Post #30,030
2/27/02 3:18:26 PM
|
Oh, the truth about people?
we are made in G_d's image,
means he's dumb with a little ugly on the side,
Frank Zappa
Humans are bipeds with opposable thumbs in the mammal class, hair and warm blooded giving birth via a birth canal vs eggs or excretion. They are omnivorous, we can deduct by looking at their teeth, canines for tearing flesh, molars for grinding seeds and gums for when they are old. The females have a self regulated mating season while the males are chronically in heat. They have spoken, written and a visible language, break easily and congregate in large herds. Humans break easily and the herds panic violently from fearful phenoma. Humans are fairly easy to train but have stubborn streaks. Fear based training works best.
People are Humans
The above is what I could prove, beyond that truth is subjective do to the observer factor. If you can observe an action, you have affected the action. Same problem with micro nucleonics.
Now I know of many true things, absolutely true to "my" knowledge, you may profit from that truth or not. Not my problem unless you interfere with my truth, then your truth has to go.
thanx,
bill
"I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog."
Richard Eaton spy software innovator
|
Post #30,035
2/27/02 3:39:14 PM
|
Exactly.
The above is what I could prove, beyond that truth is subjective do to the observer factor. Yep. If there are 6 billion people, the "Truth" about people will be one "Truth" with 5,999,999,999 special case exceptions. -OR- There is no "Truth" about people. And if there is no "Truth" about people, is there a "Truth" about dogs? cats? trees? Is there a "Truth" about anything? -OR- Is there a "Truth" with an almost infinite number of special cases? In which case, is there any difference between the two?
|
Post #30,041
2/27/02 4:21:02 PM
|
Oh, I see the problem
You don't understand what "premise" meanse. You're suggesting as a premise that there is no Truth. (Or that if there is it is different for each person and so indistinguishable from opinion.) Marlowe suggested a premise that does not depend on there being any Truth. truth is boolean ... we can converge on certainty There is truth, or there is not. Premise. We can only approach certainty about truth. Premise. it's still useful in real life situations Conclusion. Do you deny the conclusion? I'll take a page from your book and give you conditions for replying: Don't reply with any premises that don't apply to the position above. Don't reply with any challenges to prove things that don't have anything to do with the conclusion above. Don't try to change the subject to anything other than the proposition that basing opinions on observation is more usefull than not basing them on observation. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #30,046
2/27/02 4:36:51 PM
|
You're actually getting closer (how long has it taken?)
You don't understand what "premise" meanse. Incorrect, but please continue. You're suggesting as a premise that there is no Truth. Close enough for right now. Marlowe suggested a premise that does not depend on there being any Truth. Allow me to refute that statement with a quote from Marlowe. When Leftists ideologues say there is no real truth, the truth itself becomes politicized. But remember, truth was here first. Again, so you can check the context: [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=29298|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=29298] It seems to me that Marlowe is advancing a "premise" that there >IS< a "real truth" and that it is in the possession of the (Rightists?). There is truth, or there is not. Premise. Very good. And who initially stated that there >WAS< a "truth"? Marlowe. Conclusion. Do you deny the conclusion? I will, once again, refer you to Marlowe's INITIAL post on the subject. When Leftists ideologues say there is no real truth, the truth itself becomes politicized. But remember, truth was here first. Now, please try to explain that statement with his other statement that you've quoted. Don't try to change the subject to anything other than the proposition that basing opinions on observation is more usefull than not basing them on observation. Bzzzzt! Sorry. I am allowed to quote PREVIOUSLY submitted material. In this case, Marlowe's INITIAL post on the subject (well, not his INITIAL post. He did rattle on about this subject in a previous post, but this is the one I'm calling him on). You see, Marlowe can attempt to re-define his terms all he wants. But when you re-enter the new "definitions" and such in his ORIGINAL post, you see where he's trying to evade the discussion. Try it and see. I've quoted his original posting. Is he saying that something which has no significance is possessed by the (people other than Leftists) and that something which has no significance was here first? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
|
Post #30,054
2/27/02 5:07:55 PM
|
Try to keep it separate
Outside of a formal philospohical debate, most people are comfortable with the working definition of "fact" as something that is genarlly accepted to be true. When, in the Politics forum, the discussion turned to the nature of truth Marlowe took it here to discuss the abstract concept. He described his criteria he uses to determine whether something is "fact" or "opinion."
Since I didn't follow that thread in Politics, for me this started with Marlowe saying, essentially, "Basing your opinion on reasoned analysis of the facts is better than not doing so." And you responded that, since there is no such thing as "Truth" or "fact" anyway, that everything is just opinions and no one's is better than anyone else's.
In other words, pretty much the pointless, evasive, intellectually lazy position he was criticizing in the post over in Politics.
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #30,063
2/27/02 5:57:11 PM
|
Drew, you are an idiot.
And I have NO reservations about saying that. When, in the Politics forum, the discussion turned to the nature of truth Marlowe took it here to discuss the abstract concept. That's an amazingly good excuse. Except Marlowe wasn't using "truth" in the abstract in the Politics thread. It was something that existed. Since I didn't follow that thread in Politics, for me this started with Marlowe saying, essentially, "Basing your opinion on reasoned analysis of the facts is better than not doing so." Since you didn't follow the thread in Politics, I have provided quotes and URL's for you. This is to help you in understanding the origin of this discusssion and Marlowe's position. It also serves to clarify what >MY< position was. Now, you can either. #1. Read how Marlowe used "truth" in the Politics thread and educate yourself on the topic. -or- #2. Skip the history and assume that Marlowe just wanted to have a discussion on how it is better to use facts than to skip them. Hmmmmmmm, interesting choice there. You can either look at all the facts or you can skip the ones you don't want to consider. Doesn't that sort of remind you of a recent discussion? And you responded that, since there is no such thing as "Truth" or "fact" anyway, that everything is just opinions and no one's is better than anyone else's. Once again you've managed to prove your inability to read with comprehension. I have posted before that "fact" == "truth" for sufficiently small facts and truths. I have blond hair. That is a fact. That is the truth. Now, there is no such thing as "Truth". (note the use of "T" instead of "t"). Now, what people ACCEPT as "facts" and "truth" (and "The Truth") is DEPENDANT upon their OPINION. Got that straight? Not that there aren't any FACTS. The people only ACCEPT the "facts" that support their OPINIONS. Then they skip the other facts. Like when >YOU< say that discussion things that can't be CURRENTLY experienced is worthless. To which I answer, xrays 200 years ago. And so we come BACK TO THE BEGINNING where I say that Marlowe's "Truth" is NOTHING MORE THAN HIS OPINION. (Note the "T" in "Truth"). In other words, people filter Reality (note the "R") [which is comprised of all the facts, known and unknown] through their senses and beliefs to arrive at their own "truth". This "truth" is synonymous with "opinion". Again, you're a perfect example of that, Drew. No matter how many times I say it, you STILL think I'm saying something else. Right now I expect you to pull out your old traffic philosophy "example". Why do I expect you to do this? Because your mind cannot accept that I am NOT saying "opinion" == "Reality". Your internal filters will cut in and you'll be re-stating arguments that I've refuted over and over and over. Which is a living example of why PEOPLE will NEVER understand Reality. Because you don't even KNOW that you're filtering it. In other words, pretty much the pointless, evasive, intellectually lazy position he was criticizing in the post over in Politics. Pointless? Evasive? Intellectually lazy? Hmmmm, like xrays, right, Drew? Of course, I know that >YOU< will NOT take the results of your and his current discussion and plug it back into his posts in Politics. And the reason I know this is because I understand how people derive their "truth" from Reality and filter it through their beliefs. You do not WANT to be subjected to those facts so you will avoid them in order to maintain your current opinion. Now, the "real world" application of that concept is in "spin" and propaganda and manipulation. I won't even touch on "The Truth" yet.
|
Post #30,069
2/27/02 6:55:11 PM
|
Is it the truth that Drew is an idiot?
And who are you to say what the truth is?
And have you any intention of explaining how you draw the line between fact and Truth, or is this just an attempt to shift ground without anybody noticing?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
|
Post #30,072
2/27/02 7:15:01 PM
|
I believe I have already explained that.
And have you any intention of explaining how you draw the line between fact and Truth, or is this just an attempt to shift ground without anybody noticing? You >DO< understand that there is a difference between "truth" and "Truth". I noticed that you've used a "T" in your post. LIke I said, Reality (the set of all facts, known and unknown) is filtered by senses and beliefs to yield an individual's opinion. This opinion is the "truth" to that individual. The person will CONTINUE to filter facts in order to maintain his/her current opinion. There is no "Truth". Have I lost you again? It's a very simple concept. But it does tend to discredit your religious affiliations with a certain political party. So I'll say that you won't accept it. (See, Drew? Another real world application.)
|
Post #30,076
2/27/02 7:30:53 PM
|
Filters are changeable
truth may be acertained by pulling the filters aside every now and then but the Truth is scary. Like I tell my kids the real monsters are the ones that look and act like your friends.
Thanx,
bill
"I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog."
Richard Eaton spy software innovator
|
Post #30,149
2/28/02 11:15:33 AM
|
Okay, so there's no "Truth" but there is "Reality"
And how are these different? When I say "Truth" how is that different from what you mean when you say "Reality"? Oh, and a factual error in your other post: Like when >YOU< say that discussion things that can't be CURRENTLY experienced is worthless. No. I was very careful to say that there MAY BE things which CAN NOT be perceived. And that THESE things aren't worth discussing. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #30,159
2/28/02 11:50:31 AM
|
Those 'things' (!) which "cannot be perceived" -
Er, do you mean, "those 'things'* which *I* cannot perceive", but another claims "to perceive"? Is one 'Right', the other 'Wrong'? One 'true/True' the other 'false/False'?
* mental concepts are distinctly un-thing-like, no?
How could *You* tell? Is there YAN nicely Boolean 'The Truth' here, hiding somewhere?
Le coeur a ses raisons, qui raisonnent seul ne percevront jamais**: Disallowed for being unBoolean? Subtle expression of wisdom? What's The Truth?
** ~ The heart has its reasons which reason alone shall never perceive
How does the concept of 'wisdom' differ from the concept of 'knowledge'? Is a single datum / factoid, 'knowledge'? And if a One becomes Certain of the False (say, even about the concept of 'The Truth'?) - where next?
...while you're 'defining' the limits of human perception.
(D'ya think there might be some limits to ordinary language re certain imaginable topics ?)
Yours for perfectly logical definitions of Truth,
Ashton
Mysteries Solved Ltd.
Personal Universes Deconstructed While You Wait
Not responsible for lost Epiphanies or other disappointments
Recommended book, The Doors of Perception, Huxley.
|
Post #30,198
2/28/02 4:05:05 PM
|
That's why I told you to read the OTHER thread.
And how are these different? When I say "Truth" how is that different from what you mean when you say Reality"? Remember the part where I said that >YOU< were busiy filtering out the stuff you didn't want to think about because it would alter your opinion? Well, that's contained in the other thread that you didn't want to read. In a nutshell, "The Truth" is what is possessed by a certain political viewpoint and other viewpoints do not have "The Truth". Think "religion" if that will help you. As for the "factual error", I'm not seeing any difference between those statements. No. I was very careful to say that there MAY BE things which CAN NOT be perceived. And that THESE things aren't worth discussing. Let's break that down a bit, shall we? No. I was very careful to say that there MAY BE things which CAN NOT be perceived. As in my example of xrays being perceived 200 years ago. Yes, I can agree with that. But I'd also put a caveat in that "CAN NOT be perceived" could just mean "CAN NOT CURRENTLY be perceived". Like I said, xrays, 200 years ago. We've advanced and now we can see the effects of things we did not know existed before. And that THESE things aren't worth discussing. So, "aren't worth discussing" means something different to you than the discussion of those things being worthless. I don't see the distinction. Unless your point is whether or not we will ever be able to perceive things we cannot perceive?
|
Post #30,207
2/28/02 4:37:18 PM
|
Your 'caveat' is exactly the opposite of what I said
Yes, I can agree with that. But I'd also put a caveat in that "CAN NOT be perceived" could just mean "CAN NOT CURRENTLY be perceived". Since I was specifically drawing a distinction between "can not" and "can not currently" you have just reworded my argument from "If x then y" into "If not x then y." Since you apparently intend to argue against your own made-up versions of what I said instead of what I actually said, I guess I don't need to be here for the rest of the discussion. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #30,212
2/28/02 4:52:56 PM
|
Awwww, did I hurt your feelings?
Since you apparently intend to argue against your own made-up versions of what I said instead of what I actually said, I guess I don't need to be here for the rest of the discussion. Hmmmm, seeing as how I clearly spelled out my objection to your statement, and you pointed out that it "reversed" your statement (that's an interesting use of the word "reverse") you're going to run away and claim it's all my fault? Hmmmm, that doesn't make much sense to me. Why run away when we've just located a point of contention? Wouldn't further discussion of said point be required? Or is it that you've FINALLY realized how wrong you are and you're running away to avoid having to admit it? Since I was specifically drawing a distinction between "can not" and "can not currently" you have just reworded my argument from "If x then y" into "If not x then y." No, you did NOT specifically draw such a distinction. You have not yet differentiated between what we cannot YET perceive and what we will NEVER perceive. To prove this, I'll quote you back in your face: No. I was very careful to say that there MAY BE things which CAN NOT be perceived. And that THESE things aren't worth discussing. [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=30149|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=30149] No distinction there. But feel free to provide one now. Tell me, what the difference is, in context with your previous posts, of things we cannot currently perceive and things we cannot perceive? Or you can run and appear to be a sniveling, lieing coward.
|
Post #30,313
3/1/02 10:39:58 AM
|
Interesting development
That you can rail against some for maturity level and then post idiotic shit like this...the equlvalent of a schoolyard dare...
"I know I'm right and your wrong" he says..."and since you don't want to discuss it anymore you must be chicken"
Damn, you sound all growed up.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #30,323
3/1/02 11:41:50 AM
|
Hey, I'm not the one who's hiding.
That you can rail against some for maturity level and then post idiotic shit like this...the equlvalent of a schoolyard dare... Oh, I forgot. You can't think in anything but binary terms. It's called "mockery". You were immature because you thought that FUD and allegations were a sound basis for a political viewpoint. Drew is hiding because he's found out that his position doesn't hold water and isn't mature enough to admit it. So he throws out some idiotic claim about how I've "reversed" his position to "justify" his hiding. So I'm mocking Drew and pointing out what he's doing. I know this annoys you but I don't have to accept either of your (Drew and you) childish behaviour. So I treat you like the children you are behaving as. Don't believe me? I didn't think you would. But if you will (I know you won't) read my post which preceeded Drew's declaration that he wasn't going to discuss this anymore, you'll find a complete absence of immature language. I posted a breakdown of Drew's post and illustrated the differences between my starting position and his in clear language (the caveat). Then Drew decides that he can't handle the discussion any more and runs and hides. Toooo bad, soooooo sad. Just like you are, Bill. And no. I'm not going to let this go like an adult. I'm going to treat you as the immature, ignorant children you are behaving as.
|
Post #30,325
3/1/02 11:49:36 AM
|
Er.
Grow up.
Stop telling people they're sad, or blinkered, or stupid, just because they don't see the world the same way as you.
I'm tired of reading threads full of your not-funny, not-clever, not-really-very-good-at-all insults.
You know what the most annoying thing is? You actually make some interesting, valid points.
Only they get buried under you going "me so clever! you so stoopid!".
Yeah, and Marlowe? All this shit applies to you too.
Stop being assholes, both of yers.
Or I'll come over there and wield the LART, +5 to undweeb.
Peter
Shill For Hire
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
|
Post #30,330
3/1/02 12:20:31 PM
|
Not going to happen.
Sorry, Peter. I don't start that way with people. But I don't see any reason to waste good manners on louts.
And I will freely admit to an active dislike for intolerant religious extremists and bigots.
|
Post #30,359
3/1/02 3:19:29 PM
|
Ah... so... other people's behavior...
... excuses your own?
Stop being an ass. This applies to all of you.
I'm sick of reading the infantile bullshit. I wouldn't know if ANY of you had decent points, because I don't read this crap anymore.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #30,368
3/1/02 3:53:04 PM
|
No need for an excuse.
Ah... so... other people's behavior... ... excuses your own? Nope. But then, I'm not looking to excuse my behaviour. I know what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. I'm not asking for anyone to excuse my behavoiur or accept it or anything else. Like I said, I am not about to waste good manners on louts. If someone is acting like an idiot, I do not see any reason to pussyfoot around that fact.
|
Post #30,371
3/1/02 4:02:30 PM
|
In that case...
*plonk*
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #30,395
3/1/02 5:05:05 PM
|
Whaaaaaaaaaaaa
This was a demonstration of an "opinion" and not a fact. Truthfully. "Infantile crap"...
Not only did he demonstrate how annoying insult posts can be by DOING IT HIMSELF, he also demonstrated the dichotomy and hypocrisy of his position by stating that "I don't read this crap anymore".
So, in the spirit of "if a person doesn't read this crap anymore (in the woods?)" post about how he read this crap, did it happen or not?
:-)
:-)
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #30,400
3/1/02 5:32:28 PM
|
Never said it was anything other than opinion.
You're quite free, as is Brandioch, to post your opinions/content in any fashion you please.
I'm also free to point out what I think is "infantile crap". For me, "infantile crap" includes things like titling a post "[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=30003|Awwww, is the poor baby going to cry?]" (as an example). I'm sick of seeing it, and I said as much. Feel free to tell me that it isn't "infantile crap", but don't expect me to agree.
As far as reading the crap, no, I don't any more. I read Peter's post, because his name isn't in my personal killfile and he usually has something good to say. In this case, I'd read enough crap previously to still want to comment on it. I also read Brandioch's reply to my post, because I generally do that if someone posts a reply to me. Not any more in Brandioch's case, but that is neither here nor there.
Capice?
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #30,480
3/2/02 6:14:41 PM
|
Unfair!
They are engaged in a juvenile philosophical discussion on the nature of Truth. And you dare confuse things by introducing Opinion into the mix?
Ah well. Fairness is the first complaint of incompetence. :-)
Cheers,
Ben
PS How can I set up a personal killfile on this site?
|
Post #30,492
3/2/02 7:20:41 PM
|
Re: Unfair!
PS How can I set up a personal killfile on this site?
I'm seriously considering spending the time to build one.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #30,500
3/2/02 11:35:13 PM
|
Please?
If you do, and if you and your family ever come to NYC, you and your son get a choice of a real Pyramid, a t-rex, or a medieval castle. (The first and third are filled with art. The second isn't, but includes such things as a full-sized model of a blue whale.)
Cheers,
Ben
|
Post #30,188
2/28/02 3:36:00 PM
|
Your filters are not the universe's fault.
Just because you happen to be hopelessly mired in subjectivism doesn't mean there's no Truth. The universe is not bounded by the limitations of your intellect. Or anyone else's. There's plenty of Truth. You're just too stupid to see it.
You're trying to blame the universe for the consequences your own intellectual incompetence. As an inhabitant of the universe, I object.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
|
Post #30,194
2/28/02 3:57:09 PM
|
Your filters can't be removed. Only modified. Slightly.
Hi,
If we could get beyond the pithy phrases for a while... :-)
Let's consider your .sig:
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
Let's apply it to something concrete in human affairs:
"Terrorism is always wrong."
Is that statement something you'd regard as part of "The Truth"?
I'd say no, it's not part of "The Truth". Why do I say that? Because 1) How does one define Terrorism? 2) I don't believe in many absolutes in human affairs. 3) I regard The Truth as something unchanging and something without general applicability to human affairs.
What would you say?
Or if you don't like that example, please provide something specific application of your view of the Truth (from human affairs).
(Before I am condemned here (maybe too late! :-), I believe that terrorism is wrong and generally counter-productive. But one person's terrorist might be another person's freedom fighter. Were the colonists at Lexington and Concord terrorists in fighting to keep the British troops from taking their guns in 1775? I don't think so. But an argument can be made that they were for some definitions of terrorist.)
Until everyone agrees on the terms it's hard, IMHO, to declare that The Truth exists (in human affairs).
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #30,209
2/28/02 4:39:24 PM
|
Where did I lose you?
Your filters are not the universe's fault. Well....... I guess that would depend upon how you view "the universe", wouldn't it? Is it the fault of the rock that you cannot see the diamonds within? You see, the human body has certain limitations. Trying to assign blame for these limitations is... well..... ummmmm...... How about..... Fucking STUPID?!? You think it is "the universe's" fault that you cannot perceive xrays? Just because you happen to be hopelessly mired in subjectivism doesn't mean there's no Truth. You're right. It doesn't. Or did you manage to miss my earlier explaation? Reality is filtered through our senses and beliefs to yield our opinions. Now, you're making the SAME MISTAKE that Drew did. Can't you even follow a simple process. My >OPINION< is that there is no "Truth". Look at the statement two lines up. How can my >OPINION< influence anything above it? So, >NO<, just because >I< say there is no "Truth" does not mean there is no "Truth". Because there is no "Truth" is what means there is no "Truth". Just because >I< do not believe in the tooth fairey's house does not mean it doesn't exist. I would not exist even if I >DID< believe in it. Just as "The Truth" does NOT exist even though >YOU< would like to believe in it. The universe is not bounded by the limitations of your intellect. Well >DUH<. Or have you managed to skip or not comprehend the part where I pointed out that human senses are not capable of perceiving everything in the universe? Did you miss my example of xrays to Drew? Ah.... or are you now going to go for the classic error of saying that because I don't know everything, that your fantasy is not a fantasy? Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Your fantasy is still a fantasy, whether I know everything or not. There's plenty of Truth. You're just too stupid to see it. Ah, sensai, perhaps you can then answer the question that you have been unable to answer before. What is "The Truth" about people? You see, you can make any claim you want, but if you can't cough up something THAT WORKS (now, where did I see that claim before) then all you're doing is spewing your fantasies. Make whatever claim you want. Tell me what colour the tooth fairey's house is. Tell me how many rooms it has. But try to provide me with an address or I'm going to, correctly, call you an idiot. It's a simple question. You claim there is "Truth". Tell me what the "Truth" about people is. You're trying to blame the universe for the consequences your own intellectual incompetence. No. As I pointed out before, "the universe" is in no way responsible for any limitations. The rock is NOT under any obligation to show you the diamonds it contains. You have to operate under the "laws" of the universe. You can complain about them all you want. But that still doesn't mean you can see through rock. As an inhabitant of the universe, I object. Then take it up with complaints department. I'm sure "The Truth" of the universe will tell you where that's located.
|
Post #30,047
2/27/02 4:38:50 PM
|
If an egg falls on a chicken, which came first?
Okay, I want to join pedantics anonymous as well... Hello, My name is Dan... I take objection to the phrase we can converge on certainty. UNLESS we can agree that the "certainty" that you are describing is not necessarily accurate or true or well... certain. I propose that we converge on "uncertainty" instead. I would have no objections to those rules... Okay? Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"God grant me the serenity..."
A bunch of drunks doing the 12 step at the VFW Hall
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #30,051
2/27/02 4:55:12 PM
|
I though I was pretty clear on that one
Like I said, some people are certain that Elvis is alive. Certainty and Truth are two different concepts.
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #30,053
2/27/02 5:05:26 PM
|
Okay... Just making sure...
I just talked to Elvis and he says that Marlow e is wrong on this one...
:-)
No, really. It's the truth. It's actual, everything is satisfactual...
If a dead horse falls in a forest...
Okay, no matter how personally satisfying this is for me, my "reality" is that I have to drive home in 16"+ of new lake effect snow. I perceive this as the truth and fact. I am not looking forward to this... Run with it, Drew.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #30,055
2/27/02 5:08:59 PM
|
OT - Sixteen inches?
Oh geez, I better go see how much I've got to deal with.
(BTW, I wonder how many people who aren't following this are going to drop in just to see what that subject line meant.)
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #30,058
2/27/02 5:16:54 PM
|
It was extremely hard...
on the weathermen and road crews. :-)
Yeah, we got our first real lake effect of the year. Haven't confirmed the total amount since yesterday, but it's snowed pretty much non-stop here in South Bend. Based on my windshield scale, we've had at least 16"...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #30,064
2/27/02 5:59:50 PM
|
That's the great thing about Seattle.
We get snow once, maybe twice a year.
The rest of the time, it's just rain.
The sky today is a particularly nice shade of grey.
|
Post #30,066
2/27/02 6:22:38 PM
|
seattle where even the toe jams are green :)
"I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog."
Richard Eaton spy software innovator
|
Post #30,056
2/27/02 5:12:27 PM
|
Ah. What the heck do you know about people?
You write: Humans are bipeds with opposable thumbs in the mammal class, hair and warm blooded giving birth via a birth canal vs eggs or excretion. They are omnivorous, we can deduct by looking at their teeth, canines for tearing flesh, molars for grinding seeds and gums for when they are old. The females have a self regulated mating season while the males are chronically in heat. They have spoken, written and a visible language, break easily and congregate in large herds. Humans break easily and the herds panic violently from fearful phenoma. Humans are fairly easy to train but have stubborn streaks. Fear based training works best. You dumbass, this thread should clearly show that "humans are easy to train" is a fallacy (is that phallusy?) Jeesh, man, don't you know nothin'? Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"You want to know the truth? You can't HANDLE the truth"
J. Nicholson
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #30,065
2/27/02 6:19:53 PM
|
Of course they are easy to train
How many of us show up for work at about the same time every day instead of laying around at home pulling our puds and drinkin beer?
sheesh
thanx,
bill
"I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog."
Richard Eaton spy software innovator
|
Post #30,096
2/27/02 10:46:25 PM
|
Oh, the old "free will" argument...
The key question is, which would they do if they had a choice? Take your time, think it over...
Makes me kind of wonder why I'm wasting my time in these fora and not over in PR0N usenet... Maybe you're right. Thanks for the enlightenment. I think I need some retraining...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
