Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left

Tools    





The old ignorance is bliss stance.

There is some chain yanking afoot which is alongside a few pushed buttons.

I look at it like this, there is a man walking in a forest and he comes upon a huge grisly bear suddenly rearing up and threating him. He does not belive all the gossip about bears being dangerous, it looks like such a beautiful creature, he is not scared at all. He then loses his head, but as it flies across the forest it does have a frozen smile on it.
__________________
“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



I just want to hug (your FACE)!


you should pay attention to new ideas that come from others. never judge what you believe to be effectively truth. i run from truth with everything i have, because i believe who have truth in his pocket have an inquisition on the other side ready to attack someone; so, i lose every kind of power - above all.

Agostinho da Silva (Porto, 1906 — Lisbon, 1994)

kinda hard to translate. must be one of the persons that most shaped my thinking.
on the other hand i don't give it much importance. i don't have anything interesting to say,
that's the reason i quote other's. people without an original thinking should just shut up,
and if you have an original thinking, you're thinking outside the box, and that's ridicule waiting
even you considering statistics truths-facts, your judgments of them would still be an opinion,
and you can try and try, but your opinion will always be an opinion, doesn't matter the repercussions,
man try label everything, it's just an label, and our being, existence isn't a label, at least i think that
when i'm swimming in a pool of crap (information), i think of a tree, called tjikko, have 9561 years,
imagine, this tree survived every single event we give importance, totally unaware. perfection.
Again, the conversation isn't about trees surviving man's label structure or philosophy in general. It is/was about stats. And because someone posts stats does not at all suggest absolute belief in those stats---which is why it is an open discussion providing opportunities for others to post counter stats. Your judgments only work on the assumption that everyone has posted with a completely closed mind that their opinion (derived from statistics) is absolute fact. NO ONE is doing that! Original thinking still must accept that 2+ 2 = 4 in order to have a mutually understood conversation on the NEWER original thought. We can't all argue the truth of 2 + 2 That is asinine. You CAN debate that, I suppose, if you like but only 1) in a conversation dedicated to debating the obvious, and 2) you actually make and defend an argument that does not consist of calling everyone wrong without providing any evidence of it other than "because I said so." You're still completely missing the point of everyone's reply to you. What you're saying is not at all profound, unfortunately. While I can appreciate it, in the fragile glass box that it exists, it is still very much high school philosophy reading only the magazine article headlines describing the article without reading the article itself or even the references provided to validate it; and that brings nothing to the table of this debate. Or really, any debate if I'm honest.

Lobster tastes like purple and the internet is made of jelly-filled marshmallows.
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you."
- Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy."
- Captain Steel



A system of cells interlinked
RIP thread.
__________________
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP



kinda hard to translate. must be one of the persons that most shaped my thinking.
on the other hand i don't give it much importance. i don't have anything interesting to say,
that's the reason i quote other's. people without an original thinking should just shut up,
and if you have an original thinking, you're thinking outside the box, and that's ridicule waiting
even you considering statistics truths-facts, your judgments of them would still be an opinion,
and you can try and try, but your opinion will always be an opinion, doesn't matter the repercussions,
man try label everything, it's just an label, and our being, existence isn't a label, at least i think that
when i'm swimming in a pool of crap (information), i think of a tree, called tjikko, have 9561 years,
imagine, this tree survived every single event we give importance, totally unaware. perfection.
At this point I have to assume you're not really reading these replies. Because if you were, you'd have noticed that I've been explicitly responding to this "everything is just opinion" stuff, building on that assumption and positing new questions and arguments based on it, for something like half a dozen pages now. And yet you keep trotting it out like it's the first time anyone's ever heard of it or considered it. Like it's some kind of ideological trump card, rather than something self-defeating and wildly inconsistent with most of your initial posts.
__________________



Yeah, I'll give the dude one more chance to respond in a way that actually incorporates what people are saying. If we get another vague reference to knowledge and certainty, apropos of basically nothing anyone is saying, I'll shut it down.



__________________
Purely for the benefit of my bad memory: 2016 • • • 2017 • • •
2018 • • • 12 • • • C&C • • • 110 • • • Summer • • • Noms


Almost famous for having nailed Madonna once



Yeah, I'll give the dude one more chance to respond in a way that actually incorporates what people are saying. If we get another vague reference to knowledge and certainty, apropos of basically nothing anyone is saying, I'll shut it down.
It's been clear to me since JoaoRodrigues' first few post that he was mainly interested in gaining maximum attention. The fastest way to get attention is to be flippant, condescending and contradictory while making 'hot button' comments, that almost guarantees people will respond. I stopped reading his post long ago as my time is valuable. But instead of punishing all of us... why not just tell JoaoRodrigues to straighten up or leave the thread. The rest of us are capable of adult conversation.



You ready? You look ready.
Joao has made some extremely valid and relevant contributions to this thread. Alas, like most arguments on here, people are not happy with them because a.) they are not advancing a specific argument and b.) there’s no way to respond to them.

So by all means just slam the dude repeatedly for sharing a perspective you don’t like and that will fix the issue. Or it won’t.

But I know nothing, so imma go back to sitting in silence.
__________________
Halcyon days are not a thing
Nostalgia is no excuse for stupidity
I don't believe in golden ages
Or presidents that put kids in cages
America awaits on bended knee
Bad Religion



Nobody is "[slamming] the dude repeatedly for sharing a perspective you don't like." The criticism is for:
1) Retreating to factual relativism only when challenged and
2) continuing to repeat it even when met with replies that acknowledge the concept and try to talk about it.
Neither of these things are what you do if you're just trying to "share a perspective." A perspective which is not all actionable or relevant when applied this broadly.

The fact that it's being presented as if it's supposed to be some mindblowing idea (and then just repeated when it fails to blow everyone's mind, because every thoughtful person has considered it already), says a lot, too, about their actual intentions. So literally nothing about these responses implies the kind of good-faith insight-sharing you're describing. The idea is not insightful, it's being applied inconsistently and retroactively, and it's too broad to relate to the specific issue more than any other issue.



A system of cells interlinked

So by all means just slam the dude repeatedly for sharing a perspective you don’t like and that will fix the issue. Or it won’t.

But I know nothing, so imma go back to sitting in silence.
That just isn't what happened.

Again, I said philo discussions are fine, but not when they are wielded in a clumsy way to refute hard math; that's just a waste of time, and only seems to hamstring all the discussion, reducing it all to a circular discussion on semantics. Also, a lot of what he said was either contradictory, or just plan half-baked. After a while, it becomes tiresome having to wade through a quagmire of nonsense in an effort to extract valid bits of information that may or may not be pertinent.



You ready? You look ready.
I think several of us here have our snap backs on too tight.

Hard math implies there’s only one correct way to interpret data or that there’s only one set of data that’s correct. Problems like gun violence are much too complex for any one set of data to cover it. Much less for it to be worthy of being called hard math.

Maybe if we were arguing about physics or something I’d agree. But this topic is lacking in a LOT of data for any numbers to be thrown around as hard math.

EDIT: It is pretty evident that we are all wrong. Even I. Wrong. So wrong. Welcome to 2019.



Tell me something you know about the author of those stats that isn’t made, one way or another, by the author of those stats. If you can give me an opinion on why should I trust there information without basing yourself on there actual information, I’m okay with it. Because the darkest picture is always the correct one when you look at the history of civilization you realize that’s the same circle of greed, envy, brutality, and I can give you a lot of reasons on why you shouldn’t trust your governments, more than you can give me otherwise, and your here all crazy because I don’t trust there information like is something terrible. The worst part is that I don’t even know if they are right or wrong, I just don’t have reasons to base everything I believe on them, like I have something unquestionable behind to support everything I say, at least I support my ideas on people that said it better, not in the government, come on man. If you want to say: “Let’s all pretend this information are an unquestionable fact and discuss it.”, I say bring it.



So by all means just slam the dude repeatedly for sharing a perspective you don’t like and that will fix the issue. Or it won’t.
I think there was some pretty blatant projection, mocking and even ‘slamming’ (repeatedly) from dude’s side of the fence. I really don’t even see any volleys back except for my own where I called dude sanctimonious. Everyone else was patient and polite.
__________________



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
I guess this is a volley. lol.

No one has said any part of this is an unquestionable fact. That is a straw man to duck and cover, avoiding engaging in anything anyone actually has posted. Some arguments have already been made that is sort of on your side. For example, what some stats show and what they don't show. Are gun deaths going down? Ok. So what does ANY data show on whether nom-fatal gun incidents are also decreasing? Are those down too? That is a discussion. And no one is stating all or nothing in this thread but one person.

You doubt statistical sources as corporate money machines. Cool. So what sources are acceptable? Nope. You find another side-step to avoid the responsibility of your words by changing the argument to some other half philosophical diversion.

This entire thread has completely derailed because you insist on arguing for a nebulous non-cohesive anti point on something you have said you don't even know about and are unwilling to make an effort to learn even just enough to root your argument into any provable scrap of information. So what that you disagree. That's actually the point, to disagree! But back it up with SOME effort to make an argument. Otherwise why have you entered the conversation? Start a new thread and someone will happily debate that gravity is a figment of our collective imagination.

Finally, no one is crazy over whether or not you trust the data. People are crazy because you make zero effort to show data that you do trust. You know, to take part in a discussion to investigate and compare our collective opinions and the sources for our opinions so that we all may learn more or keep thinking what we do. No one wants to win. Just make an effort?

If you're trolling then grats on that. You succeeded in flipping my opinion considering where I started regarding some of your initial thoughts.

=/

Edit:
Yes. noM-fatal is when a cat bites your neck but not hard enough to puncture an artery. My apologies for the misuse of the term.



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
*waits patiently for Caps to catch up.*







*sheepishly waves twiddly lil finger waves for when you do finally catch up*


lol



Captain Steel's Avatar
"Lois, I never lie."
I haven't caught up here yet (so please forgive the interruption) - I'm knee deep in the gun control debate a few pages back and felt like interjecting an anecdote; a memory that these debates brought up in me from my freshman year in college: Expository Writing class..

The professor played a little trick on us - we got to choose from a list of controversial issues to write an essay on, defending our position.
I chose gun control. When the professor called on me to ask why I chose that topic I began to tell him my opinions on the issue.

After I told him why gun's were so bad, unnecessary, responsible for accidental deaths, how no one needs military grade weapons for hunting, etc., he responded...

"NOW! I want 10 pages, double spaced, CONVINCING me why I should and ought buy and own as many guns as I want, of any type that I choose, with as much ammunition as I desire and why the 2nd amendment is the greatest right ever established in our Constitution. YOUR job is to show me how and why guns are the greatest thing on earth and why EVERYONE should own, have or hoard as many as possible even though that is the farthest thing from your own personal beliefs as you've expressed them! Got it?"

My jaw was on the floor. I stammered, "B-but, I can't..."

"Oh yes you can, young man, and yes you WILL!" he shouted, "For that is the very nature and function of the assignment. And it's due on Monday, so as with all assignments in this class, you must complete them to pass!"

Then he went through the class asking each student why they chose their topic (of course, because they had an opinion on it) and then told them their job was to take an opposing opinion to the one they personally held and convince him of the opposite.

The reasons for such an exercise should be kind of obvious - first to make us better, more analytical, more objective writers, but also to force us to research (you kind of have to if you're going to come up with data to convince someone else of something you don't believe in yourself), to base arguments on facts rather than on personal emotions, and to open your mind to other points of view.

It really helps you understand why you believe the things you do, to examine your own beliefs (where they are valid and where they are weak) and the same for the views you disagree with.

Reading some of the debates here reminded me of this.



I like your professor! That's a good way to teach creative writing skills.

Anyway...I'd add something more to the discussion, if I knew what we're talking about (other than arguing about arguing?) So somebody throw out a tidbit and let's see if we can get a casual discuss going.



Oh man, Cabin Boy! I wish I could rep this more than once.

I mean, I totally could, I could manipulate the DB to do it, but we've got to have standards, ya' know.
Non sequitur of the year response:

Dave in his only starring role in a motion picture (when he had no standards atall - and thankfully no untrimmed beard )