I don't mind being challenged. I want a debate, but not with you because you ignore the material and you are crazy! You harp on the same crap all the time. All of your statements have identical meanings but are paraphrased differently, and the moral doesn't make any sense.
Then you go off on this tangent of degradation, trying to blame your subversive behavior on me.
If you don't want a debate with me, why are you engaging with me? It's always your choice to engage or not. It seems that your actions speak to something else entirely--that you actually do want a debate with me.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I don't even know why I bother with this board. The mods will let you fucks say anything you want, be total pests and irritate the hell out of people. But when I retaliate I get banned, it's so fucking disgusting. This page is a clique of ignorant fucks all patting each others backs for being so loving and caring without realizing that loving and caring alone doesn't solve many problems. You can be sympathetic for the rapee, but that won't stop the next guy from commiting rape. You need to sit down and learn what the fuck actually makes a rapist and then you can stop it and you won't have to worry about victims cause their won't be any. But everyone on this page has a victim complex.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
no. my initial post to you was about the way you spoke to angelia and Dan. that's what i didn't agree with. i thought i made that perfectly clear.
That's none of your damn business, is it? So, you want to just come in and tag team me to escalate the conflict even further? What is your motivation?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That's none of your damn business, is it? So, you want to just come in and tag team me to escalate the conflict even further? What is your motivation?
no. i don't come in to tag team you and escalate the conflict even further. my motivation? there isn't any. it was simply a case or reading ANOTHER one of your posts where you invite someone in to discuss something rationally and then YOU attack them. in hindsight maybe i should have shut my mouth and just said nothing. hindsights a powerful thing isn't it. yes you are right, it's none of my business. at least i have the guts to speak up if i think someone is being unfairly treated. i don't know any of you people and i don't know if you are one of the 'popular people' here and that saying what i said will get me plenty of grief from others. but i don't give a fuck Ahnimus. i thought you were an unfair to angelina and i said it.
no. i don't come in to tag team you and escalate the conflict even further. my motivation? there isn't any. it was simply a case or reading ANOTHER one of your posts where you invite someone in to discuss something rationally and then YOU attack them. in hindsight maybe i should have shut my mouth and just said nothing. hindsights a powerful thing isn't it. yes you are right, it's none of my business. at least i have the guts to speak up if i think someone is being unfairly treated. i don't know any of you people and i don't know if you are one of the 'popular people' here and that saying what i said will get me plenty of grief from others. but i don't give a fuck Ahnimus. i thought you were an unfair to angelina and i said it.
I appreciate the support, friend. It's highly doubtful that you would get grief from others around here for speaking your mind, or for standing up for someone.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You never have anything to add. You kiss some peoples ass and you rag on others. That's about it.
Grumpy, aren't we?
And not very fair either.
I will refrain from dragging out all my long-ass replies in your threads.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Dan, has a history with me of simply trashing my posts, misinterpreting them and praising any woman that posts a response. I doubt he is even a rational being that can see anywhere beyond his primative drives.
I personally continue to study Epistemology, Causality, Psychology, Sociology, Biology, Neurobiology, etc. etc.. etc.. and I will never stop. I've read the material here, and Dan thinks he's smart telling me my interpretations of Hume are wrong, when in-fact, he's probably never even read any of Hume's work.
So, when I debate with you, you just construe it all as an elaborate attack on yourself? And you're the one talking objectivity. I often support angelica against you, but mostly because you are plain rude with her many many times. I dont totally agree with angelica either, but I agree with many of her points. As I do with many of yours, actually, unless you haven't noticed. I just dont agree with your philosophical stance, which is usually what you put up for debate. But if you interpret it as my crusade against you when I am questioning your position, I dont know what to say. How can you have a debate, if discussing the positions becomes personal? Me arguing against your position is not me "out to get you".
As for the Hume thing, I backed that up through discussing with my master in philosophy friend, who agreed with me, along with reading up on wikipedia. And when you bring up Hume, you bring up philosophy, and the baggage that is tied to Hume's philosophy. If you dont want to discuss your interpretation of Hume, why bring him up? I know you intended that post as a show-stopper, but I pointed out how it isn't quite that, since Hume is pretty double-edged in that regard.
I only rag you about the wanton insults you can come with out of the blue. (as you did with me just here, and angelica as usual) Otherwise, I am questioning and debating your rather adamant positions on these subjects.
If you really hate debating with us, then why do you? At length, for pages? That's what I really dont get.
PS: The really fun thing here is that between you and angelica, I actually lean a bit more to your arguments. But I can't accept the inherent arrogance baked into them, and the uncompromising rejection of anything not scientific, or just not your own approved science. Well that, and the resorting to insults when people dont agree with you. So your views, with a spoonful of humility and a dash of keeping options open I would probably agree with 90% of the time.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
If I consider that :
a) causality is a necessary basis for a scientific explanation of natural events
b) science explains a lot but not all
c) I have no idea if causality is true in fields that science has not yet reached
How could I rest assured that causality rules the entire universe? The more we seem do discover the less we seem to know. I'm not sure everyone really understands the implications of the discoveries of the various fields in science (let alone the discoveries themselves), so having arrogant certitudes is nice but should be reserved to 18th century philosophers.
That doesn't make any sense to me. Give me experimental conditions for accessing this "what is" or "truth"?
any experimentation can only occur in your own head, sir, except that it can occur in mine or in Angelica's or in the homeless guy sleeping under an overpass 4 blocks from your apt.,.. etc.
"Searching is everything - going beyond what you know. And the test of the search is really in the things themselves, the things you seek to understand. What is important is not what you think about them, but how they enlarge you."
"What I feel is that the picture-taking process, anyway a greater part of it, is an intuitive thing. You can't go out and logically plan a picture, but when you come back, reason then takes over and verifies or rejects whatever you've done. So that's why I say that reason and intuition are not in conflict--they strengthen each other."
How could I rest assured that causality rules the entire universe? The more we seem do discover the less we seem to know. I'm not sure everyone really understands the implications of the discoveries of the various fields in science (let alone the discoveries themselves), so having arrogant certitudes is nice but should be reserved to 18th century philosophers.
that reminds me of a quote a former professor of mine used to say. "The bigger the island of knowledge, the greater the shore of ignorance"."
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
That's an interesting way of avoiding a discussion. But I don't find it particularly productive.
I have difficulty with your approach, because rather than addressing some concrete theory with logical arguments. You tend to talk about some integrated wholeness that is untouchable, yet somehow provides insight to you. I find I rarely take anything from it.
But it is an interesting fact, one that I feel has ample explanation from empricism. It seems true, that we gather information about our environments and formulate or acquire certain views, from that point on we tend to ignore or subvert arguments or evidence to the contrary and focus on those that support our perspective. Fortunately many of the books I have read draw on opposing views and present counter-arguments for them. Additionally I will occasionally read literature which is contrary to my perspective, however, I find in most cases the arguments are the same, oft repeated ones.
Are there specific points within the articles that you contest?
1) was this a discussion? it looked more like a syllabus.
2) i agree with your criticism of her approach, but you share the same flaws. just the other day you were attempting valiantly to use determinism to explain world poverty in the same amusingly pathetic way christians try to use genesis to explain speciation.
I don't even know why I bother with this board. The mods will let you fucks say anything you want, be total pests and irritate the hell out of people. But when I retaliate I get banned, it's so fucking disgusting. This page is a clique of ignorant fucks all patting each others backs for being so loving and caring without realizing that loving and caring alone doesn't solve many problems. You can be sympathetic for the rapee, but that won't stop the next guy from commiting rape. You need to sit down and learn what the fuck actually makes a rapist and then you can stop it and you won't have to worry about victims cause their won't be any. But everyone on this page has a victim complex.
there will always be rapists. there will always be murder. there will always be theft. it is human nature and has been since we switch to purely upright mobility. even if science figured out what caused it and could flawlessly spot the necessary genes, most wouldn't accept the cure. the only way to accomplish this kind of utopia is a 1984-style autocracy, which people will fight. humans would rather be free to fuck up than slaves to perfection.
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
no. my initial post to you was about the way you spoke to angelia and Dan. that's what i didn't agree with. i thought i made that perfectly clear.
i said i didn't agree with what you said to angelina and dan and i spoke up? i don't think the mods would have a problem with that?
That's none of your damn business, is it? So, you want to just come in and tag team me to escalate the conflict even further? What is your motivation?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Grumpy, aren't we?
And not very fair either.
I will refrain from dragging out all my long-ass replies in your threads.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
As for the Hume thing, I backed that up through discussing with my master in philosophy friend, who agreed with me, along with reading up on wikipedia. And when you bring up Hume, you bring up philosophy, and the baggage that is tied to Hume's philosophy. If you dont want to discuss your interpretation of Hume, why bring him up? I know you intended that post as a show-stopper, but I pointed out how it isn't quite that, since Hume is pretty double-edged in that regard.
I only rag you about the wanton insults you can come with out of the blue. (as you did with me just here, and angelica as usual) Otherwise, I am questioning and debating your rather adamant positions on these subjects.
If you really hate debating with us, then why do you? At length, for pages? That's what I really dont get.
PS: The really fun thing here is that between you and angelica, I actually lean a bit more to your arguments. But I can't accept the inherent arrogance baked into them, and the uncompromising rejection of anything not scientific, or just not your own approved science. Well that, and the resorting to insults when people dont agree with you. So your views, with a spoonful of humility and a dash of keeping options open I would probably agree with 90% of the time.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
a) causality is a necessary basis for a scientific explanation of natural events
b) science explains a lot but not all
c) I have no idea if causality is true in fields that science has not yet reached
How could I rest assured that causality rules the entire universe? The more we seem do discover the less we seem to know. I'm not sure everyone really understands the implications of the discoveries of the various fields in science (let alone the discoveries themselves), so having arrogant certitudes is nice but should be reserved to 18th century philosophers.
any experimentation can only occur in your own head, sir, except that it can occur in mine or in Angelica's or in the homeless guy sleeping under an overpass 4 blocks from your apt.,.. etc.
not in accepting truths as absolute, but in creating the new realities of each moment may an edge of Being become knowledge.~15october07~.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
that reminds me of a quote a former professor of mine used to say. "The bigger the island of knowledge, the greater the shore of ignorance"."
1) was this a discussion? it looked more like a syllabus.
2) i agree with your criticism of her approach, but you share the same flaws. just the other day you were attempting valiantly to use determinism to explain world poverty in the same amusingly pathetic way christians try to use genesis to explain speciation.
there will always be rapists. there will always be murder. there will always be theft. it is human nature and has been since we switch to purely upright mobility. even if science figured out what caused it and could flawlessly spot the necessary genes, most wouldn't accept the cure. the only way to accomplish this kind of utopia is a 1984-style autocracy, which people will fight. humans would rather be free to fuck up than slaves to perfection.