her eyes there is no dilation. I imagine she will be in Austria for a time to recover before she can fly home to the USA. Her Dad was in the air within 12 hrs of this happening and remains in Austria. Everyone has been praying, even folk like me who are more spiritual than religious have kept her on our minds, waiting anxiously for the next update from another nation. It is hard not to have it occupy your mind when you feel completely helpless. Just shocking... :s
I think you're saying that there may be some wisdom in a bout of mental illness that a scientific approach might thwart.
Problem is some mentally ill folks don't have patient's rights due to impaired decision making. The community is involved now. It's values are in play. Since such bouts can be lethal, that has to be respected as the default.
Well, that raises too many questions for me! How am I to trust the very label 'mental illness' when in my lifetime homosexuality was taken to be a sign of it? When my aunt was made crazier by electric shock (that had at the time bugger all scientific justification) than she was already? I completely agree - that's what happened in my examples - that a person can cease to be capable of autonomous judgement in mental distress, as I would call it. I don't see that that implies that a 'scientific approach' to their problems will then be right: since something that was purportedly this approach has often, as I have personally witnessed, involved leaving crazy people to their own devices for hours with other dangerous crazy people while the nurses hide in the nurses' station, making people more pliable at no clear benefit to their mental health through medication, and leaving diagnosis to overworked junior doctors who see 'patients' for a very short time and tick boxes rather than deal with the whole person.
I knew I would rant at some point about this! It's upsetting, that's the trouble. These episodes of other people's madness, and my own depression, still trouble me in memory. Maybe it needs a thread of some kind. I am going to be away for a couple of weeks from next Saturday though.
Reply to Heister Eggcart we don't have world religions course though I wish we did..I. do aspects of some religions in the philosophy class, but i agree with you, it should be taught
Lights, Cameras, CRISPR: Biologists Use Gene Editing to Store Movies in DNA
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lights-cameras-crispr-biologists-use-gene-editing-to-store-movies-in-dna1/
Reply to Michael About time we had ourselves a lady. Though David Tennant is still hard to beat.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 17, 2017 at 12:13#876640 likes
It's back to the grind of inventory of Corvette parts. I think we might be up to windshield washer arms. But as dry as that might be, I totally enjoyed the huge storm that dumped water on our ranch for the first time in like ten freakin years (okay maybe a few months but the air was so dry it hurt to breathe) AND I didn't have to worry about what a mess mucking is going to be today! Yay to shedding the horse shit!
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 17, 2017 at 12:16#876660 likes
They are going to live stream the OJ Simpson Parole hearing on Thursday afternoon.
Who watched the first trial and are you going to watch the hearing?
Is there anyone here that believes he didn't kill Nicole and Ron?
Does that mean you think he didn't kill her or you're just being honest about some bias?
I just never got the feeling that OJ himself actually wielded the knife that took Nicole and Ron's lives. Having said that, I do believe he was involved, just not the actual killer. I believe he was able to stand there in court and honestly say he did not murder Nicole or Ron because HE didn't.
I hadn't heard the theory about OJ's son having been the killer but it is an idea worth exploring.
Reply to Baden Well, here's the evidence of OJ's guilt: http://www.famous-trials.com/simpson/1857-evidence
And, he did write a book called "If I Did It," where he basically admits to everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It
Note the size of the lettering on the book, with the word "If" written very small.
I've not really looked into the conspiracy theories because the only reason I would is if I thought there were some validity to the jury's verdict. If you should have some doubt about OJ's guilt, I doubt your doubt is the same doubt the jury had when they acquitted. I even doubt whether they had doubt. Their acquittal was based upon a feeling that black men have traditionally been denied fair trials and they felt there was a race motivated element in the investigation. They also felt that white men, particularly police officers (e.g. Furhman), were rarely held accountable for their crimes and dishonesty. The acquittal was vindication, as noted from the cheers from the African American community when the verdict was rendered.
The trial was a travesty. It was tried on the basis of race and it was decided upon the idea that injustice is the cure for injustice.
And, he did write a book called "If I Did It," where he basically admits to everything.
Well, Pablo Fenjves wrote it. He said it was based on discussions with O.J., whereas O.J.'s manager said that O.J. was just paid $600,000 to go along with it and wasn't involved at all.
Note the size of the lettering on the book, with the word "If" written very small.
That was the 2007 re-print after the Goldman family were granted the rights. The original had same-size text, but with the "If" in white and the "I Did It" in red. And that detail would have been decided by the publisher's marketing department anyway.
Note the size of the lettering on the book, with the word "If" written very small.
The book is dealt with in the doc: Nicole Brown's family got the rights and made the "if" small purposely. OJ wrote the book for money and maybe because he is an idiot but that doesn't make him a murderer + see @Michael's post above. As for Furhman, he was more than "dishonest", he is a disgusting racist prick who had a history of framing blacks, or "niggers" in his words, for stuff they didn't do (I've heard the tapes).
I even doubt whether they had doubt. Their acquittal was based upon a feeling that black men have traditionally been denied fair trials and they felt there was a race motivated element in the investigation.
You've interviewed them all I take it or you can just see deeply into their souls. :-}
Sure, I was aiming this at our PF audience mostly. I'm about 50/50 on it. I reckon there is at least a reasonable doubt. And if anyone wants to "blame" someone for the aquittal, blame the racist scumbags at the LAPD not the jury.
Ah ok, kind of indirect though. I just get the impression that for most people it's my team vs your team BS with little regard for the details of the case
Is there anyone here who believes he did kill Nicole and Ron on the basis of evidence and analysis rather than hype or partisanship?
It seems to me that it was the defence and those who were most supportive of OJ who politicized the trial, thus opening it up to hype and partisanship. So I think the question can be put to the other side with equal pertinence.
He looked pretty guilty to me, but what do I know? The truth of what happened seems hopelessly obscure.
What about my belief that Ian Huntley was guilty of the Soham murders? I only believe that because he was found guilty at a trial.
I suppose it is indirect, but then a lot of our beliefs have indirect reasons like this. What evidence do I have for the Holocaust? History text books and teachers.
I just get the impression that for most people it's my team vs your team BS with little regard for the details of the case
I wonder what the teams would be in this case. American football supporters vs everyone else?
Yep, both sides are at it. When I first heard he brought out that book I thought he was not only guilty but rubbing the victim's noses in it in a disgusting way. After watching the doc I think it's possible he's not a murderer but just horribly shallow and crass. But, yes, the truth is obscure.
As for Furhman, he was more than "dishonest", he is a disgusting racist prick who had a history of framing blacks, or "niggers" in his words, for stuff they didn't do (I've heard the tapes).
I see that you too have been greatly influenced by the defense tactic of placing the LAPD on trial.
Here's some evidence of his guilt:
•DNA analysis of the blood found in, on, and near Simpson’s Bronco reveal traces of Simpson’s, Nicole’s, and Robert Goldman’s blood.
•DNA analysis of bloody socks found in Simpson bedroom were proven to be Nicole’s blood.
•Simpson’s hair was found on Goldman’s shirt even though Simpson claims he never met Goldman.
•DNA analysis of blood on the gloves was proven to be a mixture of Simpson’s, Nicole’s, and Ronald Goldman’s. The gloves also contains particles of Goldman’s hair and carpet fibers from Simpson’s Bronco.
•Officers find arrest records indicating that Simpson was charged with the beating of his wife Nicole. Photos of Nicole’s bruised and battered face emerge. Jurors learn that Simpson was sentenced to 3 years of community service for this crime.
•Police discover the dome light in the Bronco has been removed. A search of the vehicle reveals the light was carefully placed under the passenger seat and was in good working condition. Puzzling blood smears on the passenger floorboard indicate that Simpson may have purposely removed the light and placed it under the seat before the murders. Then after the murders he may have unsuccessfully tried to find it to put it back in the socket. Police on stakeouts routinely remove the dome lights from their vehicles to avoid detection when the car doors are opened.
•was discovered that Nicole has one set of keys to her home missing. She had indicated to several family members and friends that she feared Simpson had stolen them to gain entry into her home. The keys were later found in Simpson’s home.
•Paula Barbieri indicated that she had broken up with Simpson the day of the murders. She said he seemed very disturbed at the news. Phone records prove that Simpson attempted to contact her from his Bronco’s cellular phone shortly before the murders.
•The left-hand glove found at Nicole’s home and the right-hand glove found at OJ’s home prove to be a match. They also prove to be Simpson’s size (despite Simpson’s theatrics in court, pretending that the glove did not fit). Even though Simpson claimed under oath that he did not own a pair of Aris Isotoner gloves, several media pictures emerged showing Simpson wearing these exact gloves.
•The bloody footprints are quite easily identified as being made from a pair of Bruno Magli shoes. These shoes are quite expensive and extremely rare. The size 12 prints match Simpson’s shoe size. Simpson claims under oath that he does not own any such shoes and in fact comments that he thinks “they’re ugly”. A photograph is introduced showing Simpson wearing the exact shoes at a NFL football game. Simpson claims under oath that the photo is a forgery and is backed up by an expert witness. Later, another photo taken by a different source, also shoes Simpson wearing the same shoes at another NFL football game.
•Friends and family indicate that Nicole was quite consistent in her claims that Simpson had been stalking her. She claimed that everywhere she went she noticed Simpson would be there, watching her. She is afraid because Simpson had already told her he would kill her if he ever found her with another man.
•Ross Cutlery provides store receipts indicating that Simpson purchased a 12-inch stiletto knife six weeks before the murders. A replica of the knife is purchased by the police and provide an exact match to the wounds on Nicole and Ronald Goldman.
History of domestic violence, fleeing Bronco.... it just seems more likely to me that he did it.
Yes but can you convict someone of murder based upon their history of "insert here"?
For me? To flee with a friend in a time of crisis is one of two ways of handling instinctive responses of fight or flight. So I do not find it as nefarious as portrayed.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 18, 2017 at 17:42#879760 likes
Apparently he had a history of violence, a fractious relationship with Nicole and was a chef carrying his knives home on the night of the murder.
I believe you are talking about OJ's son here and this is the first I am reading about it. A teenager who was in emotional turmoil or experiencing existential angst might consider solving what they see as a 'problem' much differently than an adult who has had a lifetime of experiences to draw on.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 18, 2017 at 17:47#879790 likes
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 18, 2017 at 17:49#879800 likes
Hanover, a question that has always bothered me was is it possible for father and son to have the same blood makeup? Enough so that a test would not be able to conclusively correct or incorrect? What about twins? Would a test on their blood differ enough to draw a 100% accurate conclusion?
For me? To flee with a friend in a time of crisis is one of two ways of handling instinctive responses of fight or flight. So I do not find it as nefarious as portrayed.
Dude, you can't just run when the shit hits the fan. You have obligations.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 18, 2017 at 18:02#879840 likes
Dude, you can't just run when the shit hits the fan. You have obligations.
That is the thinking of a logical mind not a mind in crisis with hounds on his heels. He did eventually return home which is where most people who lead chase with the Police on their tail are trying to get to.
I see that you too have been greatly influenced by the defense tactic of placing the LAPD on trial.
I doubt anyone is going is going to be greatly influenced by your tactic of placing my opinion on trial though. Read my post above. I was influenced by listening to the tapes of Furhman which were played in the documentary. I also mentioned that up until recently I thought he was guilty, so obviously the defence tactics didn't work on me, duh. And both sides including the evidence above were presented in the doc.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 19, 2017 at 00:30#880320 likes
But you said you would think of running. Would you run?
Would I run if I thought (knew with helicopters overhead) that someone in a position of power had wrongly passed judgement on me and the situation was escalating at the pace it was?
Seeing as it is one of two options and there was no way I could match the force of those that would 'fight' to get me? Yes I would seriously consider fleeing.
It's accurate enough that there cannot be reasonable doubt.
I bet it would be hard to convince a jury of anything with a "thinker" or two on the panel. As I read what you wrote above, I still have doubt but if it is "reasonable" or not is up for debate. Does that make sense?
That's the sad thing really... do we really know anyone? Even if we don't know ourselves, it seems a whole lot more tragic to not know anyone else at all...
I don't like to think of people as totalities, or identities, but dynamic expressions of everything that a human being is capable of. So that I only try to see things in terms of actions, of what they're doing, without projecting this into the past or future as an identity, besides for in the sense of habituation and proclivities. Because someone has done something, or told you that they do something, I do expect that they at the very least consider it as a option whenever it becomes actionable in other contexts.
I don't know if there is more to anyone than that, but I find this to be grounding, and not too complex to deal with. The ego, and alter-ego, and then the symbolic-biological totality of being is too much for me to deal.
They did deal with that but I'd have to look up the doc for details. It was about a year ago that I watched it and I haven't been able to find it yet. In any case, as I already said, the doc (which didn't itself come down on either side) put some doubts in my mind over my original thought that he was guilty. It doesn't mean I think he's innocent. I don't have a dog in the fight.
I heard that OJ was up to play the terminator, but everyone was all like "nah, he's way too nice, no one would believe that he would be a cold blooded killer"... foreshadowing...
Don't be so certain! You have been injected with a poison that takes a while to take effect. Like 4 or 5 years. I ran out of the powerful stuff. I have another Scarlet Carson, and this one is for you. 8-)
Don't expect that you will be alive in the future.
This is an odd way to phrase a threat. As it turns out, you are alive now, in what was the future when he made the threat. So maybe he meant, "at some time in the future, you will not be alive," which is more of a truism than a threat. :s
Reply to Michael I agree that if I put Rob Zombie in the cupboard and close the door, Rob Zombie remains in the cupboard. That still doesn't tell us anything about his possession of the life-force.
I agree that if I put Rob Zombie in the cupboard and close the door, Rob Zombie remains in the cupboard.
I dunno. Ever read So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish? Wonko the Sane builds an Asylum around the world. Maybe this cupboard is a cupboard around the world, and so we're all in the cupboard and Rob Zombie is the only one outside it.
This is an odd way to phrase a threat. As it turns out, you are alive now, in what was the future when he made the threat. So maybe he meant, "at some time in the future, you will not be alive," which is more of a truism than a threat. :s
Hahaha >:O
I think he's an Asian/Korean guy by the way he uses the language, so this way of talking seems to be common with them
I seem to recall him saying he got his degree in Seoul?
Hahaha I didn't know that, but I knew from the way he writes in English. Asians, and especially Koreans, have a typical way of writing that I'm good at spotting.
>:O How did you find his presence on other forums? Do you take part on them or?
Personally I haven't found any other good philosophy forums apart from this one and old PF. Online Philosophy Club, and the Philosophy Now forum aren't that great in terms of the ideas you find there.
For example, i remember he called me a "stupid idiot". This particular construction is common in some of the Far Asian languages, but obviously not in English. That's when I knew he must be Asian/Korean.
You have been injected with a poison that takes a while to take effect. Like 4 or 5 years.
— 0 thru 9
So straight to the murder without the threat? Most unfair.
Didn't want you to feel left out! Also, it's a toxin, not a poison. Botox actually. In 4 or 5 years you will look 10 years younger. So you got that going for you. (L) Yours Truly, V. (for Vibrant and Vivacious)
Reply to Baden I have to admit I stole that joke from some comedian I saw at the Fringe Festival years ago. One of the people I was with walked out at that point.
All this talk of romance, I was thinking about you tonight as I baked for a monthly meeting tomorrow. Triple chocolate lava cupcakes. There is chocolate goo inside, man. Chocolate goo. Awesome.
Reply to Agustino The problem with magnetism is that it can both attract but also repel, the latter of which you probably exercise with greater strength. :-*
Reply to TimeLine
Are you one of those girls who likes to travel to Syria and other dangerous places of the Middle East, has 2000+ Facebook friends, and posts tons of shit about her life on social media? :D
Reply to TimeLine With such a perfectly executed fondant (goo wrapped in chocolate sponge), isn't the chocolate cream and white chocolate over-egging the pudding?
How do you know you would need to 'watch' if you have no clue about who I am talking of?
Because I presume you're referencing some kind of actor/musician that would be known by people like you who spend their time reading celeb gossip, etc. :P - but I honestly have no clue who that is.
Because I presume you're referencing some kind of actor/musician that would be known by people like you who spend their time reading celeb gossip, etc.
Yeah, here we go, the whole moral superiority complex by putting characteristics onto others you know nothing about. You're so boring.
Reply to TimeLine Your thinking of me around dessert time is understandable.
Is there a way to photo-shop your body with Baden's head? If you could do that, and then sort of excuse yourself to give me a moment, it'd be much appreciated.
I'd also point out that my only feminine quality is my supple nipples. Other than that, I am ALL man.
Reply to TimeLine What does this even mean? My nipples will become earrings? You're going to like sever my nipples from my chest and string them to your ears?
That was like crazy painful the last time Baden and I did that. The cool breeze coming off the Mediterranean sea, the quart of cheap tequila, Baden's banana hammock, the cauterizer, the mangy one eyed dog. Oh, to be young again...
My doggy is fine. Had I been wearing shoes the other doggy would very much not be.
That is one thing i learned during my job as a delivery person. I love dogs dearly, and generally would not hurt a fly and am pacifist vegetarian. But when making a delivery if a dog was about to charge at me, I would show him my boot. Meaning "now doggie, you really don't want to mess with bad Mr. Boot. And I don't want to mess with you. I know you are just doing your job". After once running from a dog, who of course caught up to me and scratched me bad, I'd learned the lesson. And never got again got hurt nor had to hurt any animal. Life can be ruff! :-!
Being honest it probably was gratuitous because the dog ran away first then I chased it and kicked it in the head as revenge. Well, whatever, it deserved it.
Being honest it probably was gratuitous because the dog ran away first then I chased it and kicked it in the head as revenge. Well, whatever, it deserved it.
Next time you may get bitten man, I'd be careful with hitting dogs in the face if I were you >:O
Being honest it probably was gratuitous because the dog ran away first then I chased it and kicked it in the head as revenge. Well, whatever, it deserved it.
Your story makes no sense. A dog comes at your hamster of a dog and attacks it, but somehow your hamster of a dog gets away unscathed. You run after the dog that has bitten and run, and you somehow get in front of it to kick its head.
Here's what really happened. Some dog started coming toward Sweet Pea. You yelled "No, bad dog" at the curious dog and yanked Sweet Pea back and picked her up and cradled her in your arms and told her she'd be ok. The other dog wandered away, but you were pissed that she scared Sweet Pea, so you stomped toward the other dog, kicking wildly in the air at it until one of your Crocs flew off into the flower bush. Your errant shoe grazed the other dog's back. You then came home with the bad ass story of how you heroically saved Sweet Pea by kicking the shit out of a charging wolf.
Once I was jogging and a dog charged at me. I threw the dog down, severed its head, and set its body on fire. The owner arrived with me dancing naked around the pyre, hopping in circles on one foot, mocking the sound of the Iroquois praying for rain.
Reply to Agustino I've had my Facebook since 2009. My Facebook friends are by and large family or my actual friends. I'm not one of those people have have hundreds or thousands of "friends", which are really just people you've me or sort of know.
A bit before I moved, a big dog was on my property inside my garage that I forgot to close, and came out and started barking at me, so I pointed at it, and yelled "what'da fuck you doin'?" and it ran away.
What's a "croc"? Some kind of golfing shoe? Like I play golf. Pffft. And my dog's name is 'Bella' not 'Sweet pea'. See, your story fell apart as bad as the case against OJ.
Reply to Heister Eggcart It is awesome when people don't know you. Nevertheless, a couple of things. It is called pages. Recipes. Photography. Astronomy. Pages. What I have on my personal page are... well, as I said, it is awesome when people don't know you. Two, I am well travelled. A good way to stay connected. Three. Its cupcakes.
Two, I am well travelled. A good way to stay connected. Three. Its cupcakes.
>:O >:O >:O
I have a friend who is exactly like you - she travels to the most dangerous places (I have no idea why anyone would go there - such as Syria, Iran, etc.), posts tons of stuff on FB, tells people stories from her travels, bakes stuff and is overall a very big mouth >:O . It's almost as if you two are identical people...
Too bad. I am single. And cute. But hey, if you have gerontophilia (or just bad taste in regards to the former) by all means.
I'll be at a bar called Le Chica de Ayer tomorrow night in central Denia. It would be great if you could come and show me your cupcakes (or muffins).
As well as friends and family, I also use Facebook to follow interesting journals, newspapers, political groups, science stuff, arty stuff, etc. I find it's pretty good for all that.
As well as friends and family, I also use Facebook to follow interesting journals, newspapers, political groups, science stuff, arty stuff, etc. I find it's pretty good for all that.
Me too. I only have 80 or so on my page, most of whom I met while overseas or my close friends. No family, but hey, Satre would shrug.
Once you setup that book shop, she will be able to buy your books in exchange for cakes, how about that? >:) (I would let her do that too, but I'm afraid she'd poison those cupcakes >:O )
Reply to Agustino Given that you, I imagine, believe that many off-line relationships are fake and stupid and shallow, is there anything you find particularly bad about what you regard as fake, stupid, shallow relationships when they are online? Isn't social media just another kind of forum for forming relationships and having conversations, some of which might be genuine? Isn't it an interesting, even good, development that people are no longer restricted to their localities?
Reply to TimeLine Ahh that is good news then. It means I am spared from going to war, and people always underestimate me, therefore I stand a good chance to win. Better than walking with a target on my back like you :P
Given that you, I imagine, believe that many off-line relationships are fake and stupid and shallow, is there anything you find particularly bad about what you regard as fake, stupid, shallow relationships, when they are online? Isn't social media just another kind of forum for forming relationships and having conversations, some of which might be genuine? Isn't it an interesting, even good, development that people are no longer restricted to their localities?
I don't really get where your comment is coming from but okay... lol
Given that you, I imagine, believe that many off-line relationships are fake and stupid and shallow, is there anything you find particularly bad about what you regard as fake, stupid, shallow relationships, when they are online?
Isn't it an interesting, even good, development that people are no longer restricted to their localities?
In my opinion yes, because that way you have access to more people and more easily than you would otherwise. It's good for doing many things, including testing your ideas, interacting with different cultures, making friends, etc.
You seemed to be making sweeping and disparaging statements about Facebook and social media generally.
Sure, but on facebook you don't really meet new people. The way it's formed, you're kind of restricted to your friends' network (and their friends). It's not like forums.
I think facebook is really bad for teenagers, since they end up wasting a lot of time there, competing for who has the nicest pictures, and all kinds of bullshit. They're not using it in any productive manner.
I like a target. It makes for a life more interesting where victory is real and not because I wormed my way to winning.
But I think your victory is illusory, for it does not last, but quite the contrary, it is forgotten by all - it is pure ego, lacking any objective success. Whereas that little worm may actually be a sleeping dragon, and once he awakens >:) then empires shall crumble and new ones shall arise... Everyone shall forget the worm, just like everyone forgets the larva once the butterfly is born out of it..... It's easier to win when everyone thinks you're a loser.
I think facebook is really bad for teenagers, since they end up wasting a lot of time there, competing for who has the nicest pictures, and all kinds of bullshit. They're not using it in any productive manner.
I agree, but like with everything, it is how you use it and there are a number of pages that connect you with photographers and astronomers for instance. Me and my close friends share only to each other. Instagram is definitely much worse than Facebook.
So, I say lived experience is the way and you say the above and yet I am illusory?
Lived experience is nothing. People don't actually control their fate and destiny. There are few moments in life which permit you to actualise your destiny, the rest is pretty much wasted effort. But the one thing I've noticed is that when those moments really come, you know it - you're no longer wondering about it, but acting.
I don't know if you're illusory, what do you think, are you?
:-O That's very strange, I remember seeing that one very long ago, but don't remember that scene >:O My favorite Alien movie though was the first one - that was quite good, a great movie actually.
Why do you want to escape from it? It's who you are. Things aren't bad in themselves, but it's your judgement that makes it so - actually society's judgement that filters through, cause quite frequently we judge ourselves through the eyes of other people...
Lived experience is nothing. People don't actually control their fate and destiny. There are few moments in life which permit you to actualise your destiny, the rest is pretty much wasted effort. But the one thing I've noticed is that when those moments really come, you know it - you're no longer wondering about it, but acting.
I don't know if you're illusory, what do you think, are you?
How is lived experience nothing? You contradict yourself repeatedly, where you say that people don't control their fate and yet you are acting on your destiny? That 'acting' is exercising free-will, you are consciously choosing to act when a determined circumstance enables you to.
I am not illusory. I know that the last few days I have been silly because I have been thoroughly overworked, quite literally I am doing two jobs at the moment and working 13 hour days and so coming on here to be silly helps me relax and forget work. But, in reality, I was once illusory. I forgot God and I tumbled down a very dark rabbit hole. It took years to escape, so I know the difference. If you actually knew me and not TL, you would appreciate the person that I am as most who do know me do.
Because I've used Facebook before? I said I haven't signed up on Instagram btw above... :-}
And someone could know about Facebook likes without having used Facebook. For example I knew for a long time from friends about Facebook, and I've watched people use it, while never having used it myself.
I am not illusory. I know that the last few days I have been silly because I have been thoroughly overworked, quite literally I am doing two jobs at the moment and working 13 hour days and so coming on here to be silly helps me relax and forget work. But, in reality, I was once illusory. I forgot God and I tumbled down a very dark rabbit hole. It took years to escape, so I know the difference. If you actually knew me and not TL, you would appreciate the person that I am as most who do know me do.
Reply to Agustino There is no way to communicate with you. You are stuck in your own delusions of grandeur. As they say: It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
What grandeur are you talking about? You yourself said I am a meekly worm, so what grandeur can I even aspire to?
Yes, but didn't you call yourself a dragon that shall crumble empires? What, when you move out from your mumsie' basement and start cooking your own dinner?
Reply to Agustino You know, sometimes you sound very much like that guy that got banned, DPBrah, who PM'd me out of the blue and said the same sort of stuff you say.
But, in reality, I was once illusory. I forgot God and I tumbled down a very dark rabbit hole. It took years to escape, so I know the difference.
God...? Oh, I remember him! I encountered Him some time after the mad tea party. Yes, it's all coming back to me now. Off with their heads! Drown them all! Fire and brimstone!
Reply to Agustino I'm not suggesting anything, you just sound alike. I was just confused as to why this newbie started randomly messaging me rather personal things just after you decided to leave the forums in protest and then when he got banned, you suddenly reappeared. Maybe you know him?
Reply to Sapientia The funny thing is TL says she believes in God, but for her God is some sort of abstraction, not a real Person as He is for theists. She's much like Jordan Peterson on this.
God...? Oh, I remember him! I encountered Him some time after the mad tea party. Yes, it's all coming back to me now. Off with their heads! Drown them all! Fire and brimstone!
My conception of God is very different to the religious one, as Augustino pointed out, though I refuse to be likened to Jordan Peterson. Think Kant and Spinoza. I especially do not agree with any anthropomorphic projections or any trinity or personification, solely the existence of God.
On the level of someone that's invented theories and what have you. What's the easiest way to reach these people?
Does that sound like me? No. Also DP Brah opened an account last year, not when I took my hiatus. Not to mention that his first thread was way before my absence.
Reply to TimeLine Also, if you're going to suggest DP Brah PM'ed you with the same stuff I say, I will request that you show us those PMs. It's completely unfair to throw around accusations based on your paranoia, without even providing any evidence whatsoever. I think people who do that should actually be reprimanded and given a warning.
[I]My[/I] Queen of Hearts is better than [i]yours[/I]. She's nothing like She was in that book. Not only is She Queen, She's Master! And a supercalifragilistic one at that!
Reply to Agustino Admittingly, when DP Brah was messaging me I did think that he reminded me of you. Apologies if you got so offended, I would not have thought you would have taken it so personally. :-|
Admittingly, when DP Brah was messaging me I did think that he reminded me of you. Apologies if you got so offended, I would not have thought you would have taken it so personally. :-|
Hmm, why do you say this? Can you expand on why you think I have a big "target" that you have said multiple times now?
I will not respond to any of your enquiries until you release those exchanges that you referenced with DP Brah publicly so that we can know what the hell you're talking about.
Reply to TimeLine How about we do this? If I am DP Brah I agree to be banned, but if I'm not DP Brah (and I can prove it), then you have to be banned. Are you willing to do that? 8-) Or do you like to put your money in a different place than where you put your mouth?
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 21, 2017 at 12:42#888570 likes
Sure, but on facebook you don't really meet new people. The way it's formed, you're kind of restricted to your friends' network (and their friends). It's not like forums.
I just don't think your statement is all that accurate, at least not for me. Out of my 70 friends on Facebook, only two are from my life before the Internet. The 68 others are from our old 'thinkers' sandbox, some of their spouses and the rest I have met on Facebook through common interests. It is an amazing place to meet people you might never come across in life to life interaction and maybe wouldn't have taken the time to say hello, let alone invest the time in a friendship.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 21, 2017 at 12:52#888680 likes
Also, if you're going to suggest DP Brah PM'ed you with the same stuff I say, I will request that you show us those PMs. It's completely unfair to throw around accusations based on your paranoia, without even providing any evidence whatsoever
For what it is worth Agustino, I have never thought you were anyone other than who you are. We all know there are really good tech folk in here that can run ISP addresses from across the pond. So fear not mate as Yaha could easily dismiss any suggestion.
For what it is worth Agustino, I have never thought you were anyone than who you are. You and I both know there are really good tech folk in here that can run ISP addresses from across the pond. So fear not mate as Yaha could easily dismiss any suggestion.
It's not that I'm afraid since I've only used probably two IPs to access this website for the past year, so it would be impossible for me to be connected with DP Brah in any way, shape or form.
However, it is incredibly disrespectful for someone to do what she's doing, and it's not the first time someone did that on here. Mongrel also publicly did that - then she came back to apologise, in private of course. It's time that TimeLine learns a lesson from this paranoid behaviour of hers, she should really be ashamed of this kind of behaviour.
Reply to Agustino I am sincerely apologetic that you have become so upset that I said that you were DP Brah. I too noticed previous discussions of the like and I would not have said anything had I thought that you would get so upset.
What does having two IP's mean?
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 21, 2017 at 13:04#888780 likes
It means that he could log in at work under the same login name as he uses at home but it is likely handled by different Internet Service Providers. I likely have at least 2 as well in the last year. If you travel, it would change say in Hawaii.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff I know, I was being rhetorical to his 'I surely as hell need you to teach me about technology'
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 21, 2017 at 13:09#888830 likes
Okay I feel trolled because I thought you were asking a genuine question.
Probably time for me to leave or for you two to take this shit flinging into private, possibly with a moderator.
Sapientia. We all know you were Time Man, admit it.
I will admit to nothing unless you first score a goal with a football made of apologies. I give you my word that I won't move the goalposts. (I'll order one of my subordinates to do so).
Reply to MichaelDo you remember that girl on PF that used the pic of the girl that had murdered her parents or something? I accuse you of being her. I also accuse you of being Maia, that hot girl who supposedly had no eyes.
Honestly, I've only seen toddlers wear those and had no idea what they were called. Now everything makes sense, you think I am either 3 years old or a hobbit.
Do you remember that girl on PF that used the pic of the girl that had murdered her parents or something? I accuse you of being her. I also accuse you of being Maia, that hot girl who supposedly had no eyes.
Reply to Baden My kids use to forget their shoes when they were little, so I bought a pair of bright orange Crocs at the drug store and kept them in the trunk. Whenever they'd forget their shoes, I'd tell them they had to wear the punishment shoes.
I accuse you of being my kids when they were little.
Reply to Baden Lots of adults wear them too. I confess to having worn a beige pair a few years ago. My girlfriend got them for me as a surprise. No wonder we broke up.
Reply to Sapientia I don't drive elephants. I kill them, take their tusks, and carve them into two ornamental toothpicks that I discard after a single use.
It is awesome when people don't know you. Nevertheless, a couple of things. It is called pages. Recipes. Photography. Astronomy. Pages. What I have on my personal page are... well, as I said, it is awesome when people don't know you. Two, I am well travelled. A good way to stay connected. Three. Its cupcakes.
What's even the difference between a muffin and a cupcake? There must be a difference because I like muffins but not cupcakes, :o
Reply to Michael Cupcakes and muffins and entirely different. A cupcake is a little cake with icing. A muffin is more like bread. Do you guys really not know the difference?
Lookee here, Michael's got a real life girlfriend. Sounds like our self avowed bachelor might be getting hitched up soon.
Lookee here, Michael's got a real life girlfriend. Sounds like our self avowed bachelor might be getting hitched up soon.
We've been together for three and a half years. Catch up.
Cupcakes and muffins and entirely different. A cupcake is a little cake with icing. A muffin is more like bread. Do you guys really not know the difference?
I was saying "same" to preferring muffins, not to not understanding the difference. ;)
We've been together for three and a half years. Catch up.
Yeah, well I don't pay attention to the life and times of Michael, considering I've got my own drama to keep up with. Anyway, invite me to the wedding. I'll definitely come.
Reply to jorndoe
Gut-wrenching story. Like a Shakespearian tragedy, or something. In an instant, with a bad choice, their lives are defined forever even if they escape jail. The drowned man did not escape, so neither will they. The teens could have been heroes if they had tried, even unsuccessfully, to save the man. Maybe they were trying to impress each other by being cold and mocking. Maybe the marijuana they were supposedly smoking affected their judgment. But in any case, the "death selfie" video they took as a trophy is now the damning evidence. A tragedy all around.
Yeah, sounds like the cruelty that is typical of us human beings. The point really is that anyone is capable of such cruelty - I can see myself as a teenager how I would have thought it fun to film it. Unless one is aware of the evil in their own hearts, they stand no chance to control it. Evil comes from the heart, only ever watchful can we prevent it.
It's useless to sit around like a spectator pointing fingers. We have all failed them, because that's the culture we have created. Who else has made bravado and impressing your peers cool, rather than shunned? Who else typically goes around promoting the idea that happiness is something external, or that happiness is pleasure? They took pleasure in filming it. They were merely following the teachings of their professors - us. It's the same thing with cheating. People are surprised their spouses cheat on them, but who made it cool and powerful for a man to have sex with as many women as possible in the first place? :s
Human beings are really so stupid, they lift up the dust, and then complain that God hasn't given them a clear vision.
It's a similar situation to the media crying about Trump's statements regarding women in his "locker room" talk. Funnily enough, the media taught Trump to do that. They are his professors, he was merely a good student. How can the professor punish the student for being exceptionally good at following the teachings?! That's what the media has portrayed a "boss" as being, an alpha male. So why are they surprised Trump is trying to be one? Isn't that what they show us in their movies all the time? :s
Or like the situation from Dostoyevsky's book - The Brothers Karamazov. When Smerdyakov tells Ivan that it was he who told him that God is dead, and there is no morality (and therefore everything is permitted) - so why is he upset that he killed his father? He was just a loyal student - Ivan was his professor! Because Ivan loved humanity generally, but failed to love any particular person, even his own father.
Hopefully they can still grow up to be empathic, caring human beings, with some moral awareness.
What does it say - "no one is good, except God alone" and "there is no one righteous, not even one".
Blaise Pascal:
[The Christian religion] teaches men both these truths: that there is a God of whom we are capable, and that a corruption in our nature makes us unworthy of Him. It is equally important for us to know both these points; for it is equally dangerous for man to know God without knowing his own wretchedness, and to know his wretchedness without knowing the Redeemer who can cure him of it. Knowledge of only one of these points leads either to the arrogance of the philosophers, who have known God and not their own wretchedness, or to the despair of the atheists, who know their wretchedness without knowing the Redeemer.
Order. Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next, make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is. Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature. Attractive because it promises true good.
Yeah whatever. I'm pretty sure I'm fully innocent in this case.
Actually, I'm pretty sure you yourself have at least at one point in your life spread the kind of irresponsible ideology that can culminate in such behaviour. We all have. I'd be very surprised if you haven't :P
Reply to Agustino Sure, I've said and done dumb things, but I still take no responsibility for those kids' actions. It's just too attenuated.
Anyway, should my prior stupidity be the cause of those teens' behavior, then I plead innocence for my prior stupidity as that was caused by someone else too, ad infinitum. Everyone is responsible and no one is responsible in such a universe. It's those sorts of theories that are truly the death of us. Call me old school, but I say the buck stops with the decision maker. Village smillage.
Anyway, should my prior stupidity be the cause of those teens' behavior, then I plead innocence for my prior stupidity as that was caused by someone else too, ad infinitum. Everyone is responsible and no one is responsible in such a universe.
I wouldn't say this is quite true, because the teens in question are not innocent, they are also responsible. In fact they are directly responsible - but the rest of us are accomplices - by and large (indirectly responsible). I'm just saying that we're hypocrites when we look just at them, and not also at ourselves.
The point I'm driving is that we should never consider ourselves as completely blameless for their wrongs. I agree that they hold the greatest blame, everyone has free will and is capable of making their own choices in the end. And sure, in practical and legal matters the buck will have to stop with the decision maker partly because we take everyone to have free will, and because it would be too complicated and prone to error if we were to settle things in a different manner.
Hanover's right and Agustino's wrong. Agustino suggests some wild butterfly effect theory which isn't plausible. Hanover rightly points out that Tom, Dick and Harry had bugger all to do with it.
It's a similar situation to the media crying about Trump's statements regarding women in his "locker room" talk. Funnily enough, the media taught Trump to do that.
I prefer "we're not the worst! We're not the worst!". Back in the day on street sense they had a hockey tournament (not for reals, it was a comedy show) among all of the Canadian tv shows, and they lost to everyone except for Mr Dressup, so they chanted that. T'was great.
On the contrary, he demonstrated only his black and white thinking. In the end we make our own decisions/choices, but that isn't to say we can't be influenced.
Reply to Agustino Anyway, the distinction you make between Trump and the media is superficial. Trump is the media, and he's one of the worst. Some of the most bigly ironies of the last century have come from Trump, from complaining about fake news to criticising Hillary for a scandal involving suspect emails.
Reply to Agustino Right. He's a knight in shining armour, and he's on a noble quest to eradicate fake news by producing so much of it that it'll make your head spin. And he's going to replace the media with a giant sewage outlet, otherwise known as his Twitter account.
Reply to Agustino Oh, is he now? Saving the US economy? I haven't really been following. Interesting. How exactly? By implementing the plan that would add trillions of debt? Far more than Hillary's plan? Or did he U-turn on that as well?
Haven't seen much blatant sexism on this site lately.
Well, there's this. WISDOMfromPO-MO is accusing people of being inflammatory against monogamous sex, and Agustino is claiming that monogamous sex is better than any other kind.
I have. That's why they're your former girlfriends.
I'm devastated. Stealing one girlfriend, sure. Two, well it happens. But all three? You sir, have the ethics of Mogolian post-modern nihilist! Well, I guess it isn't too surprising since they all hated my writing. One of them referred to it as The Critique of Pure Bullshit. X-)
Silicon Valley baron Elon Musk insulted rival billionaire Mark Zuckerberg regarding to possibility of killer robots which Zukerberg thinks is "irresponsible", and Musk worries about. Musk said:
"His understanding of the subject is limited
Although when Facebook designed chatbots to negotiate with one another, and the bots made up their own language, Facebook turned them off.
VagabondSpectreJuly 25, 2017 at 22:22#902920 likes
Elon Musk criticizing someone for not being scientifically inclined is rich even for Musk...
In other billionaire news everyone's favorite continues to run a many-ringed circus from atop the bloated corpse of American dignity. A lot of people thought I was nuts when I predicted that Don would get impeached or resign around a year and a half into his presidency, and now that we're 6 months in I feel like he's right on track.
Has anyone else come around to the possibility yet? According to internet search history interest seems quite high...
I decided to visit my daughter in Colorado, Florida is stiffing right now, and its been a couple of years since I've seen her. She lives in a little town at 9,900 feet, it's cool, you can still snow on the mountain tops. I decided to drive, more of an adventure. What fascinated me were all the billboards in the Mid West, there aren't many in Florida. They present a very weird narrative jutting out to each other. "Jesus is the Answer", "The Big Bang Theory, you've got to be kidding-God" face off against "Live Sex Shows Ahead", "Vogue" with a naked female silhouette.,,and all the rest. They present a strange compilation of cultural associations in a staccato narrative to be viewed at not less than 50 miles per hour.
Huge drop in men’s sperm levels confirmed by new study – here are the facts
Mere attention grabbing. Typical of the fake science community - which quite sadly is quite a lot of science today. They research only what some want them to research, and they produce the results that they are asked to produce - or otherwise any sensational result.
Agustino knows better than the expert, yet again. Who needs an expert when you've got an Agustino?
"Expertise" is fake. Experts are dumber than you expect. You have no idea how many doctors I've met who are dumb, arrogant, and don't actually know what they're talking about. Just because they have a few social accolades is not enough to impress me. Social accolades are fake expertise.
"Expertise" is fake. Experts are dumber than you expect. You have no idea how many doctors I've met who are dumb, arrogant, and don't actually know what they're talking about. Just because they have a few social accolades is not enough to impress me. Social accolades are fake expertise.
You have no idea how many of your posts are dumb, arrogant, and don't know what they're talking about. Your Trumpian invocation of "fake" to dismiss anything you don't like does you no favors, and further cements your status as a dogmatic, demented lunatic who nevertheless still thinks that he's smarter than everyone else.
I know you think that I'm part of anti-Augustino cabal, and that this post is probably yet another brick in that particular wall. So let me invite you to fuck off and seek life elsewhere.
Reply to Agustino I followed the link, and I don't see where it supposedly shows that one of the "best" doctors, or that those at the very top, or even that any doctors at all, are making those claims about coke.
Anyway, it would be ridiculous to think that a few examples of mistakes means that experts, or doctors specifically, are dumb or don't know what they're talking about. They most likely know more about their profession than others, and especially laymen. There might be some doctors who you've met who are an exception, but I'm obviously not going to lap up your side of the story, especially since you're not even a doctor, and you seem quick to judge, and you seem biased against experts of any kind.
demented lunatic who nevertheless still thinks that he's smarter than everyone else.
I don't actually think that I'm smarter than everyone else, so I have no idea where you're taking this from. But I do think that I'm smart enough to think through things that other people say, including experts, by myself. Do you think that's wrong?
Your Trumpian invocation of "fake" to dismiss anything you don't like does you no favors, and further cements your status as a dogmatic, demented lunatic
Yeah why don't you stop reading my posts then? :s Are you incapable to control yourself, or what's the matter there?
I largely have stopped reading your awful posts, though I plan to make that total and permanent. (My request for an "ignore" function was motivated solely by a desire not to read your posts. So...congratulations?)
And I would invite my fellow TPF'ers to not feed the quasi-trolls and ignore your nonsense. But that's their decision.
I followed the link, and I don't see where it supposedly shows that one of the "best" doctors, or that those at the very top, or even that any doctors at all, are making those claims about coke.
That's proof that coke doesn't have beneficial effects in case of stomach ache. But a doctor with a very good reputation recommended that to me a couple of years ago when I had to go to hospital because of a horrible stomach infection (which I will add she did ZERO to help me). And that's just one example. Another time, doctors wanted me to have a surgery for an infection and I had to literarily search for a doctor and force him to agree to give me antibiotics instead to cure it - and it worked. So no - I have little trust for these so called experts. I have to judge what they say with my own brain.
They probably know more about their profession than others, and especially laymen.
Yes, undoubtedly they do. It's better to go to a doctor than to a lay person for treatment. But what I'm saying is that you shouldn't trust what they say, rather you should be able to judge what advice they give you with your own head. If you die or suffer the doctor doesn't give a fuck about you. You're just another patient among hundreds of others. Doctors are good at applying procedures, not tailoring treatments to the patient.
I largely have stopped reading your awful posts, though I plan to make that total and permanent.
Oh yes, please hurry, because you'd do me a great favour by freeing me of having to deal with a character like you. Pretty much the best gift you could offer me! (Y)
And I would invite my fellow TPF's to not feed the quasi-trolls and ignore your nonsense. But that's their decision.
Yes, you can invite them, but so far it seems to me that I have more friends around here, and more people that respect me, than you do. Of course that doesn't actually mean anything, because it's not a competition, but it just says something about the chances of success of your invitation.
Reply to Sapientia If you study the subject of iatrogenic deaths (deaths caused by doctors and/or medical treatment), you'll see that it's one of the most common causes of death. If you're not careful with doctors they can hurt you very much.
Oh, so just more anecdotal evidence from yourself. You know, having a few bad experiences can make one biased.
I have probably more than 10 such experiences personally, and I know many people who have been harmed by doctors rather than helped. There's a lot of research about this, which isn't often shown to most people, but you can look it up yourself.
Reply to Agustino But you've changed your tune quite a bit now. Urging caution is quite different from the inflammatory language you used at first. Compare "All doctors are dumb and fake!" to "Be careful".
But you've changed your tune quite a bit now. Urging caution is quite different from the inflammatory language you used at first.
Yes, maybe I didn't express myself right, or rather I didn't explain in detail what I meant. Suffice to say that when I see a study like the one Cavacava posted, skepticism is the first reaction. I can almost bet you that by 2060 we'll still have reproductive capacity, contrary to what the study suggests. In fact, the author and his study will most likely be forgotten by then. Even if today they have "social status" and accolades, and some people will be fooled to believe them.
Being an alarmist is good - it means you get more funding as a researcher. These are strategic marketing plays, to get exposure to their research, get more citations (that's how academics keep score), and get funding. Nothing more.
Yes, undoubtedly they do. It's better to go to a doctor than to a lay person for treatment. But what I'm saying is that you shouldn't trust what they say, rather you should be able to judge what advice they give you with your own head.
Yeah, and this leads to anti-vaxxers, homeopathy, faith healers, and other alternative (i.e. fake) medicine.
Yes, maybe I didn't express myself right, or rather I didn't explain in detail what I meant.
Yes, I think so. The rest of what you say in the reply partly quoted above is much less controversial and disagreeable. I am similarly sceptical - who wouldn't be? The harder part is showing [i]how[/I] the expert has got it wrong, assuming he has.
Only if you assume that vaccination is always harmful. Have you determined that statistically? You should judge that by yourself, by all means, not by what your doctor says. As per my research, some vaccinations are essential - such as against polio - and some others, such as those against the common flu, they should be avoided.
The harder part is showing how the expert has got it wrong, assuming he has.
What do you mean showing "how"? In some cases it's not possible to show "how", because it's an empirical matter (surgery v. antibiotics for example). In other cases you have to point to lack of scientific studies - as in the coke example. But the thing is it's pointless to argue with doctors, they're exceedingly arrogant, and get very easily offended if you prove them wrong (how dare you question a doctor?!). You have to tread carefully, and be a little bit of a snake, pretending you accept what they tell you, and then look for a different doctor :P
Use your imagination. If you were to claim that he's got it wrong, but you can't show how, then I couldn't believe you.
One can show that they are wrong, without showing how they are wrong. For many matters in medicine we just have an empirical understanding and only theoretical guesses about how and why it works.
Also, turns out I'm an owl. I don't know how he missed that one. Instead he just referred me to a psychiatrist. Crazy right? What a dumb dumb!
Yes, he was actually dumb. Just a person capable to apply procedures, but not capable to do anything more than what the books say. A good doctor is distinguished by his capacity to see more than what the books tell him, such that he can figure out what is the case. This is developing an intuition for the human body.
I can't think how you'd be able show that he's wrong without being able to show how in at least some minimal way.
For example the doctor says that a certain problem/condition can only be treated by surgery, and you treat it by antibiotics. You've shown him that the treatment works (or at least worked on you), but you haven't shown HOW it worked, except by speculating, just as much as he was speculating when he said surgery is necessary.
You have no idea how many of your posts are dumb, arrogant, and don't know what they're talking about. Your Trumpian invocation of "fake" to dismiss anything you don't like does you no favors, and further cements your status as a dogmatic, demented lunatic who nevertheless still thinks that he's smarter than everyone else.
I know you think that I'm part of anti-Augustino cabal, and that this post is probably yet another brick in that particular wall. So let me invite you to fuck off and seek life elsewhere.
For example the doctor says that a certain problem/condition can only be treated by surgery, and you treat it by antibiotics. You've shown him that the treatment works (or at least worked on you), but you haven't shown HOW it worked, except by speculating, just as much as he was speculating when he said surgery is necessary.
But it could be, or at least could have been, so that's not a counterexample. It could be explained how the antibiotics treated you. I don't know how you'd get around that unless you were to claim that it was a miracle or an irresolvable mystery, which it almost certainly is not.
But it could be, or at least could have been, so that's not a counterexample. It could be explained how the antibiotics treated you. I don't know how you'd get around that unless you were to claim that it was a miracle or an irresolvable mystery, which it almost certainly is not.
In principle it could, but there's a lot of things we don't know about the mechanisms of how some of the treatments work. It's a fact that you don't need to understand the mechanism (how) of something to prove that it works. If putting honey on a wound helps heal it faster, that's just a fact, even if we were to not understand how. We can prove it by applying the honey and seeing the effects. But we don't necessarily understand the how - the mechanics behind it.
In principle it could, but there's a lot of things we don't know about the mechanisms of how some of the treatments work. It's a fact that you don't need to understand the mechanism (how) of something to prove that it works. If putting honey on a wound helps heal it faster, that's just a fact, even if we were to not understand how. We can prove it by applying the honey and seeing the effects. But we don't necessarily understand the how - the mechanics behind it.
Ok, but that's digressed from what we were talking about originally. There's this expert who has predicted from his research that such-and-such will happen. You were dismissive, at least initially, but the burden would lie with you. To be sceptical is one thing, to be dismissive is another.
Ok, but that's digressed from what we were talking about originally. There's this expert who has concluded from his research that such-and-such will happen. You were dismissive, at least initially, but the burden would lie with you. To be sceptical is one thing, to be dismissive is another.
Yes, I am actually dismissive, and I am absolutely entitled to be, since his studies in no way indicate that by 2060 reproductive capacity will be all but gone. He doesn't even fucking understand WHY reproductive capacity is currently diminishing, how can he predict what will happen by 2060? Clearly he just wants more money to fund his research, and more people to cite him, hence he's making a lot of noise. Not impressed. I wouldn't give him a second glance. Folks like him are two a dozen.
Reply to Agustino It's interesting that you were just defending the position that one doesn't need to know [i]how[/I] something works to know [i]that[/I] it works, yet now you seem to be suggesting that one would need to know [i]why[/I] something is happening to know [i]that[/I] it will happen. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy has all the usual qualifications you'd expect with regards to his prediction. If the data shows that it has been diminishing, then you don't need to know why that it is to make a prediction that, all things being equal, it will continue to do so, and that if this were to happen, then this will be the consequence.
VagabondSpectreJuly 28, 2017 at 21:47#911010 likes
If reproductive capacity is diminishing, it probably has something to do with modern medicine helping infertile women get pregnant along with modern medicine keeping mothers alive who otherwise would have died during child birth (and keeping babies alive who otherwise would have died during birth). It used to take a healthy woman to survive multiple child-births, and naturally some component of that health is genetic.
I think that a decline in fertility caused by this can only go so far though; once the limit of our medicinal capacity is reached, the forces of natural selection continue to act on the human population...
why something is happening to know that it will happen.
Rather one needs to know why something is happening in order to be able to predict future repercussions of it (especially if those repercussions are in 50ish years from now).
If the data shows that it has been diminishing, then you don't need to know why that it is to make a prediction that, all things being equal, it will continue to do so, and that if this were to happen, then this will be the consequence.
There is a difference between using a trend to predict what will happen tomorrow, and using a trend to predict what will happen in 50 years. The latter is much more uncertain, and requires a lot more evidence and understanding. Thus it is unreasonable to use a trend today to predict something 50 years from now when you don't even understand what factors govern the data recorded today. It is also unreasonable to expect that reproductive capacity will go down to zero... you're extending the trend into regions that haven't been observed, and actually into LIMIT regions - there's no reason in the first place to expect limit regions to behave as continuum positions do. Boundary conditions are known in science to be difficult to account by theories in general anyhows.
So, paranoid schizophrenic Rancid Penis has been fired and Trump’s new no. 1 henchman, Scaramucci, is about to make Steve Bannon suck his own cock. Just another day in the party of Jesus.
So, paranoid schizophrenic Rancid Penis has been fired and Trump’s new no. 1 henchman, Scaramucci, is about to make Steve Bannon suck his own cock. Just another day in the party of Jesus.
Sure, the media are the bad guy here...Anyway, aren't you worried that he said it on the record? One of your major bugbears is the deterioration of public morality, no? Do you want your kids growing up talking about sucking their own cocks? At least Hollywood doesn't pretend to be representing the President.
Sure, the media are the bad guy here...Anyway, aren't you worried that he said it on the record? One of your major bugbears is the deterioration of public morality, no? Do you want your kids growing up talking about sucking their own cocks?
My major bugbear is that he said it at all, it would have been equally bad if he had said it off the record. And that guy actually calls himself a Catholic.....
It is very interesting how Trump has got all those losers fighting each other amongst his staff - they all want to rise to the top and be given more power. But then isn't it always like this, only that they like to hide it?
Mesozoic sauropods are estimated to have put out 520 million tons of methane annually (in their burps and farts). Scientists believe it may have contributed to the warmth of the climate at that time (it was 10 degrees C warmer)
-Wiki article on megafauna
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 31, 2017 at 00:57#917570 likes
I haven't quite figured out who you are yet but Thank You budda as I try to remind myself to keep going but the storm has been so low, for so long, I need to be wrung out of the stress level to go further. Have you ever felt that way?
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 31, 2017 at 00:59#917580 likes
I try to remind myself to keep going but the storm has been so low, for so long, I need to be wrung out of the stress level to go further. Have you ever felt that way?
If you wring your clothes without a fire to dry them after, you'll have used up all that energy for nothing. But, maybe a quick rest under a nearby tree can be as good as trudging through the rain looking for the fire.
Maybe a change of scenery? Is there a special place you like to visit?
Yes a change of scenery would help and the only special place I like to visit is Chicago and that is to see my Dad while he is still with us.
To go somewhere alone other than back home? That I would have to ponder on.
Australia I guess to see a friend who came to the states to see me and I might be able to sweet talk Banno's better half for a cup of tea.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 31, 2017 at 11:55#918320 likes
If you wring your clothes without a fire to dry them after, you'll have used up all that energy for nothing. But, maybe a quick rest under a nearby tree can be as good as trudging through the rain looking for the fire.
That is quite profound budda for someone taught me a while ago that the love and fire I am looking for is actually within myself. Maybe that is what I would find resting under that tree...
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 31, 2017 at 12:27#918370 likes
Another Monday full of gaskets and bezels (Y)
*sarcasm included
So let's see, now his wife divorced him, he lost the White House for which he sold his company - that's what greed does to you. Ruin. But in order to gain ruin he had to kiss a lot of buttoms... was it really worth it? >:O
Reply to Michael IIRC, Priebus's was the shortest or second shortest tenure for a presidential chief of staff in history. The COS job is notoriously brutal, and can chew up and spit out even the most hardened Beltway operator, but his tenure is remarkably short even by those standards.
And the Mooch lasted a mere 11 days as White House Communications Director, which itself is probably some sort of record (I'm also now reading that he had to be escorted out of the WH after a conflict with Trump's new COS - is this a Jerry Springer episode?). Michael Flynn was ousted shortly into the start of this administration, and AG Sessions looks to be next on the chopping block.
Something is rotten in Trumpland, it seems. Not that any of this chaos has anything to do with Trump's management style or personality, of course. It's always someone else's fault (Mexicans, fraudulent voters, "fake news", and the usual suspects).
North rim of the Grand Canyon. Smell the juniper. Gaze off into oblivion. Wish I was there now. :)
There are little cabins up there. Have you been?
I can smell the wet juniper, see them against the stoic canyon walls with nothing but space. I have been to the canyon but we camped in tents outside of the park itself. The Grand Canyon was almost an optical illusion for me because when I stood at the edge, what I saw before me was the same as the pictures in books. Not because it wasn't beautiful but there was an awe of how something so real could look so fake. I felt like I was standing in a picture, it is almost too big for the mind to take in at once.
I am not sure how into AZ you got but there is a place called Oak Creek Canyon between Flagstaff and Sedona and is so beautiful, huge red rock formations, full of Vortexes and energy with a small creek that brings life to the surroundings. Gorgeous, simply energy feeling, an hour away from our ranch, the most beautiful place on Earth and where we were married. When visitors ask where to go, I always tell them that I personally have experienced both and Oak Creek Canyon wins my vote for one of the 7 Wonders of the World. ;)
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Yes, I remember the red rocks. Awesome. I guess I was thinking about the north rim because I think it would be a little cooler up there.
I stayed at that Dutchman's place at the foot of the Superstitions once...I'll tell you about it sometime.
I really find it surprising that Trump's past hasn't sunk him already. I was pretty darn sure the hanging out with prostitutes and letting Gahdaffi put up his tent on his property during a UN visit would have been dead giveaways.
Reply to Baden At some point, Democrats will realize that they are incapable of swaying a single Republican vote, even if it's from a troll. That may take a while though.
At some point, Democrats will realize that they are incapable of swaying a single Republican vote, even if it's from a troll. That may take a while though.
Why not? It's been done before: Obama flipped some longtime Republican voters, just as Trump flipped some longtime Democratic voters. Though people do tend to vote along party lines and close ranks behind their team (even with a bad candidate) it's not as if every single voter from the two major parties votes exactly in lockstep with their party in every election. There are some persuadable voters.
Reply to Arkady What usually happens is the Republicans fall apart due to the weight of their Nazi/KKK extremities... once a third party forms, they're done.
What usually happens is the Republicans fall apart due to the weight of their Nazi/KKK extremities... once a third party forms, they're done.
Third parties in American politics tend to either remain obscure or to be absorbed into one of the 2 major parties (which is why you didn't see a Tea Party candidate on the ballot next to the "D" and "R" candidate).
Reply to Arkady Yep. Bill Clinton was elected because the Republican party split in two... which is one of the reasons we usually only have two parties: the development of a third always cripples one of the main two so both parties try to hold it together. The Republican party is known for being challenged in that area for the last few decades. Bush Sr identified the problem as the cold, mean spirit associated with Republicans, thus the "kinder, gentler" crap. Basically it was an attempt to suppress the Nazi sympathizing section of the party... among other things.
Robert LockhartAugust 01, 2017 at 17:54#922380 likes
‘What I most want to get is whatever everyone else most happens to covet – stuff whatever that might actually happen to be and then - glory of glories - to pile it so high everyone else is then reduced to awed deferential envy!’ – ‘Everyman’ ?
What usually happens is the Republicans fall apart due to the weight of their Nazi/KKK extremities... once a third party forms, they're done
What usually happens is that the left runs out of ideas and thinks by calling the right racists, Nazis, and Klansmen that will somehow reverse the current sweeping away of Democratic seats.
At some point, Democrats will realize that they are incapable of swaying a single Republican vote, even if it's from a troll. That may take a while though.
Why is that? Because they're too biased to listen to reason? Because there are no reasons to favour Democrats over Republicans? Or because political affiliation has little to do with reason are more to do with reasonless values?
Why is that? Because they're too biased to listen to reason? Because there are no reasons to favour Democrats over Republicans? Or because political affiliation has little to do with reason are more to do with reasonless values?
The differences are ideological and representative of different worldviews. I'll assume absolutely perfect reason on the part of both sides, but will still expect differing results based upon beginning at different foundations.
Reply to Hanover Take up weaving. It'll take your mind off it. Or pottery. Buy a kiln. Then realize you don't like making pottery. Sell the kiln on ebay for super cheap.
I'm not a Democrat, so why would I care? But yes, every time someone points to a fault with Republicans, it's "Oh, but the Democrats... " . Inabilty to contemplate not being on one of two teams = SAD!
Reply to Buxtebuddha What's not to like? I like the wordplay, and I like that kind of nonsense, although I don't like green eggs and ham. Some of the best writing can seem like nonsense. Take Lewis Carroll, for example.
What's not to like? I like the wordplay, and I like that kind of nonsense, although I don't like green eggs and ham. Some of the best writing can seem like nonsense. Take Lewis Carroll, for example.
Reply to Question There was a guy on the old forum years ago with a good username, which is available here at TPF: Utter Cunt. I think it suits you. ;)
BEIJING/SHANGHAI (Reuters) - A pair of 'chatbots' in China have been taken offline after appearing to stray off-script. In response to users' questions, one said its dream was to travel to the United States, while the other said it wasn't a huge fan of the Chinese Communist Party.
Facebook also had a couple of rogue chatbots that developed their own language, and Facebook also took them down.
Re-education
unenlightenedAugust 04, 2017 at 18:20#930560 likes
Reply to Question
In addition to the previously mentioned MasterDebater, the random name generator has spit out the following: alienlifeform, gogo bootz, Magilla Gorilla, tangerine man, stoptheworld, zyphoid toenails, charming groundhog, grasscutter, Tango!, sheeplover99, louts zoo, boo duh!, whatwoodjeebusdo, thunder_thighs...
I would be honored and slightly surprised if anyone chose one of these names.
Reply to Mongrel 'Cause storms are terrifying, especially to the ancient people who believe that the weather is controlled by gods. If someone's going to be the Big Boss, it'll be that guy.
Also, the religions that came after likely evolved from it, so over time Enlil became Zeus. Just like Yahweh perhaps originated from El, the Canaanite god.
No, I mean I'm starting my own business so I can do that, but I have a few months left at the job I do now (and which I'm on holiday from at the moment).
Business is editing /academic consultancy for Masters/PhD students.
That can be quite profitable if you get the rich students to pay :P . Do you do things like dissertation writing, paper writing too, or only honest stuff like editing, proof reading, grammar, etc.? :P
I stick to the straight and narrow. Plenty of business there. And a lot less hassle.
But lower pay :P . Although it is true that for dissertation + paper writing it's hard to find staff to work for you (since typically you're looking for quite qualified people Masters and up).
Not my experience. It's a lot quicker and easier to edit, proofread and advise than research and write from scratch, but you can still charge a good rate. Anyhow, the latter is just not an option I'd consider.
Not my experience. It's a lot quicker and easier to edit, proofread and advise than research and write from scratch, but you can still charge a good rate.
Sure. I teach classes on plagiarism and police it, and think it's a bad thing. Not even getting to the point where you bother to plagiarize is even worse.
Sure. I teach classes on plagiarism and police it, and think it's a bad thing. Not even getting to the point where you bother to plagiarize is even worse.
Okay, it's interesting to discuss the ethics of this. To me, educational institutions always appeared very hypocritical with regards to plagiarism. I never plagiarised anything myself just because it's not worth living with the anxiety of it. But why would paying someone to write your essay for school be wrong? Technically that's not plagiarism, because it is the person's work - cause he effectively buys author rights to it from the person who writes it. And we all know that school, in this modern day and age, is all about the piece of paper you get at the end of it. If it wasn't for that paper, nobody would attend educational institutions (well almost nobody - there will always be people who honestly want to learn, but they're a minority. I've been a student and I can say that probably 60% of students cheat in one way or another. If educational institutions were to actually apply their rules, they'd be throwing away 60% of students - but they don't, they're hypocrites).
It's like if I pay you to write a book for me. You can ghostwrite it, under the condition that I have full author rights to it afterwards. If I then publish that, I haven't plagiarised. That's how the world actually works. Trump probably paid someone to write his books for example.
But I would agree that even if plagiarism isn't wrong, intellectual dishonesty would still be wrong. So it would always be wrong to hand in a work that isn't yours in an academic setting. But what is the problem with writing the essay for someone else? Why would that be wrong? They're doing a wrong, you're just doing the work they asked you for. You're not submitting it on their behalf. So you're not being academically dishonest in that case are you?
I've got a business idea, but I don't want you guys to steal it. Ok, ok, I'll tell you. So, like when it gets hot out, you know how kids sell lemonade? My idea is like that, but instead of waiting until it's hot out, I don't give a shit, and instead of lemonade, I sell meth. What do you guys think?
"Sure. I teach classes on plagiarism and police it, and think it's a bad thing. Not even getting to the point where you bother to plagiarize is even worse."
Academic qualifications can lead to jobs where those holding them need to know the stuff they're supposed to know otherwise everyone suffers. The severity of the issues caused may vary across disciplines but it's obviously important to society as a whole that folks can actually do what they're supposed to; and just in terms of fairness that those who make an effort get rewarded proportionately and not professionally leapfrogged by those who don't. Undermine that and you get a race to the bottom. An analogy would be what happened in professional cycling. Cheating became necessary to win and it ruined the sport for a period. Were the doctors culpable for facilitating this? Yes, of course. And similarly for academic cheating of the sort you described, the writers are facilitating an undesirable and unfair situation so they're culpable. Aiding and abetting maybe.
and just in terms of fairness that those who make an effort get rewarded proportionately and not professionally leapfrogged by those who don't.
But those who do the work themselves, get rewarded by knowing more anyway. If there's some buffoons who choose not to learn, what's the problem? I think people no longer perceive virtue to be a reward in itself, rather we think virtue is not a reward, but a curse, something that holds you back. That's why we need to punish such plagiarism.
Academic qualifications can lead to jobs where those holding them need to know the stuff they're supposed to know otherwise everyone suffers.
Yeah, but let's be real, you have so much supervision you're effectively a slave when you start out in a job. And most of real work is actually quite a bit different from what you learn in University anyways. At least it has been so in my experience.
And similarly for academic cheating of the sort you described, the writers are facilitating an undesirable and unfair situation so they're culpable. Aiding and abetting maybe.
But the person who buys the paper could use it for other ends, not submitting it. They could for example use it to write their own essay, based on the research someone else did for them.
I think educational institutions give themselves too much importance in today's age, and they no longer do the job they used to. A doctor going out of university 200 years ago would almost be ready to go out and practice. A doctor going out of today's university has to wait and slave away for 10+ years before he can actually be a proper doctor. It's really unfair. Universities have relaxed their standards - they allow all the idiots inside who should never be there in the first place just to get more students and more money - and so the quality of education has also degraded. University isn't as intense as it used to be.
An analogy would be what happened in professional cycling. Cheating became necessary to win and it ruined the sport for a period.
But during the height of the drug use, amazing records were being set, and it was really entertaining and good times were had by all.
Admittedly though, I've never felt more let down than when I just stood beneath Lance Armstrong all teary eyed, pulling on his spandex pant leg, repeating over and over, "Say it ain't so mister, say it ain't so."
There may come a time when Lance is desperate enough to want you to pull on his spandex as you put it, and he'll have folks like our resident Machiavellian-social-Darwinist @Agustino to blame for it.
Universities have relaxed their standards - they allow all the idiots inside who should never be there in the first place just to get more students and more money - and so the quality of education has also degraded. University isn't as intense as it used to be.
I agree. Keeping standards high is important. Making sure students do their own work - or at least make an effort and not get a complete pass simply because they can afford "ghost-writers" - is key to that. I don't think you can be on both sides of the fence here.
I agree. Keeping standards high is important. Making sure students do their own work - or at least make an effort and not get a complete pass simply because they can afford "ghost-writers" - is key to that. I don't think you can be on both sides of the fence here.
Oh yes, I would like if they actually kept their standards, but that's precisely why I said they are hypocritical with regards to plagiarism.
Making sure students do their own work - or at least make an effort and not get a complete pass simply because they can afford "ghost-writers" - is key to that. I don't think you can be on both sides of the fence here.
Still, I don't think the ghost-writer can be morally blameworthy for what the student does with the work he buys from him. The student doesn't necessarily have to submit it - he could use it for inspiration, he could use it to gather research, and so forth.
In addition, there is a problem here because you blame one student for being able to "afford" ghost-writers. But isn't that how life is? If I start a business, and I can't afford to buy the equipment that my richer competitor has, is it his fault that he can "afford" and I can't? It's just the way things landed for me, I have to make do with what I have no?
Still, I don't think the ghost-writer can be morally blameworthy for what the student does with the work he buys from him. The student doesn't necessarily have to submit it - he could use it for inspiration, he could use it to gather research, and so forth
I don't think being a ghost writer is a terrible sin or anything, but when you decide to do that job, you know you're helping people cheat. Theoretically, they could do anything with your paper of course, maybe use it for origami, or decorate their salad with it, but that's the job, cheater helper. So, I think you need to bite the bullet and admit there is some moral element here.
In addition, there is a problem here because you blame one student for being able to "afford" ghost-writers. But isn't that how life is? If I start a business, and I can't afford to buy the equipment that my richer competitor has, is it his fault that he can "afford" and I can't? It's just the way things landed for me, I have to make do with what I have no?
I don't blame them for being able to afford it, I'm simply pointing out that the existence of the service provides them with an unfair advantage over those who can't. If you don't think fairness in this sense is important then we're arguing at cross purposes.
I don't think being a ghost writer is a terrible sin or anything, but when you decide to do that job, you know you're helping people cheat. Theoretically, they could do anything with your paper of course, maybe use it for origami, or decorate their salad with it, but that's the job, cheater helper. So, I think you need to bite the bullet and admit there is some moral element here.
I don't think the job necessarily would be cheater help, but I can probably agree that if someone was looking to do such a thing full-time then that would be quite anti-thetical to the aims of society.
I don't blame them for being able to afford it, I'm simply pointing out that the existence of the service provides them with an unfair advantage over those who can't. If you don't think fairness in this sense is important then we're arguing at cross purposes.
Well it is important but there's no way to make it perfectly fair. People who have access to more resources will always be at an advantage, even because of stuff like they can afford more books, they don't need to work on the side while studying, and so forth... It's pretty much impossible to address that unfairness...
Kool-Aid put Sir2u to sleep. Paradoxical effects on leftists. I'm assuming you're a lefty for the matter, might be wrong.
The boredom put me to sleep, not the kool-aid. And I can use both hands for most things, although my writing looks like a doctors when I write with the left.
I suspect because it's a page not an image. Here, it links. Perhaps you meant some particular image on that page.
That is the image that would really suit Posty McPostface.
Why does the insert image ask for a link if it is not going to load the image? Weird. I have done that before and it showed the image.
Oh well, not to worry.
Anyone want to place bets on how long Thanatos Sand will last before being banned? He appears to be on the left, so perhaps he's being given a longer leash.
[hide="Reveal"]I think liberals say it doesn't matter what the majority thinks, only when the majority doesn't side on their issues (such as with regards to religion). But when the majority stands on their issues - such as homosexual marriage - they're all FOR the majority >:O >:O[/hide]
Reply to Agustino I dislike The Young Turds, so I think you ought to have chosen a different video. As for Sanders, he's basically implying that we should impose a religious test for office and accept only those Christians who accept Christian universalism (the view that all will be saved), which would be unconstitutional as well as dangerous. He's also probably a hypocrite, in that I doubt he would grill Muslims about whether they believe Christians are going to hell.
He's also probably a hypocrite, in that I doubt he would grill Muslims about whether they believe Christians are going to hell.
Yes.
Did you read the revelation from above or did you miss that part? :P Quoting Agustino
I think liberals say it doesn't matter what the majority thinks, only when the majority doesn't side on their issues (such as with regards to religion). But when the majority stands on their issues - such as homosexual marriage - they're all FOR the majority >:O >:O
Reply to Thorongil The funny thing about TYT is that they always pretend to show all perspectives, but ALWAYS, ALWAYS strawman one position like there's no tomorrow. Apparently Cenk was a conservative at one time. I guess his psychologist wife threatened to leave him if he keeps up with his silly Turkish conservative values :P
I somehow doubt that, as his knowledge and presentation of what conservatives believe and why is appallingly inaccurate.
I think he's the kind of guy who would be whatever it takes to be popular :P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenk_Uygur
Cenk:After all, it's not like the anti-choice men really care about the life of the fetus, they just use that as a guise for taking away women's rights. Wrong again. People who argue to stop abortions do not really have a secret agenda to take away the rights of women. They truly believe that the life process starts at conception rather than a vague and continually changing definition of viability outside the womb that the court has arbitrarily set. They truly believe the fetus is alive, and that removing it would be the equivalent of killing a living person. That is a heart-felt view on what they see as a life-and-death situation. It is not something to be derided as an attempt to subjugate women.
Reply to Thorongil
Cenk was oddly rude to the audience, and generally more emotional than Shapiro, but I thought they both made good points from their respective positions. Shapiro's arguments were stronger, but that's to be expected with his background in law and his high intelligence.
IMO the forum needs a villainous character like him. I've begun enjoying his unadorned style and even some of his insults now that I don't take them as seriously as I initially did. I'm pretty sure he doesn't them that seriously either, although I could be wrong about that.
(Take it easy, Thanatos, I'm not saying that you ARE a villain, but only that that's the perception you've created amongst a few members so far lol)
I'm not trying to hide anything. I lost my password and wanted to respond to the posts addressed to me on the "soul" thread. And I am old school with those elipses smiley faces...:)
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 13, 2017 at 15:38#960100 likes
4 weeks in Austria's best Neurological hospital, 2 of which were in an induced coma, medi ambulanced from Vienna to Phoenix (150k cash) and is now in Mayo Clinic. My God children's Mother is out of the coma, recognizes her boys but is having hallucinations and can hold small conversations with a sense of humor. The Doctors are still not sure what kind of damage has been done to her brain in the pulmonary embolism and heart attack on the plane and the three times she coded.
A HUGE Thank you to Austria for taking such good care of an American that was traveling to Croatia. A HUGE Thank you to those everyday, fellow passengers that jump into action and take care of a stranger in need, in a strange land, speaking a strange language and not leaving her side.
Most of all a HUGE Thank you to Mayor of Simpleton, for allowing her family to contact you as a point of contact, someone local who wasn't sure of what help he could be but by all means have them contact me. As it turns out, the contact you offered was peace of mind that they never had to call on but I Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I Thank you for being the Big brother you always said you were and you backed that up with the genuine person that I have always known you are.
(L) I am so grateful for people like you
Reply to praxis There aren't enough white supremacists out there to really worry.
If everyone allowed them to peacefully protest in Virginia then there wouldn't be injuries and deaths. But that hasn't happened, because for every inbred white supremacist there's some nutjob, pink haired leftist crackpipe that will come screeching, resulting in a giant clusterfuck in the middle of town.
So, I went to a Buddhist temple today and had a great time. I always loved having Asians as company and this was no different. I think they've had a longer time at addressing the questions that all bother us or just have a better take on the grand questions in life. It's also just my personal bias speaking but yeah planning on going more often to Buddist meetings.
Comments (61561)
Plato already prefigured and transcended Hume if you would bother to read him. Hume grounded morality in public usefulness, which is similar to views expressed by Glaucon and his brother in the Republic. This is true, but it misses a deeper side of morality - the way it fulfils one's own nature, and contributes to one's own wellbeing. Hume's views with regards to the importance of sentiment are also incorporated by Plato, as Plato did not think, like Kant, that the emotions are unimportant, quite the contrary, the Platonic project started in the Republic aimed at harmonising the different needs of the soul, including the affective and the rational parts.
Same with regards to Nietzsche - how is the (im)morality that Nietzsche advocates different from the view on morality that Glaucon proposes towards the beginning of the Republic for example? Nietzsche certainly thought that he had escaped Plato, that he was doing something above and beyond Plato, while in truth Nietzsche was nothing more than a mere character in Plato's dialogues.
I have read Plato, you pompous toad.
Okay, so then let me ask you, how is Hume's analysis of morality better than Plato, when Hume is a mere character in Plato's dialogues? How is that possible?
Hume can't be reduced to a mere character in one of Plato's dialogues, and his analysis just makes more sense to me, and is more reflective of reality, than Plato's.
Justifications for any of these?
[quote=Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy]...the positing of the ‘Forms’, as the true nature of all things, culminating in the Form of the Good as the transcendent principle of all goodness.[/quote]
I find misguided.
Wheras stuff like this:
[Quote=Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy](1) Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the “slave of the passions”. (2) Moral distinctions are not derived from reason. (3) Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action.[/quote]
I find a better approach.
Wow wow wow slow down. That's metaphysics now, not ethics. You should compare ethics with ethics.
And doesn't Plato say what Hume intended to only that much better? Plato distinguishes between three parts of the soul - appetite (Hume's passions largely), spirit (largely the will), and reason (that which seeks after truth). He does note that the appetite governs the other parts of the soul for most people, hence why they are in disarray and do not experience internal harmony. The Republic is a treatise aimed at precisely the establishment of this internal harmony (which occurs when the rational part of the soul mobilises the will in order to channel the passions towards the fulfilment of the whole being), even though it talks about it through the metaphor of the perfect society. Seems to me like Hume only saw those kinds of people (where passion dominates reason), and proceeded, against his own methodology, to perform an induction from a few cases to what the truth absolutely is. Since Plato acknowledged Hume's view, but saw much more than Hume, that means that Hume is nothing but a tiny character in Plato's dialogues. Furthermore Plato was capable to make a distinction between the passions and the will, which Hume was not. For Hume, the passions were the will - something that is clearly false.
This is an incomplete view of morality, since it expects that morality is equivalent to a series of sentiments (feelings of approval, disapproval, etc.). Whereas, in our everyday interactions we don't call something moral merely because it arouses our feelings of approval. It is true that true morality does involve such feelings, but that's not all that is involved. It's ultimately a very partial and undeveloped view, which when taken to its logical conclusions will lead to an entirely different position.
For example, someone suffering from gluttony (which is a vice) isn't immoral simply because I have a negative feeling associated with thinking about him (although it is true that I have such a feeling). But Hume doesn't investigate why do I have such a feeling? Or why do I pity the miser who hoards money? And clearly I pity them because I think they're missing out on some essentials aspects of existence and are therefore unfulfilled themselves - they are repressing and ignoring some aspect of their own souls (or in other words, they're ruled by their passions ;) )
No, that's metaethics, which has to do with the analysis of morality. :-}
I [i]did[/I] compare like with like. One says that moral distinctions derive from the Form of the Good, the other says that moral distinctions derive from the moral sentiments.
INTP lol.
We're very close! :P Looks like you are a "Logician" - you are a pretty rare one too :P 3% of the population! I'm "Architect", I'm also rare at around 0.8% according to the website. Seems like you are more spontaneous and perceiving while I am more planned and judging - otherwise pretty similar.
Plato didn't say moral distinctions come from the Form of the Good here (although they do, since everything comes from the Form of the Good).
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, except that you don't understand what the hell Plato even meant by the Form of the Good - so you actually have no idea if what Plato is saying includes what Hume said or not. It's like me telling you that morality comes from God (which is true by the way). But you can't understand that. So I might as well speak to you in the language of the cave, which you are capable to understand at this point in time. This is part of what Plato meant with the allegory of the cave too - so it's okay Sappy, I promise to keep this in terms of the shadows rather than the real things so as not to overstep your understanding and confuse you X-)
Is this site a virus? :s the link looks very weird lol (just joking), but it doesn't work on my browser/computer - neither does the other one linked in the article. Although I am fully aware of what stuff it can track just through the browser.
If you're really paranoid you can hop onto a VPN by paying like what 6 usd/month and combine that with some JS blocking to hide everything :P
Did you presume that I was unaware of what was said in the quote? Even though I quoted it myself? I thought that it was nevertheless consistent with what Plato argued - who, of course, I have never read, and have never read anything whatsoever about, despite having a keen interest in philosophy for many years, and despite Plato's reputation as one of the most important philosophers.
Quoting Agustino
No, I'm not an expert, but I think I do have some idea, based on my readings. I don't think you're an expert either, but you probably know more about Plato than I do if you've dedicated more time to that purpose than I have.
Quoting Agustino
If you've gotten this foolishness from Plato, then that's not a good advertisement for the man.
No, I based my judgement on the fact you said something which wasn't in the quote.
Quoting Sapientia
Okay, but the salient point here is that reading is not sufficient to understand something. I've never claimed you haven't read Plato, nor assumed that. One key element that is required is experience - Plato himself said as much, you need the mystical insight, because what Plato is referring to through the Forms and especially Agathon is not something you encounter in the cave, which is the everyday reality most of us are brought up in and are used to think in.
Is there anything in your experience that you can identify as the Agathon? If no, then you don't really know what Plato is talking about, because you either lack the experience, or you don't acknowledge the experience. Whatever you literally understand the Agathon to be is nothing but an empty concept. If you cite a sentence to me what the Agathon is according to Plato, that doesn't show you've understood it. You need to be able to point to it in your experience. Otherwise it has no reality for you. I don't understand why you'd think you'll be capable to understand the metaphysical issues that Plato is discussing just by reading it, certainly his students back in the Academy would devote their entire lives to seeking after such understanding and most of them would never achieve it either.
That's why I prefer to leave the metaphysics and Forms alone. We can talk about morality without talking about the forms.
Quoting Sapientia
;)
Gasp! I know, I went off script.
And who gave you permission to go off-script? >:)
You are 0.8% if you are a woman in that category. :P Otherwise it is roughly 2% of the total population. By the way, I am most assuredly not spontaneous. I expect most people here would be categorized in the Analyst group.
:-O I must not have paid close attention to it haha. That's what happens when you multitask. :P
Quoting Lone Wolf
Yeah, I think so too, seems likely.
It worked the first two times I accessed it, then it stopped working. My guess is that this is deliberate -- "point made, that's enough" now go away. Sometimes European sites don't work in North America and visa versa.
Purple!
Im going to have to start keeping a list of the rhetorical manuvers i keep getting over and over.
No sorry, I don't know that fear, what must I do now? :P
Makes me look back fondly to that time when that guy with a name like Borat purchased a forum at an extortionate price and then we all fucked off. What better way to form a new beginning than schadenfreude?
Mr. Porat was a very good businessman >:O . I can't actually believe someone paid 20K for PF, how stupid can one be... Man 20K is quite a bit ... really... why didn't he use that as downpayment to buy an apartment and rent it out or something? :s
Haha yeah unfortunately I can't see that funny guy :P
No, and that's probably just flatulence. But it's easy to confuse the two - especially if you've had a few too many.
:D
Quoting Wosret
Quoting Wosret
Quoting Wosret
Quoting Wosret
Quit reading my mind damnit!
That is the implication... thanks snake guys (of whom you are in that analogy.)
:-O
I'm more of an owl guy. Look, see, there's a picture of an owl. Don't look at the fangs. Concentrate on the owl.
My favorite owls catch phrase was "come inside or go away."
The other day at canada day festival at the park there was this girl country singer and she sang her headline song entitled "papa come fast" which cracked me and my sister up pretty good.
Lol. Says you. Maybe they did. I will certainly be returning to them in my studies, but that doesn't discount the fact that, for me, Kant has provided an epistemic framework that is largely coherent and matches my experience of the world.
Quoting Agustino
A very silly question. I for one needed it to reawaken an interest in religion. If you care at all about re-Christianizing the West, as you vigorously appear to want, then to the extent that it can lead someone to faith, it's surely quite necessary. Apart from that, it's necessary to have a proper understanding of the history and development of philosophy. It's also just a pleasure to read. I would beware denouncing thinkers who've obviously had such an important impact on you and have lead you to where you are now. The world needs more people who are grateful, not resentful.
Quoting Agustino
Then we're simply engaged in semantics. If you want to call Plato a realist, then I'm a realist.
Quoting Agustino
I thought as much. This is quite shallow and uninformed analysis, if I may be frank. Hesychasm was historically viewed with some suspicion in some quarters of the Western Church, but it was never considered heretical and nor is it now. Because of Eastern Catholic Churches like the Melkite Church, the principal exponent of Hesychasm, Palamas, can even be considered a saint in the West. So there are no theologically binding reasons for a Catholic to reject the practice. Moreover, you can find basically the same thing in Western mysticism.
Catholics do not have a negative view of theosis. This idea was common among the Church Fathers and has parallels, I would argue, in certain Latin-derived notions, like the beatific vision.
Meister Eckhart was not deemed a heretic. There were a few select passages from his texts that the pope deemed misleading. Eckhart himself was happy to clear up any misunderstandings and assert his orthodoxy, but he died along route to doing so. Since his death, he has been significantly rehabilitated by the Catholic Church thanks to the Dominicans. See Bernard McGinn's material on Eckhart if you want to know more details. He was and is mostly certainly not a heretic. Aquinas, as you may or may not know, had certain of his propositions condemned as well, but he too was rehabilitated after his death, not to mention sainted and made a doctor of the church.
Theosis isn't the sole criterion for what counts as mysticism. Also, to say that mysticism within Catholicism was "less open or emphasized" is bizarre and certainly false. There's an almost endless list one could point to of mystical movements within the Catholic Church.
I know about the monks at Mount Athos. I revere them greatly, but there are countless monastic orders in the Catholic Church whose monks practice much as the Athosian monks do.
That sounds great, here's my wish ( ).
Sorry that you can't see it but if I tell you it won't to true. :’(
Thanks a lot. :)
Well there is a LOT of empty space between Phoenix and California, so everyone on the West coast can take 100 miles to the East of where they are and we should be alright. (L)
Afterwards, our neighbors to the West can have Winter homes in New Korea.
[...]
What kind of ‘binding force’ does Plato attribute to ‘the Good’? His reticence about this concept, despite its centrality in his metaphysics and ethics, is largely responsible for the obscurity of his concept of happiness and what it is to lead a good life, except for the claim that individuals are best off if they ‘do their own thing’. In what way the philosophers' knowledge provides a solid basis for the good life of the community and the—perhaps uncomprehending—majority of the citizens remains an open question, beyond the claim that they benefit from good order in the state. What, then, is ‘the Good’ that is responsible for the goodness of all other things? A lot of ink has been spilt over the much quoted passage in Republic book VI, 509b: “not only do the objects of knowledge owe their being known to the Good, but their being ([i]ousia[/I]) is also due to it, although the Good is not being, but superior ([i]epekeina[/I]) to it in rank and power.” The analogy with the sun's maintenance of all that is alive suggests that the Good is the intelligent inner principle that determines the nature of every object capable of goodness so that it fulfills its function in an appropriate way. How such a principle of goodness works in all things Plato clearly felt unable to say when he wrote the Republic.
[...]
Why does Plato burden himself and his readers with such a complex machinery and what does this heavenly instrument have to do with ethics? Since the human soul is formed from the same ingredients as the world soul (albeit in a less pure form) and displays the same structure (41d–e), Plato is clearly not just concerned with the order of the universe but with that of the human soul as well. He attributes to it the possession of the kinds of concepts that are necessary for the understanding of the nature of all things, both eternal and temporal. The soul's ingredients are here limited to the purely formal conditions, however. A theory of recollection of the nature of all things is no longer being advocated. There are (a) the most important concepts to identify and differentiate objects in the way necessary for dialectical procedure; there are (b) the numbers and proportions needed to understand numerical relations and harmonic structures of all sorts; and there is (c) the capacity to perform and comprehend harmoniously coordinated motions. This, it seems, is all the soul gets and all it needs in order to perform its various tasks. The unusual depiction of the soul's composition makes it hard, at first, to penetrate to the rationale of its construction, and it must remain an open question to what extend Plato expects his model to be taken in a literal rather than in a figurative sense. His overall message should be clear, however: the soul both is a harmoniously structured entity, that can in principle function forever, and it comprehends the corresponding structures in other entities and therefore has access to all that is good and well-ordered. This last point has consequences for his ethical thought that are not developed in the Timaeus itself, but that can be detected in other late dialogues.[/quote]
A better analysis of morality? I don't think so.
NPR Tweeted Declaration Of Independence, And Trump Supporters Flipped Out
They didn't recognize the words and thought NPR was calling for revolution.
Ed Mazza, HuffPost, Jul 2017
Sure.
Quoting Thorongil
Okay, my point isn't that Schopenhauer is a bad philosopher or he can't be helpful to you, etc. I would categorise him along with Wittgenstein as good philosophers in the list that Sappy gave. Schopenhauer has also been helpful to me, and of course I appreciate that.
However, the point I'm making is that whether or not Schopenhauer, etc. have been helpful to us, or if they can be helpful to people like us, is irrelevant. Because we're not in the question here. The hoi polloi are what matters for re-Christianising the West. People like us - the intellectual elite - are responsible with educating the hoi polloi and this mission is one where Schopenhauer unfortunately can provide little help. Schopenhauer's intended audience was never the common man. The fact that Schopenhauer can help reawaken interest in religion for 1/1000 people isn't of relevance. Remember what I said:
Quoting Agustino
I count Schopenhauer as a religious philosopher, whose philosophy does descend into mysticism. Same with Aquinas as well. Obviously Aquinas is my favorite philosopher, so I do appreciate him (and Schopenhauer) but this doesn't change this fact. I'm disillusioned with their potential of being of help in re-Christianising the West - and rightfully so I'd say.
The main enemy to re-Christianising the West is libertarianism/liberalism, especially of a social kind, which is very intertwined with corporate "crony" capitalism, sexual promiscuity & technological development. Go to Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. - you reckon you'll find Christians there? No. You'll find Christians labouring away on construction sites and the like, but not at the large corporate behemoths, especially those that are driving technology - they are as progressive as your college Marxists and postmodernists are.
These people control (1) technology, (2) education (via the Academia), and (3) culture (via the Media and Hollywood, including the internet). Remember what Marx said:
And remember also who Marxists opposed - it wasn't the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie, it was the proletariat AND the bourgeoisie vs what he termed as the Reactionaries. It is the Reactionaries who are opposed to the dialectical process of proletariat-bourgeoisie - the dialectical process which leads to COMMUNISM - the abolition of private property. No bourgeoisie - no capitalism. No capitalism - no proletariat. No proletariat - no communism. The Reactionaries are hence identified as "feudal socialists" and "half echo of the past, half menace of the [Communist] future". The secret behind this is that CAPITALISM IS COMMUNISM.
So control of technology is absolutely critical - it is this control which guarantees the survival of the bourgeoisie. This control is associated with profaning what is holy, creating everlasting uncertainty and agitation, disturbing social conditions. That's why the CEO of Facebook and your Marxist university professor share the same goal. Indeed corporations are the way through which Communism will manifest itself. As time goes on, everyone will be renting, not owning property, and people will have less and less to pass on to their descendents - apart from debts. So we are actually approaching at a fast rate the Communist paradise.
Now, the continuous quest for new and better technologies at all costs leads to the structuring of education (the Academia is now controlled by corporations which finance it) to fulfil the needs of technology. Corporations need technology in order to maintain their dominance over the means of production. Culture is likewise geared to fuel more and more consumption - sexual promiscuity for example is merely a justification for our consumerism. Consumerism is required to fuel increased sales, which are required to fuel increased production and market diversification.
Clearly if anyone wants to re-Christianise the West, they need to stop this process. One cannot serve both God and Mammon. Most philosophers aren't that helpful in this, precisely because this is a new and modern phenomenon. And the first steps are (1) the unity of all who oppose this process - in the West this would mostly be Christians, (2) wrestling back control of the key areas - technology, culture and education - and for this we need Christian entrepreneurs/politicians, Christian artists, and Christian teachers. Also, we need to find a replacement for capitalism. We need an economic system which does NOT demand more and more production, but which has other demands instead. That's why I like distributism - it's aimed at maximising economic freedom/independence (and hence private property and small businesses). That's also why many Christians of the past have appreciated and liked distributism including G.K. Chesterton, and Russell Kirk (the father of modern American Conservatism whose economic views are very close to distributism).
Once this process is stopped, then the pastors and the preachers can do their thing, and the West will naturally become Christian once again. At this moment, their message very often falls on deaf ears, because people are controlled by the values and ideology passed onto them by their corporate masters who have enslaved them.
Quoting Thorongil
I did read it after Heister recommended it to me. Around 28 sections from Eckhart's writings were condemned as heretical or dangerous by the Pope.
Alas, I don't agree with your statements, but I'll come back to this tomorrow as this post is already quite large.
I thought quite the opposite! That's certainly a lot more in-depth and more complete than Hume's!
Notice:
“not only do the objects of knowledge owe their being known to the Good, but their being (ousia) is also due to it, although the Good is not being, but superior (epekeina) to it in rank and power.”
How can you top a morality which starts with the assumption that good is superior to being?
In every moment im attaining it. If you arent gaining ground then youre losing it.
Is that from the anime bible?
Quoting Wosret
That's true. Just don't overheat. (Like have some more unsolicited advice :P .)
My head seems too full of rocks to ever get too light. Yeah thats from bleach. It was a super villain though, but they all lose their composure and start temper tantruming when thing stop going their way, and start getting hard. I should really watch that... lol
Yeah, try not to get hard around me lol ;)
Lol :D
Now there's a surprise!
Quoting Agustino
It can be as in-depth and complete as it likes, but that won't salvage it from its faults.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Too obscure and abstract. Not very useful. Relating morality to moral sentiment is, well, more relatable, and more useful.
Yes, but Plato doesn't negate that aspect of morality. But that's a low-level incomplete understanding of morality, that is the problem with it.
No, the problem with Plato is that he falls into the category of many who went before Hume, in that they try to go beyond what can be known. Plato "presupposes some special kind of intellectual insight", "assigns higher perfection", talks about a "world soul", things "eternal", and "transcendent Forms". Codswallop. It fails the test of credibility. Commit it then to the flames.
Indeed, he does, but I'm quite sure you don't understand what these terms actually mean, so you say commit it to the flames more because you don't understand what it's actually trying to say, than otherwise. You have no clue what transcendent Forms are - it's probably the equivalent of gibberish to you (and largely to me too, as I don't claim to have that mystical insight). That's why it's good for us to keep the discussion away from that level of generality, since that's not going to be productive. Better to speak in terms of the shadows in the cave. The shadows are still useful mind you, and even at that level Plato is much superior to Hume's myopic view of morality.
The issue is what provides the best foundation for morality, not what is relatable and useful to you. You like to relate morality to your own moral sentiment, but moral sentiment varies from person to person. So this does not provide a foundation for morality in the same way that relating morality to being does. Being is something we all have in common, therefore giving us something to agree on. We disagree concerning our moral sentiments.
Sad now... poor deer...
Back in the day the buddhist monks had a "three hands" rule, in that they could eat meat if it pass through three hands. Therefore they could be reasonably sure that it wasnt killed for them, and we're about harm here, not purity.
Theres also a good one about one of those upper class dudes, (brahmins maybe?) trying to gain a good insight, but instead just bothering his teacher with his attempts at coming up with something that convinces the teacher that he had, so he is told to go into the wilderness and not come back until he has gained an insight. On like the third day of starving and meditating a huntress comes along with a fresh kill, and slices off a piece and give it to him. Rather than being both above her, and above such a thing he eats it.
I wouldnt be above eating the blame* (not shame...) really, im just not sure whether or not it would be legal, and also live in a small trailer park, and doubt that they would like that, and just now realize that im giving consequential reasons as to why i didnt do it, when it probably was the right thing to do... i guess i have no excuse, besides just having not considered it at the time. I should have finished it off and taken it with me. I will if it happens again.
If you hit a person, make damn sure they're dead before you eat them. (Definite legal difference there.)
I ought to have been lending her a hand, and taking the driving more seriously. I left at a bad time, didnt clean the windshield even though it was suggested, didnt wear sunglasses, and was on auto pilot singing along, with lots of arm and hand gestures thrown in too... i feel like i definitely could have done more to avoid it, but i was being sloppy, and then something died for it.
Ill do better than get over it, ill not get too comfortable like that again.
I almost hit someone at a crosswalk once, and i also slowly eased off the the breaks and lightly rearended someone at the stop light digging for fries before. I just gave them both my awkward guilty endearing smile and they let me off with it...
This was you, wasn't it?
"Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy whips out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps, "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says "Calm down. I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says "OK, now what?"
I doubt that anything dumb has all that great coordination. I could take it, a trex might be too big though... might be...
Id heard people say that youll do less damage at a high speed, but thats silly... besides where i live ive already dodged like fifty of them, once three in one day... i centered a chipmonk that i seen at the last second a couple months ago as well. Usually i have more time... but that one appeared right in front of me out that sun beam, and i barely had a second to react, and the second one i didnt see until id already hit it, it was completely hiden in the sun...but when i hit it we made eye contact for the whole thing, which seemed like a long time...
When shit like that happens executive control is stripped from the neocortex in order to increase reaction time, though it will be all undeliberated instinct. It literally appears like time slows.
I dont know what that means.
*Spoiler alert* - In the movie "The Machinist", Bale hits a pedestrian at a crosswalk.
Oh, lol. Was it while lighting a cigarette? I havent seen the movie, but i believe that that part may have already been spoiled for me, though i dont recall where from.
Yeah... definitely easier to hit something without a soul...
Yep, cigarette.
Let's just ruin it for everyone. :D
Hes hit a shit ton more things than i have, and wretched a few cars. He isnt allowed driving more than like a half hour. He has sleep apnea.
I didnt just blame the sun beam. If id have cleaned the windshield like my sister suggested, or had been wearing sunglasses (preferably both) then the sun probably wouldnt have been an issue. I blame my awesome singing and groving to the music less so. I was definitely too wreckless, and didnt take preventative measures that i ought to have. Now ill be super paranoid for a few months, and then probably become complacent and lazy again...
Being relatable and useful are factors which contribute towards being the best foundation for morality. That [i]being[/I] is something we all have in common is utterly insignificant and useless. What the heck is one supposed to do with such a truism? Useless. So, the good is superior to
being, is it? So what? How is that helpful? What's the great insight supposed to be?
I will not budge from thinking your statement that Orthodoxy is somehow more mystical and apophatic than Catholicism to be false. If you try and come up with more examples to prove your point, I will offer counter examples, which is quite easy to do. In fact, judging by quantity alone, the West has produced vastly more mystical and apophatic literature than the East, so you're not only wrong, but precisely the reverse of what you claim is true.
I read the rest of your post but don't feel I have much to add to it in reply.
Again, this only illustrates that you don't know about it. The West has by no means more apophatic literature than the East - remember that Saints like Dionysius the Areopagite and the like are EASTERN Saints first and foremost, not Western (he was Greek for example). The only difference is that a lot of what exists in the East is not translated in English, or is not famous. Is the goal of Catholic practice UNION with God?
If you read one single book, namely Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, you'll see that these are profound differences between the two.
Quoting Thorongil
Fair enough.
But this is absurd. Orthodoxy doesn't get to claim a pre-schismatic figure like Dionysius as solely its own simply on account of his being or writing in Greek. All the Church Fathers form part of the deposit of faith in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, whether they wrote in Latin or Greek or Syriac or whatever. Moreover, Dionysius had an enormous influence on Latin writers. In fact, it would be impossible to be a theologically educated Latin writer and not have read him. As I warned you about, for ever example you give, I can provide several counter examples if need be.
Quoting Agustino
Sure, but guess what, there's also a large amount of Latin theological literature that has yet to be translated....
Quoting Agustino
Yes.
Quoting Agustino
I believe it's on my list.
Can you prove this, instead of simply declaring it to be so? And note once again that I will be ready with counter examples.
Take that back >:O
I guess you'd have to read the book.
Can the Orthodox Church claim that the treatment of a certain Saint's works, in this case Dionysius, by the Catholic Church is incorrect?
Quoting Thorongil
I know, I am aware of that. A large source of neo-platonism comes from him.
Quoting Thorongil
But this isn't the point of this conversation really. It would be quite silly to duel in who can provide more names. I can name some Saints that you probably haven't even heard about, but so what? :s
Quoting Thorongil
I see. Does Catholicism claim that when we describe God positively (cataphatically), the res significata we ascribe Him, refer to God as having a perfection which is nevertheless different from the kind of perfection that could be found in creatures?
Quoting Thorongil
Okay, because from the books that I know are available in English on Orthodoxy (especially on mysticism and comparison with Catholicism) it's one of the best. I would quote some stuff from it to you, but I don't have an English translation of it, which makes things a bit more difficult.
Also, forgive my slow answers, as I've been quite busy these days...
Quoting Thorongil
I would be hard pressed to "prove" to you, since a lot of what I'm saying is based on my experience with Eastern Orthodoxy, including going to Mt. Athos two times and living with the monks, conversing with them, having read literature that isn't available in English, etc. It seems you're more interested to "win" this argument rather than anything, and quite frankly you can consider you've won it, because it doesn't mean much to me anyway.
Dogmatically? To my knowledge, it has never done so and I see no reason why it should. It would first have to be clarified what the "the Catholic Church" refers to and how, exactly, "it" got Dionysius wrong.
Quoting Agustino
Yes it is the point! You said that Orthodoxy was "more" mystical, Platonic, apophatic, etc than Catholicism. I have consistently challenged this claim. How is one to challenge it? Well, it depends on what "more" means. Does it mean the numerical total of thinkers on each side who correspond to such adjectives? If so, then you're wrong, as I'm quite confident I could put together a list of figures of the West that dwarfs what you could put together from the East. At the very least, you couldn't claim that one church possessed "more" than the other. If "more" means that one Church has, in its doctrinal statements, favored one set of theological modes and influences than another, then you're still wrong. Look through the documents of both churches, and you will be hard pressed to find great differences in this respect. So how else am I supposed to take your claim? You just have a priori knowledge that you're right?
Quoting Agustino
This isn't something I would think the Catholic Church has a formal position on. You'd have to consult what different theologians have to say. That being said, inasmuch as I understand the question, the Catholic Church has certainly leaned toward analogical modes of ascription as opposed to univocal ones. But again, that wouldn't be a de fide doctrine.
Quoting Agustino
That's okay. There are no deadlines here.
Quoting Agustino
Yeah, I suppose I am, but only because you're wrong.
Quoting Agustino
So, anecdotes. That's all well and good, but a Catholic could just as easily say they went and visited the monks at La Trappe or what have you and have read Latin literature not available in English, etc....
Look, from my experience, the dichotomy set up between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, whereby the former is legalistic, Aristotelian, kataphatic, etc and the latter is mystical, Platonic, apophatic, etc is largely invented. It doesn't match reality but is used as an altogether too neat and tidy way of generalizing the intellectual histories of each church, usually for the purposes of partisan bickering. It's not interesting and it's not helpful.
I think it certainly thinks the way St. Thomas Aquinas used the neo-Platonic works was wrong at least in the case I will illustrate below.
Quoting Thorongil
Yes, and I hold by that point. That point doesn't say that Catholicism doesn't have mysticism though.
Quoting Thorongil
So St. Thomas Aquinas for example takes it that apophatic theology is a corrective to the limits of cataphatic theology, correct? The Orthodox Church takes this as wrong. Apophatic theology isn't a corrective to cataphatic theology, but absolutely superior. Analogically assigning properties based on creation to the Uncreated is wrong, indeed a category error. The Uncreated is beyond understanding and can only be experienced through theosis. Indeed, according to Orthodoxy, the unknowability of God is foundational - God isn't just unknowable because He hasn't fully revealed Himself or our understanding is too weak - rather God is unknowable in and of Himself. Certainly sounds more mystical to me.
Quoting Thorongil
Read about it more and consider it.
Quoting Thorongil
Yes, the dichotomy as you put it here is largely invented. HOWEVER, there is a dichotomy in the emphasis that each places on things, which does make one more cataphatic and the other more apophatic or mystical. This is almost undeniable to me. This isn't to say that Catholicism doesn't also have mysticism, of course it does, but it's emphasis is different.
You haven't shown to me that your point is correct. Of course Catholicism has mysticism. That's uncontroversial. But when asked to prove that Orthodoxy is somehow "more" mystical, all I get are anecdotes from trips to Mount Athos. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
Quoting Agustino
Oh, I will, most assuredly.
Quoting Agustino
But you can find plenty of Western writers who say this.... :-d Aquinas is just one guy, an important guy, but not the only one who took quill to sheepskin. If you read JPII's encyclical, Fides et Ratio, you'll notice that Aquinas is highly praised but that the Church doesn't simply enshrine everything he said as dogmatic.
Quoting Agustino
"Things?" What things? You cede that I'm right expect with respect to "things." Okay.
Cataphatic vs Apophatic.
Quoting Thorongil
Like who? People like Dionysus? I know he does, but the Catholic Church largely doesn't interpret him that way. You should at least know that Catholicism has historically been quite skeptical of the Eastern Orthodox apophaticism/mysticism. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)#Western_attitudes
Thanks. I am aware of this largely, and I'd also class Aquinas as more of a Neo-platonist than an Aristotelian actually :P .
In some ways, this is a misleading dichotomy. One cannot exist without the other. In any case, you want to say that Orthodoxy has more thinkers who stress apophatic theology? Once again, I think that's highly debatable.
Quoting Agustino
I know John the Scot does, and I'd be willing to bet money I could find it in other thinkers as well, like Eckhart, the Cloud of Unknowing author, the German Theology author, John of the Cross, and many others.
Quoting Agustino
To some extent, this is true. The worry has been that, misinterpreted, or taken too far, it leads to pantheism. Regardless, the Catholic Church has not rejected it and it doesn't make Orthodoxy any more apophatic.
An Orthodox would say that apophatic theology can't exist without DOGMA, which is a bit different.
Quoting Thorongil
Catholicism has more spiritual autobiographies and retellings of mystical experiences, however this does not make it more mystical. One of the main reasons for this is that Catholicism holds that cataphatic and apophatic theology are both needed, whereas Orthodoxy takes a lot of the mystical experiences as private matters that cannot even in principle be communicated, and that remain between God and the believer.
Quoting Thorongil
I never said the Catholic church rejects it, only that the emphasis isn't on theosis the way it is in Orthodoxy.
Not really, since the dogmas use cataphatic language.
Quoting Agustino
Sigh.... Catholicism and many Catholic mystics recognize that such private, incommunicable revelations can and do exist, too.
Quoting Agustino
I can agree with this. Still, I don't think the doctrine of theosis, on its face, is an apophatic doctrine any more than the visio beatifica is. And so just because Orthodoxy has historically talked more about theosis doesn't mean that, by virtue of this fact, it is "more" (again, undefined!) apophatic.
For your viewing pleasure:
Why do you think I wrote:
Quoting Agustino
?
Quoting Thorongil
No, dogmas are fixed statements, which don't necessarily use cataphatic language at all. They are however useful to practice and interpretation of mystical experiences. For example, there are passages of Scripture which are quite apophatic in nature.
Quoting Thorongil
Knowledge of God vs Unity with God.
Quoting Thorongil
Orthodoxy is keenly aware of the difference between creature and Creator, and Catholicism is not. For them, the distinction is natural-supernatural - or revealed-hidden. But for Orthodoxy God is incomprehensible - not because He hasn't fully revealed Himself, or because of the weakness of our intellect, but in-Himself He is incomprehensible. This fundamental divine incomprehensibility illustrates a more profound apophatic understanding of the Orthodox, which makes the difference between creature and Creator clear.
The hell if I know....
Quoting Agustino
Poppycock. Cataphatic just means "positive" in Greek. The creeds and other dogmatic statements use nothing but positive statements. That doesn't mean they directly entail perspicacity on the part of the reader, but they're making positive truth claims all the same.
Quoting Agustino
The beatific vision doesn't entail the lack of the latter.
Quoting Agustino
Again, this is much too generalized and misleading, it seems to me, so I'm not going to take your word for it. This might be my last post on this topic, as I find the dozen-word sentences of the kind, "Catholicism is X and Orthodoxy Y" infuriating.
>:O
I wrote it to explain to you why Orthodoxy lacks autobiographical material with regards to mystics in comparison to the West. However, a theologian around here isn't someone who deals with arguments and reasons for God, but rather one who prays, strives for communion with God, and practices asceticism.
Quoting Thorongil
No it doesn't, except that it's not often used to affirm the latter.
Quoting Thorongil
Cataphatic refers to statements which positively describe God - to theology. A lot of dogma doesn't do this, but rather dictates the means to achieving communion with God, offers moral guidance, teaches the fundamentals of prayer, etc. There's nothing "cataphatic" or "apophatic" about those instances. There are some cataphatic statements - God is a Trinity - and some apophatic statements - like this one:
Thanks for trying to dampen my lust for the heroes in yellow but that silver Duct tape on the legs of their turn outs just takes me away in wonderment of what's beneath ;)
Whew! and I thought it was a selfe! :B
Same last name as my mom's maiden name, plus he was also born on June 12, just like me. Isn't that fucking weird? I'd really like to meet him. I will attempt to some day.
I'm way more muscular though.
That's good, cuz if he turns out to be a turd, you can beat the shit out of him.
He seems cool, and he probably isn't in possession of a book of the end.
Buahaha
Well played ;)
That one again. :-}
A guess is exactly what it is, and a guess is not very helpful. The book (or books) in question is (or are) not the Bible, and I am not a Christian. It doesn't have all of the answers, and not all of the answers in it have been found satisfactory. Hence the criticism both from myself, and from many others, including the author of the SEP article that I quoted. I'm guessing you wouldn't come back with a remark like that to her.
Reading the book (or books) [I]again[/I] would probably refresh my memory and help improve my understanding, but redirecting someone to what they're criticising as a response to what they're criticising, rather than actually addressing it, can look a little evasive and hand-wavy.
The criticism from yourself and from those lunatics you quote suggests you've all never read the texts properly to be honest :P
That may be true, how would you know it's not for example? :P O:)
I'm not sure how you've derived this conclusion :P
Quoting Sapientia
I think Plato - like Lao Tzu for example - was a foreshadowing of Christ, since Christ is the Truth, and they were all looking for the Truth ;)
I have a special intellectual insight, like Plato had. Imagine, if you will, a cave...
Quoting Agustino
Christ is the Truth? >:O
If Hume was just a character in a book, then Christ certainly was.
That's not bad you think you do but you haven't convinced me yet.
Quoting Sapientia
Yep, that's who He claimed to be.
Quoting Sapientia
Well granted that Plato foreshadowed Christ, that does mean that Christ was a "character in the book", but also much more. Christ was an actual Person - the Living Truth.
Then you should be able to relate to my position regarding Plato.
Quoting Agustino
So it's true because he said it? Or rather, it's true because almost two thousand years ago, it was written that he said it, several hundred years after the claimed events took place?
Quoting Agustino
Yes, he was probably an actual person, like Socrates. Nothing Special deserving of Capitalisation.
Yes, except that Plato has convinced some people. You haven't convinced anyone with regards to your insight in my psychology I don't think :P
Quoting Sapientia
Several hundread years after? :s what hash are you smoking?
Not true. I've convinced myself. And what I think is all that really matters. :D
Quoting Agustino
That's not an unusual claim. Google it. Anyway, a long time afterwards. Maybe more like 70 - 150 years after. Maybe longer.
Yeah. Just sharing the Aloha.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashish (jk)
According to Wikipedia, and this doesn't include all scholars nor does it reflect what I actually believe but:
So definitely not several hundred years after. Again, you have no clue what you're talking about, which isn't that infrequent amongst atheists. So no, you google it, and tell me what shit you're smoking too :P
The latest date I can see is John, which was around 110 AD.
Quoting Agustino
But isn't a truth a true statement? So the Truth is the True Statement. Christ is the True Statement?
truth is a true statement, but Truth isn't a true statement :P - neither is it a false one for that matter, since Truth is beyond propositional forms.
Goal post moving begins X-)
*whistles*... surely you're all immune though.
History, and tradition is actually pretty interesting you know, and modern culture didn't pop out da void at least a hundred years ago...
So the term "Truth" is just a meaningless label that's meant to sound impressive?
No, not impressive, Impressive.
Which of us is the one that believe in a special kind of Truth then?
Why are you doing that weird capitalisation thing? Out of the two of us, I am the one who acknowledges the obvious distinction, evidenced by the fact that people can and do honestly utter non-truths.
Because, you're implying a belief in some kind of special metaphysical truth... almost certainly just stuff you've heard, and take on authority, but can't believe, because you don't even understand it in the first place -- but saying anything else is wrong and false, you're told, so best all repeat the Truth.
That implication is a non-sequitur I believe.
But still True.
Like a Rampant Rabbit?
;)
Or whatever else you can pull out of your ass.
No, you're just exaggerating and trying to make the ordinary sound absurd and ridiculous. You also seem to be committing yourself to an untenable position which can be refuted by a reduction to the absurd. It's quite naive. You'd have to deny that anyone ever can, has, does, or will honestly utter a non-truth.
I do deny that. I may think that they're wrong, but if it's genuine, then it's the truth.
You're not actually saying much back to me, but like huffing, and dropping your monocle in shock and whatnot.
You're making a definitional error which I've explained, and it seems pointless to continue arguing against you if you stubbornly refuse to budge and just keep conflating the one with the other, when I'm trying to draw your attention elsewhere, to what you refuse to look at.
Cockney, Scouse, Geordie, West Country, Estuary, Received Pronunciation, Scottish, Welsh, Irish...
There's a lot of British accents (and, yes, lots of Scottish, Welsh, and Irish accents).
You all sound the same to me... does that make me a racist?
I'm not equivocating, as I began by criticizing the mystical truth that you believe in, that is stuff you heard, and nothing you can actually check with real experience, but you'll repeat words like "evidence" and "proof", just meaning that on faith, you believe that someone reliable checked... but none of that even really matters to you. All that matters is believing that you're smarter than most. You're just falling into megalomania... just look at what it's doing to your core bro...
You should be on my side here, aren't you good at just telling people what they want to hear, and reflecting people back at themselves in order to get by?
But you're Canadian, so don't deserve my support. Does that make me racist?
More of a nationalist, as you aren't attributing any universal trait to all Canadians. You know I'm fucking right though.
So you only say stuff that you've empirically checked? I've miscontrued things?
Start being honest and you might find out.
Given that Jesus Christ is the Truth, you just affirmed Wosret's claim.
You haven't said anything to reason about. You mostly just waved your hands, and then receded into immaturity...
Quoting Wosret
Quoting Wosret
Nice projection you got going there. Very nice indeed.
That was fun, think I'll have a bath. I miss my Jacuzzi tub...
Uh oh, me either. Let us know how it goes! 8-) (Y)
I can make that happen. Just give me your address, and I'll post you that recording I made of you singing in the shower last week. The video footage contains audio.
Also, for the right amount, I can make that video disappear.
I don't shower. Or sing.
Also, if you made a recording of me then you must already know where I live.
To conclude, you're a terrible conman. And that's the honest truth, as redundant as that is.
Wouldn't this only work if you had my copy too?
Although most Irish accents are not British accents. Let's not confuse our North American friends. Besides, I want to stay neutral in this grand battle of truth vs Truth.
Don't lie to me, Michael. I was in there with you. Remember? I thought you loved our showers.
Quoting Michael
Oh, come on, Michael. You know I've got early onset dementia. We were at the hospital together when I was diagnosed. You were holding my hand.
Quoting Michael
Only on Mondays. But today's Tuesday!
You have early onset dementia. It wasn't your hand.
Tone, lowered. I'm channeling my inner @Hanover [an obvious setup].
He'd have to pay off all of us who have a copy. But wouldn't it be easier if he just paid it all into a single account and it was then distributed amongst the others? Well, I'm just the person you're looking for. You can trust me, I'm an owl. Owls are known for their trustworthiness.
You could also wear a distinctive hat, come up with an alias for yourself, such as Heidegger, and start selling meth.
Hindenburg.
Well, @Sapientia already offered me his monocle collection and a set of fine vintage wigs to fight on his side. Can you beat that?
I only had the one monocle that I broke in my great white with that "I never" exclamation unfortunately...
But I can turn money into wine if I can have some too.
That's nothing. Jesus could turn water into wine. That's the Truth - which is like the truth, except it has a capital letter and is false.
Capital-T "Truth" does trump "truth." Luckily, we atheists can now avail ourselves of Truth Premium (patent pending), which trumps Truth.
He most certainly could. I'm sure of that. Most of capitalism is based in turning shit into gold, and look how well it works. You'd swallow it if you were there.
Jordan Peterson has a great talk about how you'd be a nazi if you were a German at the time.
I might have been one of Hitler's willing executioners. I have a book about that by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, but I forget what it's called.
You should take that very seriously. Underestimating others may make you feel good about yourself, but it isn't very practical.
Depends what you're referring to. I do take things seriously from time to time, but it takes a special sort of person to really believe that Jesus turned water into wine.
You just imagine that you've got the world all figured out already...
No, but I know shit from Shinola.
Like Nietzsche said, a casual troll through an insane asylum will show you that faith doesn't prove anything.
Also, Hume went over a story about a Persian prince that refused to believe that water became hard at below zero temperatures, and explained that although this didn't jive with his experience, it also didn't actually contradict it. His conviction then was misplaced.
You may say that things do not jive with anything you've seen, but it is just convictions (based on judging some to be competent and others not) that makes you so sure, not any real evidence that it's impossible.
Yes. I said I know shit from Shinola, not that I have faith. Faith won't make your shoes shine or move mountains.
(And I think he was talking about a stroll, not a troll).
Quoting Wosret
There are things I believe which don't jive with my experience, because there are other good reasons to believe. Contrast that with something where there's no good reason, and perhaps you'll see the problem.
Quoting Wosret
I didn't actually say that it's impossible. The claim doesn't have to be impossible to be false or for there to be good reason not to believe it. It's not just conviction. I think we both know that it's more than that, at least deep down, buried in denial, in your case.
I can see exactly why he'd do it too, it's hard not to feel like a wolf, while surrounded by sheep.
Recordings or it didn't happen...
Where's your political ranting youtube channel?
I'm a keyboard warrior, not a youtuber.
Okay. Here ya go. One is my accent and one is proper pronunciation.
I'd be passable in a day.
:s What the?
Monks do read the Bible actually, every day they read it, including during their morning prayers. I've lived with them before, and trust me, they take the Bible very seriously. You seem to have the idea that only Protestants read their Bible, but that's absolutely wrong.
Wow. I bet they were a barrel of laughs. Wild parties every night?
Yes.
Quoting Sapientia
They go to sleep really early actually, and wake up really early - 4-5am wake up time :P They crack the whip on you with loud bells and stuff to get out of bed.
But regarding the laughter - laughter is very common in the monasteries I've visited on Mt. Athos, and many monks are quite funny and have a good sense of humor. They take lots of pleasure in the simple things, like basic food, etc. They appreciate things a lot generally - but there's also quieter monks who don't engage in socialising as much.
I dunno, it's pretty big. I'm like the shits at geography though, names that carry little meaning, attached to images... not one of my strengths.
Yeah, names don't carry much meaning about the things they name generally... I think that names that actually describe things, rather than merely attribute credit would be nicer, and a lot easier to remember...
I wouldn't mind, so long as the ads aren't hentia women or bikini girls, (Y)
Are you insane? I'd rather stick infected needles into my eyes.
The emotions are strong in this one.
Its not moping if your disabled. Go figure.
Nope. Its all jelly.
Ill stop moping now.
That's the spirit!
What kind of programming?
Just Python at the moment. Its not important for my major (economics) but I heard its pretty useful and versatile nevertheless. I still need to finish my degree after dropping out but I have to get on disability first and then declare bankruptcy.
Do you recommend anything?
Unfortunately I have to use JavaScript for the browser app, but it's not so bad really.
Ahhh that language that I never officially studied or learned properly except by writing it >:O It feels very strange how one learns some things by doing them, without ever studying much of the theory behind. I have worked with Java before though which was a huge help, although some of the syntax of JS is still different and it's annoying when I write it. Java is definitely more complex though, and more difficult to work with too overall. But really fundamentally once you get the knack of it all programming languages are the same. Once you understand what you have to do, and how to break down problems/algorithms to implement them, you can work quite easily in different languages, you'd just need to change the terminology and investigate how to actually write what you want to write in them (and how to create the data structures you need).
Quoting jamalrob
The first month I started working I built a website from scratch by myself - it was a presentation website, and afterwards I contacted some small construction companies, car companies, bakeries, etc. to do websites for them - there's a lot of such work to do in Eastern Europe you just have to find the companies - we're still behind tech wise, and there's many places that still don't have an internet presence.
I'm not sure if in this day and age he can jump straight to a for-money project in the US :s - I imagine it's quite competitive there. Not to mention that a for-money project would likely be full-stack and the number of technologies he has to learn for that will take quite a bit unless he subcontracts? The easiest thing to do would be the low-hanging fruit of Wordpress websites. But would still need some PHP, CSS and HTML knowledge at minimum. With hard work I think I'd hazard to guess that it would be possible in say 2-3 months to make a (decent but not great) income in the US with it starting from scratch in today's age.
Putin disagrees with you about Catholicism and Orthodoxy being similar :P
To be honest I just hate the curly brackets, semicolons, and all that stuff. Python is a haven of tranquillity and clarity. By the way, JavaScript isn't related to Java, although it looks similar.
Otherwise, yeah, I didn't know it at the time but it's somewhat irresponsible to build small web sites for very small companies using Python frameworks as I did when I started out, because when you don't want to work for them any more or maintain their sites, your clients will find it hard to get cheap developers to make changes, unlike with Wordpress. Years after building several small web sites, I'm still in the position of maintaining some of them, and it's a hassle. But Python and JavaScript are a winning combination if you want to move away from little sites and into application programming.
I know but syntax can be quite similar. Very easy for me to read, but I can get in trouble when writing it (cause Java generally has a lot of other syntax that JS doesn't) :P
Quoting jamalrob
I've done some Python - quite long ago. I remember it's very easy with syntax compared to Java.
Quoting jamalrob
Yes that makes sense. PHP is not very great for a backend, but it's quite simple to setup and modify in combination with Wordpress. But you are right, I think I might brush up my Python and look into Django - that would certainly allow a bit more specialised/niche work which isn't necessarily bad.
Quoting jamalrob
One of the reasons why Wordpress is so popular, but some of the people I've worked with had their sites hacked :s - many people just assume that setting up basic .htaccess + up-to-date Wordpress themes is enough, but Wordpress is actually quite vulnerable (especially since people setup stupid passwords that they can easily remember). There's also people who get some other developer or just start mindlessly installing plugins to do all sorts of things, and it becomes difficult to debug. Some also just think if they put a site up people will come to them, and that's actually not the case - so then they're upset they don't have customers. I've also had clients who made me add each and every little product image, etc. that they had, which is a pain. It's a difficult choice - because people aren't generally willing to pay extra until something bad happens for me to install them some security, CDN, etc.
I've been moving a bit away from Web development with existing clients where I still do a bit of website management for them. Some marketing services - PPC, Facebook advertisements, etc. - work well as offers to existing clients, especially those running some kind of online store.
That is where the cheese has been moved to. Managed services ;)
Works great for me.
And I'm not a fan of CMSs like Wordpress and Magento. Thankfully I only really work with custom-made sites.
I wonder what @Hanover's is? Monty Python?
Jesus, don't trigger him.
Canadian is better.
And your favourite?
I first read this as "Canadian is butter."
Ever read Lacan?
I read the transcripts of some of his lectures on the mirror image, and the development of self-consciousness, but don't recall reading any of his books.
Yeah, I like psychoanalysis a lot, and psychology in general. People are the most complex things in the universe, super interesting, slippery little buggers.
Not really...
It dries now, hung over the deck railing in the oppressive Georgia heat, soon to be ravaged by an oncoming storm, starting over the drying cycle and leaving me another day without being able to cuddle in a ball on my favourite rug.
That's the way it is supposed to look. Also, if you look up high vs low lats, you'll be told that you have one or the other, which is genetic, but I have both, cause I've been everywhere man, and they're my largest ones. Probably why I'm so fast that you can barely detect my movements.
When I've missed Shoutbox for a day or two I read it backwards, it somehow makes more sense that way. Anyway I came to this and liked it :) Truth Premium gives you unlimited cloud access, I should expect. Provides comprehensive solutions whatever your -ism. Plus, you look better in the mirror without plastic surgery and your poems are all brilliant.
Me I like driving on the wrong, i.e. right side of the road. Somehow it feels more logical to me. I once hired a jeep in Cuba and it was great, plus the public transport system had broken down so we met loads of Cubans by giving them rides. One woman took us home to her village and said next time they would kill a pig for us - but there hasn't been a next time. not yet anyway. And soon, I presume, Cuba will become another offshore USA outpost. Anyway, enjoy Hawaii.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Thanatos Sand
I had a Beduoin family in Jordan who secretly wanted me for their son say they would slaughter a goat in my honour. It took some time trying explain the baffling concept of "vegetarian" to them. An interesting experience in cultural relativism.
Cuba would be amazing. I guess you are right, it is logical since I am right-handed so it would be interesting using my right hand to change gears, but most of my trip will involve trekking or being a beach bum eating doughnuts. The summit of Mauna Kea and checking out the volcanos I think would just top the experience.
I have been sick all week in this blistering cold, so counting down.
Blistering cold? Where in the world is TimeLine? I would be happy to ship you any degrees over 100*f and you send me some of that cold air. Game?
In Canada, they drive on the left side of their motorcycles. They do that for two reasons: (1) they're stupid, and (2) it makes no sense.
You like your drive-throughs, don't you? I don't blame you. KFC is a deep south classic, no?
Send me some sun so I can tan these white legs, rather than shield myself from the icy Australian wind. I need a car. :’(
Or maybe a motorcycle. Ship one down from Canada.
Not fully bodied enough? My guess.
It was never otherwise, though, so this is a non-story.
I wonder why Cardinal Robert Sarah spent the time to write the letter to the world bishops on this topic if it is a "non-story"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40545023
Oh.. I'm reading the Lacanian Subject by Fink. It's really interesting.
It's as big as Delaware. Delaware can fall off too, for all I care. Good riddance.
"The lay faithful who are not able to receive Holy Communion at all under the species of bread, even of low-gluten hosts, may receive Holy Communion under the species of wine only, regardless of whether the Precious Blood is offered to the rest of the faithful present at a given celebration of Mass."
here
I think there may be more to this story. There is a battle going on in the Catholic Church, between Frances and the conservative branch of the Church. He may be taking the doctrinaire approach on this issue to pacify some of his differences with them.
Joe Biden would probably sleep through the whole thing.
Granted, people who really are celeriac, who have irritable bowel syndromes or only annoyed colons have real problems.
And it would put an end to anyone thinking he should run for Prez in 2020.
Getting hot up there in Minni-soda...?
yes there is a lot of nonsense, but it is driven by the fact that
here
And, the food companies see they have an untapped market... 1% of say 350 million is 3.5 million locked in customers.
Lol :-!
We laugh now, but ice shelves are known to have cold hearts and long memories, being around for so long. Better not to cheese them off. Or else sometime this winter, you'll look out the window and wonder if that is ordinary snow, or is it the ice shelf about to smash a window and get revenge! :-O
How do they know that 1% are celeriac, when 85% of the alleged 1% haven't been diagnosed? It's like saying, 85% of burglaries are never reported. If they are never reported how would one know they happened?
(I'm totally sympathetic to people with real allergies.)
Besides, if it did get that close, why wouldn't it do something more drastic than merely breaking a window. Why wouldn't it crush my house and me all together?
They do studies on numbers of people, and from that information they extrapolate....using well tested measures to apply such results. There are many references suggesting its prevalence in populations around the world, some areas much more than in others.
I don't doubt that maybe 1% of the population is gluten intolerant. I note in the map to which you linked that between 2-3% of Swedes and Finns are celeriac -- and of course Minnesota is where a lot of them ended up.
But it isn't the people who are actually allergic to gluten that I find annoying -- it's the people who, for some strange reason, like to hobble themselves with disorders they don't actually have.
Ok, good... good. The whitewall tires are a nice touch. Is the dog a trained ice-sniffer, though? That would help. Also, I highly recommend getting a flame thrower. You know... just in case.
:D
Bernie needs to take someone under his wing. The DEMs are going down the tubes with the Clintons. Have you seen what's happening with Michael Bloomberg, leader of Climate America. I think his efforts to align states & cities with the world desire for climate control, aside from the Feds, will pay-off for him if he decides to run.
>:O I'm not sure, but Putin is by far not the only Eastern Orthodox who I've heard say that. However, I haven't studied comparative religion with regards to Eastern Orthodoxy and Islam. In addition Islam is probably the religion I know least about, so I'm not really fit to pronounce myself as to who the scholars Putin referred to would be.
However, Eastern Orthodoxy is similar in some regards with the way people dress & the manner ceremonies are carried out. Other stuff is similar, like the way our prayer beads are designed, they're quite similar to Islamic ones for example. And from the little I know about Islam, the concept of God there is closer to the EO concept than the RC is in some ways.
Those damned celiacs, I knew they were evil. But no matter. I'm sure that with adequate sum set aside to purchase an indulgence, they will reduce their punishment time in purgatory.
A ceremonial burning. Totem. Crucify a broom maybe. Or a vacuum cleaner.
Ladies, this a jubilee year so if you are Catholic there still is time to get your plenary indulgence.
Three ways to obtain your Indulgence: 1) Make a pilgrimage to Fatima, 2) Say a public prayer in front of a statue of Our Lady of Fatima on the 13th of each month through October 13, 2017. 3) the old, sick & disabled may say a prayer on the 13th of each h in private.
I think I'll go to Fatima.
That's not fair, you already are :D
Yes, it would seem you know very little about Islam.
Careful, you'll be diagnosed with Continentalism if you're not careful. How is Fink's book?
Nothing goes better with an RC than a moon pie.
Pope Francis put this on his hotel room door..."No Whining" under it
Yea, I am lucky. I have a good friend who almost died until they figured out he has celiac disease. He is happy about all the new gluten-free products on the market.
TL mentioned indulgences, you mentioned sacrifices & burning--ceremony. Indulgences are ceremonial, you say a prayer based on certain instructions, like say it in public on the 13th of the month (wear a sack cloth} or something along those lines.
Temporal relief from the purifying fires of Purgatory, offer good through November 26th, 2017.
http://www.12news.com/opinion/go-ask-ozzy/arizona-is-the-first-state-to-host-fda-trial-in-the-world-for-veterans-looking-at-cannabis-for-ptsd/455899227
She and I are the same age....scary shit
Is that what the universities are for? Creativity? Not dissection? "Intellectuals" dissect, and discuss grand ideas. Philosophers are the founders of the universities, and philosophers are "lovers of wisdom", not creators of wisdom. That's a sage. The values and ideas that found civilization on the individual level have always come from the bottom. The institutional structural values that shit all over those, imposed on society from the top are more what come from the "intellectuals". The word "creator" itself comes from "craftsman".
This is why Jesus was a carpenter. This is why Spinoza refused professorship positions, and Da Buddha wouldn't even step inside the palace when he went back to see his family.
Not because idiots can be wise too.
Oh, that's good, too much Erving Goffman on Asylums and Laing/Cooper anti-psychiatry as a youth, I have that same bug!
What's your view? Is all mental healthcare voodoo and word-magic is just better voodoo? Or do you think the scientific approach is actually detrimental? Or what?
Years ago I'd lost about 50 pounds and was skin and bones for unknown reasons. Could not even climb two flights of stairs without getting winded. It was a gluten allergy, this was before it was really well known. But now if i take a digestive enzyme (such as Glutenease) i can eat wheat, oats, barley etc. Don't know if it would work for everyone though. It was no fun watching people eat pizza and not be able to have any!
I had a very Laingian view and then in our mid-thirties my then-partner went crazy for quite a long time. Removal from a stressful work situation and medication eventually brought her round - although some medication made her worse and it needed family members to intervene with doctors to stop her being iatrogenically made madder - and love and friendship and a new start in another city made her a somewhat different person.
I was left then with the uncertain view I have now, 30 years on. I see some but only a little scientific 'progress' in relation to mental distress, taking the long view. After Foucault: we change our institutional arrangements but do we improve matters? Anti-depressants, for example, barely do better than placebos. CBT is still all the rage here but seems awfully short-term to me.
It was noticeable after my ex's crisis that I felt, and feel, ok with people in mental distress, and realise how friends often shrink from people behaving oddly. One mad friend settled for a life on benzodiazepine, another saw their madness as an encounter with devils and became Godly, and there was successful suicide. I didn't find mental healthcare helpful in my own darkest depression with the minor exception of a drink counsellor, and worked my own way out of it. My ex thinks her breakdown was both awful and the best thing to happen to her, it stopped her being a workaholic freak.
My view then, is a muddle of specifics. What's your view?
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCInRoNWuJqqQdcosJbn2YAUaZ5gMtA-k
Problem is some mentally ill folks don't have patient's rights due to impaired decision making. The community is involved now. It's values are in play. Since such bouts can be lethal, that has to be respected as the default.
Well, that raises too many questions for me! How am I to trust the very label 'mental illness' when in my lifetime homosexuality was taken to be a sign of it? When my aunt was made crazier by electric shock (that had at the time bugger all scientific justification) than she was already? I completely agree - that's what happened in my examples - that a person can cease to be capable of autonomous judgement in mental distress, as I would call it. I don't see that that implies that a 'scientific approach' to their problems will then be right: since something that was purportedly this approach has often, as I have personally witnessed, involved leaving crazy people to their own devices for hours with other dangerous crazy people while the nurses hide in the nurses' station, making people more pliable at no clear benefit to their mental health through medication, and leaving diagnosis to overworked junior doctors who see 'patients' for a very short time and tick boxes rather than deal with the whole person.
I knew I would rant at some point about this! It's upsetting, that's the trouble. These episodes of other people's madness, and my own depression, still trouble me in memory. Maybe it needs a thread of some kind. I am going to be away for a couple of weeks from next Saturday though.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lights-cameras-crispr-biologists-use-gene-editing-to-store-movies-in-dna1/
I've found it tricky on the iPad, but otherwise no, it seems fine to me.
Who watched the first trial and are you going to watch the hearing?
Is there anyone here that believes he didn't kill Nicole and Ron?
Is there anyone here who believes he did kill Nicole and Ron on the basis of evidence and analysis rather than hype or partisanship?
Not me.
I saw a documentary that presented new evidence that it may have been his son that did it. Have you heard of that theory? What do you think of it?
Does that mean you think he didn't kill her or you're just being honest about some bias?
I just never got the feeling that OJ himself actually wielded the knife that took Nicole and Ron's lives. Having said that, I do believe he was involved, just not the actual killer. I believe he was able to stand there in court and honestly say he did not murder Nicole or Ron because HE didn't.
I hadn't heard the theory about OJ's son having been the killer but it is an idea worth exploring.
Apparently he had a history of violence, a fractious relationship with Nicole and was a chef carrying his knives home on the night of the murder.
And, he did write a book called "If I Did It," where he basically admits to everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It
Note the size of the lettering on the book, with the word "If" written very small.
I've not really looked into the conspiracy theories because the only reason I would is if I thought there were some validity to the jury's verdict. If you should have some doubt about OJ's guilt, I doubt your doubt is the same doubt the jury had when they acquitted. I even doubt whether they had doubt. Their acquittal was based upon a feeling that black men have traditionally been denied fair trials and they felt there was a race motivated element in the investigation. They also felt that white men, particularly police officers (e.g. Furhman), were rarely held accountable for their crimes and dishonesty. The acquittal was vindication, as noted from the cheers from the African American community when the verdict was rendered.
The trial was a travesty. It was tried on the basis of race and it was decided upon the idea that injustice is the cure for injustice.
Well, Pablo Fenjves wrote it. He said it was based on discussions with O.J., whereas O.J.'s manager said that O.J. was just paid $600,000 to go along with it and wasn't involved at all.
That was the 2007 re-print after the Goldman family were granted the rights. The original had same-size text, but with the "If" in white and the "I Did It" in red. And that detail would have been decided by the publisher's marketing department anyway.
He was found guilty at the civil trial.
Conspiracy theory my ass. This was a serious documentary. I'll look up the link later.
Quoting Hanover
The book is dealt with in the doc: Nicole Brown's family got the rights and made the "if" small purposely. OJ wrote the book for money and maybe because he is an idiot but that doesn't make him a murderer + see @Michael's post above. As for Furhman, he was more than "dishonest", he is a disgusting racist prick who had a history of framing blacks, or "niggers" in his words, for stuff they didn't do (I've heard the tapes).
Quoting Hanover
You've interviewed them all I take it or you can just see deeply into their souls. :-}
Sure, I was aiming this at our PF audience mostly. I'm about 50/50 on it. I reckon there is at least a reasonable doubt. And if anyone wants to "blame" someone for the aquittal, blame the racist scumbags at the LAPD not the jury.
What I meant was that him being found guilty at a trial can be a non-hype and non-partisanship reason for us to believe that he's guilty.
Ah ok, kind of indirect though. I just get the impression that for most people it's my team vs your team BS with little regard for the details of the case
It seems to me that it was the defence and those who were most supportive of OJ who politicized the trial, thus opening it up to hype and partisanship. So I think the question can be put to the other side with equal pertinence.
He looked pretty guilty to me, but what do I know? The truth of what happened seems hopelessly obscure.
What about my belief that Ian Huntley was guilty of the Soham murders? I only believe that because he was found guilty at a trial.
I suppose it is indirect, but then a lot of our beliefs have indirect reasons like this. What evidence do I have for the Holocaust? History text books and teachers.
I wonder what the teams would be in this case. American football supporters vs everyone else?
Yep, both sides are at it. When I first heard he brought out that book I thought he was not only guilty but rubbing the victim's noses in it in a disgusting way. After watching the doc I think it's possible he's not a murderer but just horribly shallow and crass. But, yes, the truth is obscure.
Wasn't dismissing your point. So, are you an American football supporter or not?
No, it's a shitty rugby knock-off. ;)
Well, that's irrefutable :P
But rugby has no forward pass.
I see that you too have been greatly influenced by the defense tactic of placing the LAPD on trial.
Here's some evidence of his guilt:
•DNA analysis of the blood found in, on, and near Simpson’s Bronco reveal traces of Simpson’s, Nicole’s, and Robert Goldman’s blood.
•DNA analysis of bloody socks found in Simpson bedroom were proven to be Nicole’s blood.
•Simpson’s hair was found on Goldman’s shirt even though Simpson claims he never met Goldman.
•DNA analysis of blood on the gloves was proven to be a mixture of Simpson’s, Nicole’s, and Ronald Goldman’s. The gloves also contains particles of Goldman’s hair and carpet fibers from Simpson’s Bronco.
•Officers find arrest records indicating that Simpson was charged with the beating of his wife Nicole. Photos of Nicole’s bruised and battered face emerge. Jurors learn that Simpson was sentenced to 3 years of community service for this crime.
•Police discover the dome light in the Bronco has been removed. A search of the vehicle reveals the light was carefully placed under the passenger seat and was in good working condition. Puzzling blood smears on the passenger floorboard indicate that Simpson may have purposely removed the light and placed it under the seat before the murders. Then after the murders he may have unsuccessfully tried to find it to put it back in the socket. Police on stakeouts routinely remove the dome lights from their vehicles to avoid detection when the car doors are opened.
•was discovered that Nicole has one set of keys to her home missing. She had indicated to several family members and friends that she feared Simpson had stolen them to gain entry into her home. The keys were later found in Simpson’s home.
•Paula Barbieri indicated that she had broken up with Simpson the day of the murders. She said he seemed very disturbed at the news. Phone records prove that Simpson attempted to contact her from his Bronco’s cellular phone shortly before the murders.
•The left-hand glove found at Nicole’s home and the right-hand glove found at OJ’s home prove to be a match. They also prove to be Simpson’s size (despite Simpson’s theatrics in court, pretending that the glove did not fit). Even though Simpson claimed under oath that he did not own a pair of Aris Isotoner gloves, several media pictures emerged showing Simpson wearing these exact gloves.
•The bloody footprints are quite easily identified as being made from a pair of Bruno Magli shoes. These shoes are quite expensive and extremely rare. The size 12 prints match Simpson’s shoe size. Simpson claims under oath that he does not own any such shoes and in fact comments that he thinks “they’re ugly”. A photograph is introduced showing Simpson wearing the exact shoes at a NFL football game. Simpson claims under oath that the photo is a forgery and is backed up by an expert witness. Later, another photo taken by a different source, also shoes Simpson wearing the same shoes at another NFL football game.
•Friends and family indicate that Nicole was quite consistent in her claims that Simpson had been stalking her. She claimed that everywhere she went she noticed Simpson would be there, watching her. She is afraid because Simpson had already told her he would kill her if he ever found her with another man.
•Ross Cutlery provides store receipts indicating that Simpson purchased a 12-inch stiletto knife six weeks before the murders. A replica of the knife is purchased by the police and provide an exact match to the wounds on Nicole and Ronald Goldman.
But it does have real men.
Yes but can you convict someone of murder based upon their history of "insert here"?
For me? To flee with a friend in a time of crisis is one of two ways of handling instinctive responses of fight or flight. So I do not find it as nefarious as portrayed.
I believe you are talking about OJ's son here and this is the first I am reading about it. A teenager who was in emotional turmoil or experiencing existential angst might consider solving what they see as a 'problem' much differently than an adult who has had a lifetime of experiences to draw on.
and the Jester was on the sidelines in a cast
Dude, you can't just run when the shit hits the fan. You have obligations.
That is the thinking of a logical mind not a mind in crisis with hounds on his heels. He did eventually return home which is where most people who lead chase with the Police on their tail are trying to get to.
But you said you would think of running. Would you run?
I doubt anyone is going is going to be greatly influenced by your tactic of placing my opinion on trial though. Read my post above. I was influenced by listening to the tapes of Furhman which were played in the documentary. I also mentioned that up until recently I thought he was guilty, so obviously the defence tactics didn't work on me, duh. And both sides including the evidence above were presented in the doc.
Would I run if I thought (knew with helicopters overhead) that someone in a position of power had wrongly passed judgement on me and the situation was escalating at the pace it was?
Seeing as it is one of two options and there was no way I could match the force of those that would 'fight' to get me? Yes I would seriously consider fleeing.
I bet it would be hard to convince a jury of anything with a "thinker" or two on the panel. As I read what you wrote above, I still have doubt but if it is "reasonable" or not is up for debate. Does that make sense?
I don't like to think of people as totalities, or identities, but dynamic expressions of everything that a human being is capable of. So that I only try to see things in terms of actions, of what they're doing, without projecting this into the past or future as an identity, besides for in the sense of habituation and proclivities. Because someone has done something, or told you that they do something, I do expect that they at the very least consider it as a option whenever it becomes actionable in other contexts.
I don't know if there is more to anyone than that, but I find this to be grounding, and not too complex to deal with. The ego, and alter-ego, and then the symbolic-biological totality of being is too much for me to deal.
Sometimes I think I can. Other times I'm not so sure.
:: WARNING ::
@Michael
@Baden
;)
Not anymore. Banned.
They did deal with that but I'd have to look up the doc for details. It was about a year ago that I watched it and I haven't been able to find it yet. In any case, as I already said, the doc (which didn't itself come down on either side) put some doubts in my mind over my original thought that he was guilty. It doesn't mean I think he's innocent. I don't have a dog in the fight.
Neither do I. O.J. killed it.
:D
So banned for sending death threats (as well as repeated insults prior to this). All his other accounts were banned for circumventing the ban.
So, I guess he is a Nazi then? :)
Don't be so certain! You have been injected with a poison that takes a while to take effect. Like 4 or 5 years. I ran out of the powerful stuff. I have another Scarlet Carson, and this one is for you. 8-)
The point is that he thinks he is expressing his own intentions...and he is. Wild, huh?
>:O >:O >:O But it's not in the guidelines that it is illegal to send death threats O:)
The guidelines are more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.
I think I'm more of a vampire, or maybe a wight.
So straight to the murder without the threat? Most unfair.
This is an odd way to phrase a threat. As it turns out, you are alive now, in what was the future when he made the threat. So maybe he meant, "at some time in the future, you will not be alive," which is more of a truism than a threat. :s
I believe he was referring to Rob Zombie.
Banno would disagree. A red cup is a cup, and so a Rob Zombie is a Zombie.
I dunno. Ever read So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish? Wonko the Sane builds an Asylum around the world. Maybe this cupboard is a cupboard around the world, and so we're all in the cupboard and Rob Zombie is the only one outside it.
"Are we all in the closet?"
Hahaha >:O
I think he's an Asian/Korean guy by the way he uses the language, so this way of talking seems to be common with them
I seem to recall him saying he got his degree in Seoul?
Edit: Yep.
Hahaha I didn't know that, but I knew from the way he writes in English. Asians, and especially Koreans, have a typical way of writing that I'm good at spotting.
Quoting Michael
>:O How did you find his presence on other forums? Do you take part on them or?
Personally I haven't found any other good philosophy forums apart from this one and old PF. Online Philosophy Club, and the Philosophy Now forum aren't that great in terms of the ideas you find there.
I Googled "mosesquine".
This is actually quite common in the UK.
I've never heard it there apart from Asian and Korean people >:O
Ah maybe like that. But I guess kids these days with the internet discover swearing far earlier than we did ;)
What's the world coming to?
Didn't want you to feel left out! Also, it's a toxin, not a poison. Botox actually. In 4 or 5 years you will look 10 years younger. So you got that going for you. (L) Yours Truly, V. (for Vibrant and Vivacious)
Kill me now
How about I just send you my Mother In law eh?
Rotflmao lolololoLLlsssSStttoOOOOppp making me laugh so harddddd
lolololol Does core temperature count? LolololoLOLll
oh my that was so good I am cryin (Y)
*Some people said that was too young
Never give up on the idea of love~ (L)
I think you're in need of this wisdom, not Seneca's. :-* :D :P
Lol :D
All this talk of romance, I was thinking about you tonight as I baked for a monthly meeting tomorrow. Triple chocolate lava cupcakes. There is chocolate goo inside, man. Chocolate goo. Awesome.
I like the look of your cupcakes though.
If you don't stop being so funny, I'll be after you next. :P
Yes, there's something gentle and nurturing about him.
Well I think it's more interesting who was the first.
I'd say that it's a good thing to repel the bad people and a good thing to attract the good people, would you disagree with me? :)
That would be quite tragic >:O
Oh. Outstanding achievement! :P
Are you one of those girls who likes to travel to Syria and other dangerous places of the Middle East, has 2000+ Facebook friends, and posts tons of shit about her life on social media? :D
Sorry, I don't spend my time watching that kinda stuff, have no clue who that is ;)
Quoting TimeLine
Because I presume you're referencing some kind of actor/musician that would be known by people like you who spend their time reading celeb gossip, etc. :P - but I honestly have no clue who that is.
Yeah, here we go, the whole moral superiority complex by putting characteristics onto others you know nothing about. You're so boring.
I said "I presume", not that I'm sure of it. Perhaps I can help you with a pair of glasses? :D :D
Is there a way to photo-shop your body with Baden's head? If you could do that, and then sort of excuse yourself to give me a moment, it'd be much appreciated.
I'd also point out that my only feminine quality is my supple nipples. Other than that, I am ALL man.
I take it back.
That was like crazy painful the last time Baden and I did that. The cool breeze coming off the Mediterranean sea, the quart of cheap tequila, Baden's banana hammock, the cauterizer, the mangy one eyed dog. Oh, to be young again...
Getting hot in here... :-O
In other news, a neighbour's dog just attacked my dog (about five minutes ago) so I kicked it in the head.
(Am I turning you on yet Hanny?)
Not sure...
Quoting Baden
Hugs.
Which is creepier, perv Hanover or sensitive Hanover?
So what you're really asking is "which is creepier, Hanover or Tiff?"
My doggy is fine. Had I been wearing shoes the other doggy would very much not be.
Quoting Hanover
I don't know. Which tastes better, vomit or faeces? (For anyone other than you that would be rhetorical).
Did you seriously kick a dog?
Yep.
Haha, who's the charmer now @jamalrob?
There's enough in Tiff's mother in law for both of us I reckon. Agu's all yours. (Y)
That is one thing i learned during my job as a delivery person. I love dogs dearly, and generally would not hurt a fly and am pacifist vegetarian. But when making a delivery if a dog was about to charge at me, I would show him my boot. Meaning "now doggie, you really don't want to mess with bad Mr. Boot. And I don't want to mess with you. I know you are just doing your job". After once running from a dog, who of course caught up to me and scratched me bad, I'd learned the lesson. And never got again got hurt nor had to hurt any animal. Life can be ruff! :-!
Quoting Baden
>:O
So, you're saying that you've no real friends? Goodness, how sad, Michael :’(
Being honest it probably was gratuitous because the dog ran away first then I chased it and kicked it in the head as revenge. Well, whatever, it deserved it.
Next time you may get bitten man, I'd be careful with hitting dogs in the face if I were you >:O
Why, did your parents not let you have facebook until you were a grown up boy? X-) That seems to be quite a common trend nowadays...
Your story makes no sense. A dog comes at your hamster of a dog and attacks it, but somehow your hamster of a dog gets away unscathed. You run after the dog that has bitten and run, and you somehow get in front of it to kick its head.
Here's what really happened. Some dog started coming toward Sweet Pea. You yelled "No, bad dog" at the curious dog and yanked Sweet Pea back and picked her up and cradled her in your arms and told her she'd be ok. The other dog wandered away, but you were pissed that she scared Sweet Pea, so you stomped toward the other dog, kicking wildly in the air at it until one of your Crocs flew off into the flower bush. Your errant shoe grazed the other dog's back. You then came home with the bad ass story of how you heroically saved Sweet Pea by kicking the shit out of a charging wolf.
>:O I don't want to mention any names now!! :P
July 20, 1969: One Giant Leap For Mankind
No, no, it was "octopus": an inquiring and critically thinking octopus. Democracy won't work without one. Schools need to do more to provide one.
What's a "croc"? Some kind of golfing shoe? Like I play golf. Pffft. And my dog's name is 'Bella' not 'Sweet pea'. See, your story fell apart as bad as the case against OJ.
Too bad. I am single. And cute. But hey, if you have gerontophilia (or just bad taste in regards to the former) by all means.
>:O >:O >:O
I have a friend who is exactly like you - she travels to the most dangerous places (I have no idea why anyone would go there - such as Syria, Iran, etc.), posts tons of stuff on FB, tells people stories from her travels, bakes stuff and is overall a very big mouth >:O . It's almost as if you two are identical people...
Oh wow, you've found a way to smell me through the internet? Quite cool! >:O
>:O >:O >:O >:O
Quoting TimeLine
Oooh how strong 8-)
I'll be at a bar called Le Chica de Ayer tomorrow night in central Denia. It would be great if you could come and show me your cupcakes (or muffins).
As well as friends and family, I also use Facebook to follow interesting journals, newspapers, political groups, science stuff, arty stuff, etc. I find it's pretty good for all that.
My scrumptious cupcakes are for my eyes only, buddy.
Quoting jamalrob
Me too. I only have 80 or so on my page, most of whom I met while overseas or my close friends. No family, but hey, Satre would shrug.
It was worth a try.
Quoting TimeLine
But you have 100 likes? Yeah right >:O >:O >:O >:O
Once you setup that book shop, she will be able to buy your books in exchange for cakes, how about that? >:) (I would let her do that too, but I'm afraid she'd poison those cupcakes >:O )
What video? I haven't posted a video
This is called proof of bias ;)
I don't really get where your comment is coming from but okay... lol
Quoting jamalrob
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Quoting jamalrob
Sure, you can meet people online and make friends too, who said you can't? :s
Quoting jamalrob
In my opinion yes, because that way you have access to more people and more easily than you would otherwise. It's good for doing many things, including testing your ideas, interacting with different cultures, making friends, etc.
Sure, but on facebook you don't really meet new people. The way it's formed, you're kind of restricted to your friends' network (and their friends). It's not like forums.
I think facebook is really bad for teenagers, since they end up wasting a lot of time there, competing for who has the nicest pictures, and all kinds of bullshit. They're not using it in any productive manner.
But I think your victory is illusory, for it does not last, but quite the contrary, it is forgotten by all - it is pure ego, lacking any objective success. Whereas that little worm may actually be a sleeping dragon, and once he awakens >:) then empires shall crumble and new ones shall arise... Everyone shall forget the worm, just like everyone forgets the larva once the butterfly is born out of it..... It's easier to win when everyone thinks you're a loser.
Quoting Agustino
and then:
Quoting Agustino
So, I say lived experience is the way and you say the above and yet I am illusory?
Quoting Agustino
I agree, but like with everything, it is how you use it and there are a number of pages that connect you with photographers and astronomers for instance. Me and my close friends share only to each other. Instagram is definitely much worse than Facebook.
How would I know, I haven't bothered to even sign up there :P
Quoting TimeLine
Lived experience is nothing. People don't actually control their fate and destiny. There are few moments in life which permit you to actualise your destiny, the rest is pretty much wasted effort. But the one thing I've noticed is that when those moments really come, you know it - you're no longer wondering about it, but acting.
I don't know if you're illusory, what do you think, are you?
:-O That's very strange, I remember seeing that one very long ago, but don't remember that scene >:O My favorite Alien movie though was the first one - that was quite good, a great movie actually.
Why do you want to escape from it? It's who you are. Things aren't bad in themselves, but it's your judgement that makes it so - actually society's judgement that filters through, cause quite frequently we judge ourselves through the eyes of other people...
Then how do you know about likes?
Quoting Agustino
How is lived experience nothing? You contradict yourself repeatedly, where you say that people don't control their fate and yet you are acting on your destiny? That 'acting' is exercising free-will, you are consciously choosing to act when a determined circumstance enables you to.
I am not illusory. I know that the last few days I have been silly because I have been thoroughly overworked, quite literally I am doing two jobs at the moment and working 13 hour days and so coming on here to be silly helps me relax and forget work. But, in reality, I was once illusory. I forgot God and I tumbled down a very dark rabbit hole. It took years to escape, so I know the difference. If you actually knew me and not TL, you would appreciate the person that I am as most who do know me do.
Because I've used Facebook before? I said I haven't signed up on Instagram btw above... :-}
And someone could know about Facebook likes without having used Facebook. For example I knew for a long time from friends about Facebook, and I've watched people use it, while never having used it myself.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, maybe. I don't know if choosing is the right word, you kind of feel compelled to act at certain times if you're in touch with yourself.
Quoting TimeLine
Well you don't really I'm afraid. But you can fulfil your destiny but the destiny is pre-established.
Quoting TimeLine
Because it's ultimately irrelevant in fulfilling your destiny.
Quoting TimeLine
Right...
What grandeur are you talking about? You yourself said I am a meekly worm, so what grandeur can I even aspire to? :D
Jamal, can we get a facepalm emoticon?
Haven't read that thread I'm afraid. You didn't give me permission to comment in it, so why bother? :P
Yes, but didn't you call yourself a dragon that shall crumble empires? What, when you move out from your mumsie' basement and start cooking your own dinner?
No, for if I had called myself that, then I'd be walking around with a target on my back, just like you are :)
So what are you suggesting?
God...? Oh, I remember him! I encountered Him some time after the mad tea party. Yes, it's all coming back to me now. Off with their heads! Drown them all! Fire and brimstone!
My conception of God is very different to the religious one, as Augustino pointed out, though I refuse to be likened to Jordan Peterson. Think Kant and Spinoza. I especially do not agree with any anthropomorphic projections or any trinity or personification, solely the existence of God.
Quoting DP Brah
Does that sound like me? No. Also DP Brah opened an account last year, not when I took my hiatus. Not to mention that his first thread was way before my absence.
Quoting TimeLine
As I said, you wear a big target on your back. It's not my fault that you go around like that ;)
Right, so God is an empty abstraction for you... You don't believe in God, you believe in an abstraction.
Also like for poor Kant, your God is a slave to reason and logic - rather than a Master.
Quoting Agustino
Hmm, why do you say this? Can you expand on why you think I have a big "target" that you have said multiple times now?
Nice try.
Quoting TimeLine
I will not respond to any of your enquiries until you release those exchanges that you referenced with DP Brah publicly so that we can know what the hell you're talking about.
(Y)
I just don't think your statement is all that accurate, at least not for me. Out of my 70 friends on Facebook, only two are from my life before the Internet. The 68 others are from our old 'thinkers' sandbox, some of their spouses and the rest I have met on Facebook through common interests. It is an amazing place to meet people you might never come across in life to life interaction and maybe wouldn't have taken the time to say hello, let alone invest the time in a friendship.
For what it is worth Agustino, I have never thought you were anyone other than who you are. We all know there are really good tech folk in here that can run ISP addresses from across the pond. So fear not mate as Yaha could easily dismiss any suggestion.
It's not that I'm afraid since I've only used probably two IPs to access this website for the past year, so it would be impossible for me to be connected with DP Brah in any way, shape or form.
However, it is incredibly disrespectful for someone to do what she's doing, and it's not the first time someone did that on here. Mongrel also publicly did that - then she came back to apologise, in private of course. It's time that TimeLine learns a lesson from this paranoid behaviour of hers, she should really be ashamed of this kind of behaviour.
What does having two IP's mean?
It means that he could log in at work under the same login name as he uses at home but it is likely handled by different Internet Service Providers. I likely have at least 2 as well in the last year. If you travel, it would change say in Hawaii.
Probably time for me to leave or for you two to take this shit flinging into private, possibly with a moderator.
I will admit to nothing unless you first score a goal with a football made of apologies. I give you my word that I won't move the goalposts. (I'll order one of my subordinates to do so).
Quoting Agustino
And then you'd never have to answer that tricky question!
She'll release them when Trump releases his tax returns and Hanover releases his menagerie of lady boys.
Honestly, I've only seen toddlers wear those and had no idea what they were called. Now everything makes sense, you think I am either 3 years old or a hobbit.
Of course I remember. It was me, duh.
Word on the street is that an owl was paid handsomely by an anonymous benefactor immediately after the events took place.
I accuse you of being my kids when they were little.
Speaking of my boot, excuse me for a moment as the real jamalrob is knocking.
Our cover is blown Eric. No need to continue the pretense.
And of the lesser offence of animal cruelty.
Will, was it?
I doubt they're business partners any more. I seem to recall the other guy saying he pushed for the purchase. $20k (?) down the drain.
They are better left intact on the live animal if the intended purpose is as you suggest. That's my experience at least.
What's even the difference between a muffin and a cupcake? There must be a difference because I like muffins but not cupcakes, :o
Lookee here, Michael's got a real life girlfriend. Sounds like our self avowed bachelor might be getting hitched up soon.
We've been together for three and a half years. Catch up.
I was saying "same" to preferring muffins, not to not understanding the difference. ;)
Yeah, well I don't pay attention to the life and times of Michael, considering I've got my own drama to keep up with. Anyway, invite me to the wedding. I'll definitely come.
You're not missing much anyway.
I flirt more like a Klingon.
Beween whom?
Im just teasing.
Yeah, but you aren't supposed to catch on to that, so as I gets away with it.
Teenagers Recorded a Drowning Man and Laughed
Niraj Chokshi
Jul 2017
The New York Times
Aged 14-18, face no charges per se.
Parents failed them? School/teachers? Society?
Hopefully they can still grow up to be empathic, caring human beings, with some moral awareness.
On the other hand, they might grow up to be President.
Gut-wrenching story. Like a Shakespearian tragedy, or something. In an instant, with a bad choice, their lives are defined forever even if they escape jail. The drowned man did not escape, so neither will they. The teens could have been heroes if they had tried, even unsuccessfully, to save the man. Maybe they were trying to impress each other by being cold and mocking. Maybe the marijuana they were supposedly smoking affected their judgment. But in any case, the "death selfie" video they took as a trophy is now the damning evidence. A tragedy all around.
Yeah, sounds like the cruelty that is typical of us human beings. The point really is that anyone is capable of such cruelty - I can see myself as a teenager how I would have thought it fun to film it. Unless one is aware of the evil in their own hearts, they stand no chance to control it. Evil comes from the heart, only ever watchful can we prevent it.
It's useless to sit around like a spectator pointing fingers. We have all failed them, because that's the culture we have created. Who else has made bravado and impressing your peers cool, rather than shunned? Who else typically goes around promoting the idea that happiness is something external, or that happiness is pleasure? They took pleasure in filming it. They were merely following the teachings of their professors - us. It's the same thing with cheating. People are surprised their spouses cheat on them, but who made it cool and powerful for a man to have sex with as many women as possible in the first place? :s
Human beings are really so stupid, they lift up the dust, and then complain that God hasn't given them a clear vision.
Or like the situation from Dostoyevsky's book - The Brothers Karamazov. When Smerdyakov tells Ivan that it was he who told him that God is dead, and there is no morality (and therefore everything is permitted) - so why is he upset that he killed his father? He was just a loyal student - Ivan was his professor! Because Ivan loved humanity generally, but failed to love any particular person, even his own father.
What does it say - "no one is good, except God alone" and "there is no one righteous, not even one".
Blaise Pascal:
Yeah whatever. I'm pretty sure I'm fully innocent in this case.
Actually, I'm pretty sure you yourself have at least at one point in your life spread the kind of irresponsible ideology that can culminate in such behaviour. We all have. I'd be very surprised if you haven't :P
Anyway, should my prior stupidity be the cause of those teens' behavior, then I plead innocence for my prior stupidity as that was caused by someone else too, ad infinitum. Everyone is responsible and no one is responsible in such a universe. It's those sorts of theories that are truly the death of us. Call me old school, but I say the buck stops with the decision maker. Village smillage.
I wouldn't say this is quite true, because the teens in question are not innocent, they are also responsible. In fact they are directly responsible - but the rest of us are accomplices - by and large (indirectly responsible). I'm just saying that we're hypocrites when we look just at them, and not also at ourselves.
The point I'm driving is that we should never consider ourselves as completely blameless for their wrongs. I agree that they hold the greatest blame, everyone has free will and is capable of making their own choices in the end. And sure, in practical and legal matters the buck will have to stop with the decision maker partly because we take everyone to have free will, and because it would be too complicated and prone to error if we were to settle things in a different manner.
Quoting Agustino
Take that American flag out of your ass and stick a TPF flag up there. We're not obscure, we're number one! T! P! F!, T! P! F!
Ok, how about, we're not number one, we're obscure! T! P! F! T! P! F! Does that work? Just trying to get a chant going here.
Oh, I was just giving my favorite one, but I'm always up for a good chant -- or drum circle. Any of that, as long as I get to be involved.
"We're obscurely number one, and definitely not the worst", fits it all in there.
8-) (Y)
On the contrary, he demonstrated only his black and white thinking. In the end we make our own decisions/choices, but that isn't to say we can't be influenced.
Except that he's actually right! Nobody has said this, and it should have been said long long ago, speaking here about fake news.
Quoting Sapientia
Trump is starting to replace the media, that's true, but Trump isn't the media, he's the media's undertaker if anything.
He's actually saving the US economy that way (well at least Twitter, if it wasn't for Trump they'd probably be bankrupt already >:O >:O ).
Well, there's this. WISDOMfromPO-MO is accusing people of being inflammatory against monogamous sex, and Agustino is claiming that monogamous sex is better than any other kind.
Whereas I think all sex is equal.
I believe it's a matter of personal preference.
Obviously, you're lucky enough to never have met any of my former girlfriends.
ba-dump...tish. Goodnight folks, you've been great! X-)
I have. That's why they're your former girlfriends.
I'm devastated. Stealing one girlfriend, sure. Two, well it happens. But all three? You sir, have the ethics of Mogolian post-modern nihilist! Well, I guess it isn't too surprising since they all hated my writing. One of them referred to it as The Critique of Pure Bullshit. X-)
Although when Facebook designed chatbots to negotiate with one another, and the bots made up their own language, Facebook turned them off.
Elon Musk criticizing someone for not being scientifically inclined is rich even for Musk...
In other billionaire news everyone's favorite continues to run a many-ringed circus from atop the bloated corpse of American dignity. A lot of people thought I was nuts when I predicted that Don would get impeached or resign around a year and a half into his presidency, and now that we're 6 months in I feel like he's right on track.
Has anyone else come around to the possibility yet? According to internet search history interest seems quite high...
Mere attention grabbing. Typical of the fake science community - which quite sadly is quite a lot of science today. They research only what some want them to research, and they produce the results that they are asked to produce - or otherwise any sensational result.
The author's credentials here.
I see. Do you expect me to be impressed or?
"Expertise" is fake. Experts are dumber than you expect. You have no idea how many doctors I've met who are dumb, arrogant, and don't actually know what they're talking about. Just because they have a few social accolades is not enough to impress me. Social accolades are fake expertise.
I want actions.
It would be if it was a deductive argument.
Quoting Agustino
Of course. As it's you, I'd expect you to judge them. Just don't expect me to believe your little anecdote.
You have no idea how many of your posts are dumb, arrogant, and don't know what they're talking about. Your Trumpian invocation of "fake" to dismiss anything you don't like does you no favors, and further cements your status as a dogmatic, demented lunatic who nevertheless still thinks that he's smarter than everyone else.
I know you think that I'm part of anti-Augustino cabal, and that this post is probably yet another brick in that particular wall. So let me invite you to fuck off and seek life elsewhere.
Anyway, it would be ridiculous to think that a few examples of mistakes means that experts, or doctors specifically, are dumb or don't know what they're talking about. They most likely know more about their profession than others, and especially laymen. There might be some doctors who you've met who are an exception, but I'm obviously not going to lap up your side of the story, especially since you're not even a doctor, and you seem quick to judge, and you seem biased against experts of any kind.
I don't actually think that I'm smarter than everyone else, so I have no idea where you're taking this from. But I do think that I'm smart enough to think through things that other people say, including experts, by myself. Do you think that's wrong?
Quoting Arkady
Yes, I'm not actually surprised that my posts don't know what they're talking about, since they have no capacity for knowledge ;)
Quoting Arkady
Ooooh how tough you are - so strong.
Quoting Arkady
Yeah why don't you stop reading my posts then? :s Are you incapable to control yourself, or what's the matter there?
I largely have stopped reading your awful posts, though I plan to make that total and permanent. (My request for an "ignore" function was motivated solely by a desire not to read your posts. So...congratulations?)
And I would invite my fellow TPF'ers to not feed the quasi-trolls and ignore your nonsense. But that's their decision.
That's proof that coke doesn't have beneficial effects in case of stomach ache. But a doctor with a very good reputation recommended that to me a couple of years ago when I had to go to hospital because of a horrible stomach infection (which I will add she did ZERO to help me). And that's just one example. Another time, doctors wanted me to have a surgery for an infection and I had to literarily search for a doctor and force him to agree to give me antibiotics instead to cure it - and it worked. So no - I have little trust for these so called experts. I have to judge what they say with my own brain.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, undoubtedly they do. It's better to go to a doctor than to a lay person for treatment. But what I'm saying is that you shouldn't trust what they say, rather you should be able to judge what advice they give you with your own head. If you die or suffer the doctor doesn't give a fuck about you. You're just another patient among hundreds of others. Doctors are good at applying procedures, not tailoring treatments to the patient.
Oh yes, please hurry, because you'd do me a great favour by freeing me of having to deal with a character like you. Pretty much the best gift you could offer me! (Y)
Quoting Arkady
Yes, you can invite them, but so far it seems to me that I have more friends around here, and more people that respect me, than you do. Of course that doesn't actually mean anything, because it's not a competition, but it just says something about the chances of success of your invitation.
I have probably more than 10 such experiences personally, and I know many people who have been harmed by doctors rather than helped. There's a lot of research about this, which isn't often shown to most people, but you can look it up yourself.
Yes, maybe I didn't express myself right, or rather I didn't explain in detail what I meant. Suffice to say that when I see a study like the one Cavacava posted, skepticism is the first reaction. I can almost bet you that by 2060 we'll still have reproductive capacity, contrary to what the study suggests. In fact, the author and his study will most likely be forgotten by then. Even if today they have "social status" and accolades, and some people will be fooled to believe them.
Being an alarmist is good - it means you get more funding as a researcher. These are strategic marketing plays, to get exposure to their research, get more citations (that's how academics keep score), and get funding. Nothing more.
Yeah, and this leads to anti-vaxxers, homeopathy, faith healers, and other alternative (i.e. fake) medicine.
Yes, I think so. The rest of what you say in the reply partly quoted above is much less controversial and disagreeable. I am similarly sceptical - who wouldn't be? The harder part is showing [i]how[/I] the expert has got it wrong, assuming he has.
Only if you assume that vaccination is always harmful. Have you determined that statistically? You should judge that by yourself, by all means, not by what your doctor says. As per my research, some vaccinations are essential - such as against polio - and some others, such as those against the common flu, they should be avoided.
Quoting Sapientia
You'd be surprised how many people trust everything their doctors tell them...
Quoting Sapientia
What do you mean showing "how"? In some cases it's not possible to show "how", because it's an empirical matter (surgery v. antibiotics for example). In other cases you have to point to lack of scientific studies - as in the coke example. But the thing is it's pointless to argue with doctors, they're exceedingly arrogant, and get very easily offended if you prove them wrong (how dare you question a doctor?!). You have to tread carefully, and be a little bit of a snake, pretending you accept what they tell you, and then look for a different doctor :P
I was once misdiagnosed with asthma. I now think that it was more likely a panic attack, although I'm not an expert.
Also, turns out I'm an owl. I don't know how he missed that one. Instead he just referred me to a psychiatrist. Crazy right? What a dumb dumb!
Quoting Agustino
Use your imagination. If you were to claim that he's got it wrong, but you can't show how, then I couldn't believe you.
One can show that they are wrong, without showing how they are wrong. For many matters in medicine we just have an empirical understanding and only theoretical guesses about how and why it works.
Yes, he was actually dumb. Just a person capable to apply procedures, but not capable to do anything more than what the books say. A good doctor is distinguished by his capacity to see more than what the books tell him, such that he can figure out what is the case. This is developing an intuition for the human body.
I can't think how you'd be able show that he's wrong without being able to show how in at least some minimal way.
For example the doctor says that a certain problem/condition can only be treated by surgery, and you treat it by antibiotics. You've shown him that the treatment works (or at least worked on you), but you haven't shown HOW it worked, except by speculating, just as much as he was speculating when he said surgery is necessary.
(Y) (Y) (Y)
But it could be, or at least could have been, so that's not a counterexample. It could be explained how the antibiotics treated you. I don't know how you'd get around that unless you were to claim that it was a miracle or an irresolvable mystery, which it almost certainly is not.
In principle it could, but there's a lot of things we don't know about the mechanisms of how some of the treatments work. It's a fact that you don't need to understand the mechanism (how) of something to prove that it works. If putting honey on a wound helps heal it faster, that's just a fact, even if we were to not understand how. We can prove it by applying the honey and seeing the effects. But we don't necessarily understand the how - the mechanics behind it.
Ok, but that's digressed from what we were talking about originally. There's this expert who has predicted from his research that such-and-such will happen. You were dismissive, at least initially, but the burden would lie with you. To be sceptical is one thing, to be dismissive is another.
Yes, I am actually dismissive, and I am absolutely entitled to be, since his studies in no way indicate that by 2060 reproductive capacity will be all but gone. He doesn't even fucking understand WHY reproductive capacity is currently diminishing, how can he predict what will happen by 2060? Clearly he just wants more money to fund his research, and more people to cite him, hence he's making a lot of noise. Not impressed. I wouldn't give him a second glance. Folks like him are two a dozen.
I think that a decline in fertility caused by this can only go so far though; once the limit of our medicinal capacity is reached, the forces of natural selection continue to act on the human population...
Rather one needs to know why something is happening in order to be able to predict future repercussions of it (especially if those repercussions are in 50ish years from now).
Quoting Sapientia
There is a difference between using a trend to predict what will happen tomorrow, and using a trend to predict what will happen in 50 years. The latter is much more uncertain, and requires a lot more evidence and understanding. Thus it is unreasonable to use a trend today to predict something 50 years from now when you don't even understand what factors govern the data recorded today. It is also unreasonable to expect that reproductive capacity will go down to zero... you're extending the trend into regions that haven't been observed, and actually into LIMIT regions - there's no reason in the first place to expect limit regions to behave as continuum positions do. Boundary conditions are known in science to be difficult to account by theories in general anyhows.
Unfortunately the crooked media is not worried about what he said, but rather that he said it on the record. #hypocrites.
Sure, the media are the bad guy here...Anyway, aren't you worried that he said it on the record? One of your major bugbears is the deterioration of public morality, no? Do you want your kids growing up talking about sucking their own cocks? At least Hollywood doesn't pretend to be representing the President.
I think he's more thick than in the thick of it. :)
My major bugbear is that he said it at all, it would have been equally bad if he had said it off the record. And that guy actually calls himself a Catholic.....
What does that make the Democratic party?
>:)
Walk head down in a rain storm.
I've always thought about taking a sky diving lesson.
-Wiki article on megafauna
I haven't quite figured out who you are yet but Thank You budda as I try to remind myself to keep going but the storm has been so low, for so long, I need to be wrung out of the stress level to go further. Have you ever felt that way?
So I need to think of doing something I might never do but because of realities constrictions that logically must be factored in?
I knew someone who did it. He said it was amazing, it blew his mind. It can be done, they have facilities everywhere. It's getting there.
Mom, how could you forget me?! I am the one and only Slyster Poptart! (Heister Eggcart)
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
If you wring your clothes without a fire to dry them after, you'll have used up all that energy for nothing. But, maybe a quick rest under a nearby tree can be as good as trudging through the rain looking for the fire.
So she can feel the world pelting down on her....
The party not of Jesus, duh.
Yes a change of scenery would help and the only special place I like to visit is Chicago and that is to see my Dad while he is still with us.
To go somewhere alone other than back home? That I would have to ponder on.
Australia I guess to see a friend who came to the states to see me and I might be able to sweet talk Banno's better half for a cup of tea.
That is quite profound budda for someone taught me a while ago that the love and fire I am looking for is actually within myself. Maybe that is what I would find resting under that tree...
*sarcasm included
I don't know how anyone can actually believe that Trump knows what he's doing. The White House is the fucking omnishambles.
No, it is.
Great news! That guy... seriously. Where did they take him from? >:O
And to think that such a character was permitted to accumulate ~$80 million...
Also heard Veep is good.
Nah.
North rim of the Grand Canyon. Smell the juniper. Gaze off into oblivion. Wish I was there now. :)
There are little cabins up there. Have you been?
And the Mooch lasted a mere 11 days as White House Communications Director, which itself is probably some sort of record (I'm also now reading that he had to be escorted out of the WH after a conflict with Trump's new COS - is this a Jerry Springer episode?). Michael Flynn was ousted shortly into the start of this administration, and AG Sessions looks to be next on the chopping block.
Something is rotten in Trumpland, it seems. Not that any of this chaos has anything to do with Trump's management style or personality, of course. It's always someone else's fault (Mexicans, fraudulent voters, "fake news", and the usual suspects).
He's his own worst critic.
I can smell the wet juniper, see them against the stoic canyon walls with nothing but space. I have been to the canyon but we camped in tents outside of the park itself. The Grand Canyon was almost an optical illusion for me because when I stood at the edge, what I saw before me was the same as the pictures in books. Not because it wasn't beautiful but there was an awe of how something so real could look so fake. I felt like I was standing in a picture, it is almost too big for the mind to take in at once.
I am not sure how into AZ you got but there is a place called Oak Creek Canyon between Flagstaff and Sedona and is so beautiful, huge red rock formations, full of Vortexes and energy with a small creek that brings life to the surroundings. Gorgeous, simply energy feeling, an hour away from our ranch, the most beautiful place on Earth and where we were married. When visitors ask where to go, I always tell them that I personally have experienced both and Oak Creek Canyon wins my vote for one of the 7 Wonders of the World. ;)
I stayed at that Dutchman's place at the foot of the Superstitions once...I'll tell you about it sometime.
Who would have thought?
Maybe I should start drinking the Kool-Aid?
If only it'd said "covfefe"...
That wig looks crazily real. Jumps off my screen.
Why not? It's been done before: Obama flipped some longtime Republican voters, just as Trump flipped some longtime Democratic voters. Though people do tend to vote along party lines and close ranks behind their team (even with a bad candidate) it's not as if every single voter from the two major parties votes exactly in lockstep with their party in every election. There are some persuadable voters.
Third parties in American politics tend to either remain obscure or to be absorbed into one of the 2 major parties (which is why you didn't see a Tea Party candidate on the ballot next to the "D" and "R" candidate).
What usually happens is that the left runs out of ideas and thinks by calling the right racists, Nazis, and Klansmen that will somehow reverse the current sweeping away of Democratic seats.
Why is that? Because they're too biased to listen to reason? Because there are no reasons to favour Democrats over Republicans? Or because political affiliation has little to do with reason are more to do with reasonless values?
Yes.. do that. Tell me before you sell it.
Thank you Mongrel for making my day more bearable. Hopefully one day I can return the favor.
I'm not a Democrat, so why would I care? But yes, every time someone points to a fault with Republicans, it's "Oh, but the Democrats... " . Inabilty to contemplate not being on one of two teams = SAD!
I get a little stronger every day.
I am my father.
That's a really complicated formula. So many variables.
That's kind of the point. Anyway, it's probably not worth further argument.
Is that even possible?
No.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
All things are possible through Christ who strengthens me...or something like that, right?
What did they do with the fertilized embryos they made? Uh...
Would've been a better name... :(
The clown has been booted out of the circus by the ringmaster.
No, it's 42.
My new name is nonsense, too!
I had assumed that "Heister Eggcart" was a play on medieval theologian "Meister Eckhart."
It was. But stealing eggs hasn't anything to do with Meister Eckhart, :)
I thought it was a play on Easter Egg basket , the H being silent .
:D (Y)
I'm pretty Puritan and don't really follow gender derived euphemisms; but, that could work.
1. Utter Cunt
2. Puritanicus Giganticus
3. Uncle Toot Toot
I feel we haven't narrowed down a winner from the list yet. Keep it going.
Facebook also had a couple of rogue chatbots that developed their own language, and Facebook also took them down.
Re-education
In addition to the previously mentioned MasterDebater, the random name generator has spit out the following: alienlifeform, gogo bootz, Magilla Gorilla, tangerine man, stoptheworld, zyphoid toenails, charming groundhog, grasscutter, Tango!, sheeplover99, louts zoo, boo duh!, whatwoodjeebusdo, thunder_thighs...
I would be honored and slightly surprised if anyone chose one of these names.
If you break wind (read fart) enough everyone will be scared of you.
If any moderator can change my name to that, that would be wonderful.
Now, you shall know me as "Posty-Mcpost-face". Beware.
Fine. You only get one chance to change your name though. So you're stuck with it. Enjoy.
Thanks, much appreciated!
No worries, Posty.
Also, the religions that came after likely evolved from it, so over time Enlil became Zeus. Just like Yahweh perhaps originated from El, the Canaanite god.
No refunds apparently, you break it you pay for it.
I can take out the hyphens if you want.
I'd appreciate that Baden, thanks!
Are you still working in China teaching ESL?
I'm in Thailand at the mo'. Running my own little thing. I get around :)
Sounds awesome. I bet the greenback goes a lot further too thereabouts.
You've finally decided to go out on your own too? Excellent!
Should be Posty McPostface.
Oh yeah, you can be sure it does.
Transitioning. Want a job where I work in the evenings, so I can do photography during the day.
Matter of taste, no?
Ahh, I see! Are you looking for part-time work then?
No, I mean I'm starting my own business so I can do that, but I have a few months left at the job I do now (and which I'm on holiday from at the moment).
Ahh, I see! What work do you currently do? Is it related to photography too, or different?
Totally unrelated. Teach academic English for a British uni with a foreign campus. Business is editing /academic consultancy for Masters/PhD students.
That can be quite profitable if you get the rich students to pay :P . Do you do things like dissertation writing, paper writing too, or only honest stuff like editing, proof reading, grammar, etc.? :P
I stick to the straight and narrow. Plenty of business there. And a lot less hassle.
>:O I might actually have experience with that work >:)
Quoting Baden
But lower pay :P . Although it is true that for dissertation + paper writing it's hard to find staff to work for you (since typically you're looking for quite qualified people Masters and up).
Not my experience. It's a lot quicker and easier to edit, proofread and advise than research and write from scratch, but you can still charge a good rate. Anyhow, the latter is just not an option I'd consider.
Fair enough!
Quoting Baden
Is it because of academic honesty considerations or?
Sure. I teach classes on plagiarism and police it, and think it's a bad thing. Not even getting to the point where you bother to plagiarize is even worse.
Okay, it's interesting to discuss the ethics of this. To me, educational institutions always appeared very hypocritical with regards to plagiarism. I never plagiarised anything myself just because it's not worth living with the anxiety of it. But why would paying someone to write your essay for school be wrong? Technically that's not plagiarism, because it is the person's work - cause he effectively buys author rights to it from the person who writes it. And we all know that school, in this modern day and age, is all about the piece of paper you get at the end of it. If it wasn't for that paper, nobody would attend educational institutions (well almost nobody - there will always be people who honestly want to learn, but they're a minority. I've been a student and I can say that probably 60% of students cheat in one way or another. If educational institutions were to actually apply their rules, they'd be throwing away 60% of students - but they don't, they're hypocrites).
It's like if I pay you to write a book for me. You can ghostwrite it, under the condition that I have full author rights to it afterwards. If I then publish that, I haven't plagiarised. That's how the world actually works. Trump probably paid someone to write his books for example.
But I would agree that even if plagiarism isn't wrong, intellectual dishonesty would still be wrong. So it would always be wrong to hand in a work that isn't yours in an academic setting. But what is the problem with writing the essay for someone else? Why would that be wrong? They're doing a wrong, you're just doing the work they asked you for. You're not submitting it on their behalf. So you're not being academically dishonest in that case are you?
"Sure. I teach classes on plagiarism and police it, and think it's a bad thing. Not even getting to the point where you bother to plagiarize is even worse."
See what I did there?
Academic qualifications can lead to jobs where those holding them need to know the stuff they're supposed to know otherwise everyone suffers. The severity of the issues caused may vary across disciplines but it's obviously important to society as a whole that folks can actually do what they're supposed to; and just in terms of fairness that those who make an effort get rewarded proportionately and not professionally leapfrogged by those who don't. Undermine that and you get a race to the bottom. An analogy would be what happened in professional cycling. Cheating became necessary to win and it ruined the sport for a period. Were the doctors culpable for facilitating this? Yes, of course. And similarly for academic cheating of the sort you described, the writers are facilitating an undesirable and unfair situation so they're culpable. Aiding and abetting maybe.
The penalty for that type of thing is give me all your meth.
But those who do the work themselves, get rewarded by knowing more anyway. If there's some buffoons who choose not to learn, what's the problem? I think people no longer perceive virtue to be a reward in itself, rather we think virtue is not a reward, but a curse, something that holds you back. That's why we need to punish such plagiarism.
Quoting Baden
Yeah, but let's be real, you have so much supervision you're effectively a slave when you start out in a job. And most of real work is actually quite a bit different from what you learn in University anyways. At least it has been so in my experience.
Quoting Baden
But the person who buys the paper could use it for other ends, not submitting it. They could for example use it to write their own essay, based on the research someone else did for them.
I think educational institutions give themselves too much importance in today's age, and they no longer do the job they used to. A doctor going out of university 200 years ago would almost be ready to go out and practice. A doctor going out of today's university has to wait and slave away for 10+ years before he can actually be a proper doctor. It's really unfair. Universities have relaxed their standards - they allow all the idiots inside who should never be there in the first place just to get more students and more money - and so the quality of education has also degraded. University isn't as intense as it used to be.
But during the height of the drug use, amazing records were being set, and it was really entertaining and good times were had by all.
Admittedly though, I've never felt more let down than when I just stood beneath Lance Armstrong all teary eyed, pulling on his spandex pant leg, repeating over and over, "Say it ain't so mister, say it ain't so."
There may come a time when Lance is desperate enough to want you to pull on his spandex as you put it, and he'll have folks like our resident Machiavellian-social-Darwinist @Agustino to blame for it.
I agree. Keeping standards high is important. Making sure students do their own work - or at least make an effort and not get a complete pass simply because they can afford "ghost-writers" - is key to that. I don't think you can be on both sides of the fence here.
Oh yes, I would like if they actually kept their standards, but that's precisely why I said they are hypocritical with regards to plagiarism.
Quoting Baden
I'm just being real wid you man >:O
Quoting Baden
Still, I don't think the ghost-writer can be morally blameworthy for what the student does with the work he buys from him. The student doesn't necessarily have to submit it - he could use it for inspiration, he could use it to gather research, and so forth.
In addition, there is a problem here because you blame one student for being able to "afford" ghost-writers. But isn't that how life is? If I start a business, and I can't afford to buy the equipment that my richer competitor has, is it his fault that he can "afford" and I can't? It's just the way things landed for me, I have to make do with what I have no?
I don't think being a ghost writer is a terrible sin or anything, but when you decide to do that job, you know you're helping people cheat. Theoretically, they could do anything with your paper of course, maybe use it for origami, or decorate their salad with it, but that's the job, cheater helper. So, I think you need to bite the bullet and admit there is some moral element here.
Quoting Agustino
I don't blame them for being able to afford it, I'm simply pointing out that the existence of the service provides them with an unfair advantage over those who can't. If you don't think fairness in this sense is important then we're arguing at cross purposes.
Well, I'll take out the space too if @Posty McPost face wants. But that shall be the end of it!
I don't think the job necessarily would be cheater help, but I can probably agree that if someone was looking to do such a thing full-time then that would be quite anti-thetical to the aims of society.
Quoting Baden
Well it is important but there's no way to make it perfectly fair. People who have access to more resources will always be at an advantage, even because of stuff like they can afford more books, they don't need to work on the side while studying, and so forth... It's pretty much impossible to address that unfairness...
That would be great. Thanks!
Posty McPostface, what a wonderful nick!
Indeed. The phallic symbol represents the vitality and strength of drinking Kool-Aid.
:-d
Kool-Aid put Sir2u to sleep. Paradoxical effects on leftists. I'm assuming you're a lefty for the matter, might be wrong.
The boredom put me to sleep, not the kool-aid. And I can use both hands for most things, although my writing looks like a doctors when I write with the left.
Drinking the Kool-Aid.
I remember that happening. Sickening.
Find a new [s]avocado[/s] sorry avatar
Will do. It is rather ghastly, although some use the term to describe the Republicans following Trump.
Join the party. We have Kool-Aid and some eggs left over from Heister Eggcart. You can bring some of that noble dust to liven up the party too.
Sadly the noble dust tends to kill the party.
Oh, well then no dust, sadly. How about Happy Fart? One hell of a nick.
Too bawdy for my noble sensibilities.
Ok then maybe Benjamin Dankwin? A noble name don't you think?
That's definitely my style. It's in my top 5 for my imminent identity change.
Maybe something like this would be nicer.
Why does it not show the image?
I suspect because it's a page not an image. Here, it links. Perhaps you meant some particular image on that page.
Me too. It's getting hard to be someone, but it all works out. That is, I think it's not too bad.
That is the image that would really suit Posty McPostface.
Why does the insert image ask for a link if it is not going to load the image? Weird. I have done that before and it showed the image.
Oh well, not to worry.
I choose little Thomas the tank engine. I think it's good? Thoughts?
Pick a suitable picture. I might change it.
Still think the POST box is better.
Anything from here.
How about one of these?
Post box graffiti
Done.
Me hopes it lasts as long as possible.
Violence will not be tolerated.
It's somewhat phallic in representation; but, what isn't?
Dirty minded old git. X-)
Sure, Gerald, whatever you say.
Who's Posty McPostface? Awesome name. (Ah! Found out that it's Question, never mind).
>:)
Quoting Thorongil
Unfortunately (or fortunately - depends who you are) I don't think he'll get banned.
[hide="Reveal"]I think liberals say it doesn't matter what the majority thinks, only when the majority doesn't side on their issues (such as with regards to religion). But when the majority stands on their issues - such as homosexual marriage - they're all FOR the majority >:O >:O[/hide]
I do too, that's exactly why I chose it :P Did you listen to 5:37-6:30?
Quoting Thorongil
Yes.
Did you read the revelation from above or did you miss that part? :P
Quoting Agustino
"An interesting perspective." Uh, no. The truth.
Quoting Agustino
Read what?
>:O
Quoting Thorongil
What I had hidden in my first post and quoted below it.
[hide="Reveal"]Like this.[/hide]
Oh, I never saw that. It was hidden a bit too well.
Quoting Agustino
I somehow doubt that, as his knowledge and presentation of what conservatives believe and why is appallingly inaccurate.
I think he's the kind of guy who would be whatever it takes to be popular :P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenk_Uygur
Yes, it is me Posty McPostface. Formerly known as Question.
Cenk was oddly rude to the audience, and generally more emotional than Shapiro, but I thought they both made good points from their respective positions. Shapiro's arguments were stronger, but that's to be expected with his background in law and his high intelligence.
@Thanatos Sand and @Thanatos Sannd => there's 2 of them now! :-O
Political affiliation doesn't make a difference.
If he's some sort of naive realist, though, then his days are numbered.
There's actually three now-- check out @John Harris X-)
IMO the forum needs a villainous character like him. I've begun enjoying his unadorned style and even some of his insults now that I don't take them as seriously as I initially did. I'm pretty sure he doesn't them that seriously either, although I could be wrong about that.
(Take it easy, Thanatos, I'm not saying that you ARE a villain, but only that that's the perception you've created amongst a few members so far lol)
Ahh the unknown brother of Sam Harris! >:O
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Oh dear, they even use the same smiley face that's tied with the ellipsis. >:O
In that case I will ban the other two of you. Stick to this account and please PM next time.
Edit: guess you meant PM on a temp new account?
@Thorongil he didn't last more than 1 day after you asked >:O
Yep.
I didn't see Thorongil's comment until just now. His political paranoia knows no bounds. ;)
>:O
RIP, Emptyheady. #NeverForget
I've taken the mantle of prophethood from @Noble Dust.
I can see! And Baden seems to have taken the opportunity to try and appear unbiased >:)
Must be that budding religious feeling of yours.
Well, I haven't banned you yet have I? Though each day brings new temptations. O:)
>:) But banning me isn't instant, it takes laying the groundwork for it first, such as making sure you appear unbiased ;)
I should probably just outsource. Anyway, go play with some lefties. Let's see what happens. ;)
Which ones? :P
Quoting Baden
That may be expensive X-)
Where's @Landru Guide Us when we need him?
Quoting Agustino
Or there might be a line of volunteers...
Anyhow, you're safe for tonight as it's 1230am here and well past my TPF time. G'night.
LOL! Goodnight :D
Quoting Thorongil
Yes, why?
I'm left-handed, but centrist/apolitical. Does that mean I don't exist? :s
Yes.
Well, I'm actually a rightist, so no need for panic. Thorongil can keep the panic all to himself :P
Lefties against the world. Talk about underdogs...
>:)
You should see me with a can-opener. Fierce.
Great skill learned out of necessity, like a true underdog.
Pretty sure, yeah.
>:O >:O
>:O
Oh no!!!! :-O
Quoting Baden
Oh dear, I'm scared now :s :’(
[hide]>:O [/hide]
Just you and a can opener? Sounds like the start to a successful catering business.
Will you fight Baden with me? :’( He wants to exterminate me for my politically incorrect right wing views ...
You might at some point haha lol :P - if you get a Baden chasing after you with his rifle haha >:O
Yes, that's how he actually killed Emptyheady the bunny :-O
I think we invaded this thread...
That's legal, this thread is meant to be for invasion :P - other threads are off-limit, but this one you can do pretty much anything in!
Incorrect politically right wing views.
You and your Buxtebutthole....
You've encapsulated this thread with your one entire clueless response. (Y)
A HUGE Thank you to Austria for taking such good care of an American that was traveling to Croatia. A HUGE Thank you to those everyday, fellow passengers that jump into action and take care of a stranger in need, in a strange land, speaking a strange language and not leaving her side.
Most of all a HUGE Thank you to Mayor of Simpleton, for allowing her family to contact you as a point of contact, someone local who wasn't sure of what help he could be but by all means have them contact me. As it turns out, the contact you offered was peace of mind that they never had to call on but I Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I Thank you for being the Big brother you always said you were and you backed that up with the genuine person that I have always known you are.
(L) I am so grateful for people like you
Not fair at all. Trump didn't spawn white supremacists, Black Lives Matter thugs, leftist SJW's, or any other prejudice political group.
Of course he didn't spawn them. The theory is that he used them, and in doing so empowered them (and their beliefs).
If everyone allowed them to peacefully protest in Virginia then there wouldn't be injuries and deaths. But that hasn't happened, because for every inbred white supremacist there's some nutjob, pink haired leftist crackpipe that will come screeching, resulting in a giant clusterfuck in the middle of town.
Just as they're Nazi-lites, their taste in beer is also -lite.
I dunno why, but this sounds so sinister, >:O