things you hate with a passion

[Zephyrus]

 

[Ink_Wirey]

Good afternoon fellas

Interesting that the longer this goes on the greater part of your replies is empty barking.

So much for maturity. Explain to me again why I'm wasting my time responding to you in a coherent manner when you're going to throw out absurdities like this. Christianity is so ingrained into our society that its influence is hardly even recognized as originating in the Christian doctrine.

Let's try to keep it substantial, eh? Again, "Please make a list of things you would have done or would do with your life but can't owing to the fact that the world you live in is based on Christian morality?" You avoided this. You live in a highly secularized western democracy. What on earth are the undesirable commitments as a human being living in said democracy? This ain't theocratic totalitarianism bro.

This is unbelievable. I can't believe I'm responding to you because you're either fucking with me or you're stupid. You say yourself that ETERNAL PARADISE has NO END. If something has no end, then that something has no finality. Allow me to cut the bullshit train short by amending my statement for your personal easier understanding by saying "I see AN END, at which point I have no more consciousness in any form." I don't want an eternal paradise that "has no end," in your own words. I want an end.

Ok. For all your anger you didn't disagree with me that finality does not necessitate nonexistence. Fine, so you want your eternal paradise to end some day. I'm not going to try and actually understand how you can prioritize this arbitrary 'finality' concept over eternal paradise but it's not a problem.

There's no justification for this retort in my response to you. It's like you're quoting my own words and responding to some other imagined opponent, effectively putting words in my mouth. Cut the shit, as I'm growing weary of this.

There is a pretty clear trend in your last post that you distinguish and then place a higher value on 'reasoning' as opposed to emotional or intuitive forms of knowledge and understanding, as if you can use 'reason' to dictate the happenings of your existence as opposed to existence determining your reasoning (and at least partly arrived at through emotional and intuitive feeling ). They are tied up and one is not necessarily superior to the others.

It's like you're trying really hard to sound smart about something you just read about on wikipedia.

I feel obliged to resort to basic word explanations when you're so blatently confusing what basic terms entail, i.e. 'science'. Questions concerning god's existence are NOT empirical, factual matters. Empirically there is no god as has been known since before Christ. Revelation is an essential part of many religions and the value of intuition and emotional forms of understanding placed over the purely sensible scientific method.

Pure and fact are two separate words. Look them up and then figure out what they can mean when combined.

Are you kidding me? I was clearly asking for an elaboration of what this fact was, NOT an explanation of what the phrase 'pure fact' means. Jeez.

"Matters of god" are irrelevant until we know that there is a god. We cannot know facts based on emotions or intuition. And whether or not there is a god is a matter of fact.

What are you talking about? We cannot know facts through emotions and intuition? What about when you're a kid? You don't think you understand certain facts about the world? We can reason through images and feelings, without words or rational conclusions. And of course matters concerning god go beyond a 'yes' or 'no' answer to his existence.

Intuition in this degree is a conclusion reached without evidence to support it. Einstein had knowledge of things and foresought the conclusion before he had reason to justify it. It was still rooted in what he had already learned. It was not a fucking pipedream or divine intervention.

The 'pure fact' here is that Einstein and many other scientists made breakthrough discoveries with deduction, not induction. That was my point. Buddha did not gain knowledge by doing research papers.

Your first statement is patently obvious and your second is patently ridiculous.

Ok, so you casually threw in this reference to Socrates and it struck me as incorrect as well as irrelevant (that's right, dumb AND pretentious ). "Intuition and emotion can serve reasoning, but for either ever to rule over reason is a dangerous thing, as even Socrates knew." To me this implies that you think Socrates employed a steady balance of intuition and emotion and believed that an imbalance in either is unfavourable. This notion of balance is Aristotelian, NOT Socratic. Socrates relied purely on intuition (see: his daemon and total lack of struggle against his own death sentence). On the second point, his awards in battle for valour and the fact that he wore the same garment the whole year round could well be interpreted as representing a lack of feeling or caring about danger; this can only remain conjecture.

If you're talking about neurological damage, that's an entirely separate matter. And a stupid thing to say with respect to our realm of discussion. If you're talking about changing the way that you reason, the way that you reason is changed because you're swayed by your emotion.

I am not talking about neurological damage. I am simply contending that emotion, intuition and reasoning all play a valid role through experiences in determining your reality. Being 'swayed by your emotion' is not some kind of excuse for this change in behaviour but a valid, sensible reaction.

The emotions still play a powerful role in this example, however, and for most, it seems, a dominant example. From my observations, it is the emotional shock of these tragic events which makes people question their beliefs moreso than any rational level.

Interesting that this is the sort of thing I have been saying for two pages which you have been vehemently disagreeing with.

 

[Einherjar86]

I hate Turkey Bacon! Why would you eat Turkey Bacon when you can eat real bacon?

 

[skeptik]

Interesting that the longer this goes on the greater part of your replies is empty barking.

This is due to the nature your own words have taken, saying things that are either obvious, asinine, and based on misunderstanding, so fault yourself if you don't approve of the 'quality' of my responses to your generally worthless bullshit. It is only to yourself that you're not coming across as a complete idiot.

Let's try to keep it substantial, eh?

If this is what you wanted, then you shouldn't have opened with "Oh no, you're subjected to Christian morality! Must be brutal having to follow the ten commandments and turn away the odd Jehovah's Witness at your door" last time.

Again, "Please make a list of things you would have done or would do with your life but can't owing to the fact that the world you live in is based on Christian morality?"

This bares no relevance as to whether or not Christians are capable of being annoying.

You avoided this. You live in a highly secularized western democracy. What on earth are the undesirable commitments as a human being living in said democracy? This ain't theocratic totalitarianism bro.

Are you attempting to imply that the only thing that you're permitted to be annoyed by is that which is oppressive? Nobody likes zealotry and being preached to involuntarily. If you are incapable of understanding at this point in time how some people may find religious people annoying and sometimes even feel a degree of hatred toward them, then this isn't even a discussion worth having. I never implied that living in the US is akin to living in Saudi Arabia, but that disqualifies nothing that there is a greater evil.

Ok. For all your anger you didn't disagree with me that finality does not necessitate nonexistence. Fine, so you want your eternal paradise to end some day. I'm not going to try and actually understand how you can prioritize this arbitrary 'finality' concept over eternal paradise but it's not a problem.

All of my anger was (perhaps intentionally) evoked by your blatantly misunderstanding a very basic and simple explanation. It's not like "I seek finality" is the only thing I said. I also said "I have no desire to live an immortal life, in whatever form. I'm not in a rush, but I would still like there to be an end. When I die, I would like to think that consciousness as I'd perceived it as the complex organism that I was no longer exists." Which makes what I had intended to get across utterly unambiguous.

There is a pretty clear trend in your last post that you distinguish and then place a higher value on 'reasoning' as opposed to emotional or intuitive forms of knowledge and understanding

And? Emotional and intuitive intelligence are intertwined with the rational mind. Reason takes priority over all things, generally.

as if you can use 'reason' to dictate the happenings of your existence as opposed to existence determining your reasoning (and at least partly arrived at through emotional and intuitive feeling ).

It is not 'as if' this at all. I don't know what inspired you to throw this out here, but it does not apply.

They are tied up and one is not necessarily superior to the others.

Of course they are tied up, but, given that the reason serves as the governing role, it does generally speaking take priority.

Questions concerning god's existence are NOT empirical, factual matters. Empirically there is no god as has been known since before Christ.

So as long as there's no empirical evidence to support the existence of something, it's no longer an empirical matter? Should we also emotionally invest ourselves in the belief of the existence of a flying pink dildo navigating the globe, donning a cape and bringing joy and happiness to random people at all hours of the day? There is no empirical evidence to support the existence of god, so there is no sound basis upon which to hold such a belief. Is this clearly enough understood?

Revelation is an essential part of many religions and the value of intuition and emotional forms of understanding placed over the purely sensible scientific method.

Do you think I give a fuck? Do you think this justifies anything? Stupidity and baseless beliefs do not change simply because you discard reason because it does not support your beliefs. Religious beliefs are illogical and baseless in the most negative sense of the terms.

Are you kidding me? I was clearly asking for an elaboration of what this fact was, NOT an explanation of what the phrase 'pure fact' means. Jeez.

Of course it's clear to you, since you knew what your intentions were. But you bracketed the term 'pure fact,' so I reasonably assumed that you had no idea what the term itself could possibly mean. The existence or nonexistence is a question of science simply because the answer to the question has profound implications for everything in the scientific field. This is regardless of whether or not science can answer the question, which it obviously can not; science never positively affirms anything to begin with, every scientific claim is open to controvertible evidence.

What are you talking about? We cannot know facts through emotions and intuition? What about when you're a kid? You don't think you understand certain facts about the world? We can reason through images and feelings, without words or rational conclusions.

If you can REASON through images and feelings, then your REASONING faculties are playing a role, are they not? Reasoning plays a role in our understanding in all fields; just because a conclusion for which no rational basis exists is reached does not mean that your logical mind wasn't running.

And of course matters concerning god go beyond a 'yes' or 'no' answer to his existence.

What else is there? 'Kind of?' Does god kind of exist, Ink_Wirey? Just because we can't answer the question doesn't mean it's not a yes or no question. Does a bear shit in the woods? Kind of.

The 'pure fact' here is that Einstein and many other scientists made breakthrough discoveries with deduction, not induction. That was my point. Buddha did not gain knowledge by doing research papers.

I don't care about Buddha.

Intuition and deduction not entirely independent of thinking and education and an accumulation of foreknowledge based on sound reasoning and justification, as you seem to imply. That intuition has played a role in scientific discoveries is both obvious and, as far as I can discern, irrelevant to whatever the hell it is you're trying to say. It's just that what you are trying to imply under the basis of the validity of intuitive knowledge goes beyond what is acceptable.

Ok, so you casually threw in this reference to Socrates and it struck me as incorrect as well as irrelevant (that's right, dumb AND pretentious ). "Intuition and emotion can serve reasoning, but for either ever to rule over reason is a dangerous thing, as even Socrates knew." To me this implies that you think Socrates employed a steady balance of intuition and emotion and believed that an imbalance in either is unfavourable. This notion of balance is Aristotelian, NOT Socratic. Socrates relied purely on intuition (see: his daemon and total lack of struggle against his own death sentence). On the second point, his awards in battle for valour and the fact that he wore the same garment the whole year round could well be interpreted as representing a lack of feeling or caring about danger; this can only remain conjecture.

Have you seriously not read The Republic? In that, Socrates distinguishes the soul into three parts; depending on your translation, the reasoning, the emotional or spirited, and the appetitive. He says that the spirited and appetitive parts are subordinate to the reasoning part of the soul. He also bans poetry from his ideal city because it appeals to the emotions and subverts the reason. I brought up Socrates simply to point out that the principle that the reason is predominant in mental faculties has existed as long as modern philosophy has. In other words, you are completely wrong.

Oh, by the way, there's a bit of egg on your face.

I am not talking about neurological damage. I am simply contending that emotion, intuition and reasoning all play a valid role through experiences in determining your reality. Being 'swayed by your emotion' is not some kind of excuse for this change in behaviour but a valid, sensible reaction.

A better word would be understandable.

Interesting that this is the sort of thing I have been saying for two pages which you have been vehemently disagreeing with.

I never disagreed that the emotions make people question their beliefs, I disagreed that it should solely make people question their beliefs. It should be accompanied, or followed, by a reasoned conversation.

 

[The Heartbreak Kid]

Racism.

Fucking hate it beyond belief.

It has to be the most stupid reason for hating another human, becuase of their colour or culture.

I mean for fucks sake people don't get a bloody choice in the matter, so why hate someone for something that can't be helped?

I always remember this smart arse neo-nazi skin head having a go at me once for being a white fella dating an asian lady, he thought he was the greatest thing being a white supremacist knob.

I knew the dumb shit would never listen to reason, so I fucking wrapped his head around the nearest light pole.

I got in a bit of trouble with the copse for cracking the blokes skull, but they let me off because they hate those dicks as well.

I always love to have a go at them, the nazi's and the KKK and the low-life unemployed fucks who think their problems are to be blamed on Asian/Indian/African and other ethnic types.

Racism is the most fucking stupid thing to beleive in or support in the world and I happily punch the fuck out of anyone who supports that, or hatred for others things such as disabilty or religion.

Take your fucking hatred for such things and shove it so far up your dumb arse that you haemorage yourself and bleed to deah in agony.

And the right-wing fascist metal bands, fucking would love to see them for real and carve them up with big fucking bowie knife!

Ewwwwwwww, you're dating an Asian!

 

[SentinelSlain]

Well the thing is, he's attacking people for their beliefs rather than just vocally criticising them. So it's all a bit gay.

 

[pepper666]

That's pretty fun JAGEagent... coming from someone in the metal scene, a musical scene that's lyrical content consistantly attacks people for their belief systems LOL

And before you say the bands just vocalise it or whatever, um Napalm Death anybody?

Contantly attack people's beleif and political systems.

Yeah if I think people beleive in something stupid I'll tell them so, if they take offense then so be it and if they think I'm "gay" in my views then that is just hilariously immature AND well fuck it dude I don't give a shit what other people really think anyway LOL

Peace and love bro!

 

[Pessimism]

I want to join in on this raging debate, but am far too angry/depressed to do so; carry on Doden.

 

[skeptik]

No, I think I'm done here. I've run out of ways of saying "some people can be annoying sometimes."

So do you ever use instant messenger thingers any more? We need to set aside some bonding time together before I can reintroduce you to the kids...it's been a while.

 

[Vimana]

Get on IM Seraphim. I added you to my account that I use for stalking.

 

[Pessimism]

I actually don't have a messenger service; my comp is busted (currently on girlfriends every time I post here) - as soon as I can afford a new mobo though, I think I might get one. I have no idea what is good anymore, so I'll need rec's.

I just hope my cpu didn't fry in all the "excitement", as I would hate to have to buy another quad-core

 

[Psychonaut]

Litter and the self-absorbed fuckheads who can't stand having an empty soda bottle in their car long enough to get it to a trashcan. Plus I live on a corner lot with a stop sign and every time I go out to mow, I have to pick up grabage. I work hard on my lawn. Assholes.

When cars are burning oil. Whenever I see that white trail of smoke coming from someones exhaust, I pray I'll be able to keep my lunch down. No other smell make me so sick so fast.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Litter and the self-absorbed fuckheads who can't stand having an empty soda bottle in their car long enough to get it to a trashcan. Plus I live on a corner lot with a stop sign and every time I go out to mow, I have to pick up grabage. I work hard on my lawn. Assholes.

Set up a camera and start busting some bitches. I'd totally do that if I were you. Those fines can be hefty.

 

[cookiecutter]

There's a big difference between being against someone for an irrational reason (racism, sexism etc.) and being against someone for having stupid beliefs. Being against racism is much more justified than being against black people.

EDIT: This was a response to JAGE in support of pepper

 

[False Joe]

Being against racism is much more justified than being against black people.

There is nothing more justified than being against black people.

 

[Eligos]

Prostitution.

 

[genocide roach]

dont have enough money?
~gR~

 

[SentinelSlain]

Well the thing is I was saying that all the nazi did was vocally criticise you for miscegenation. I personally don't think he should force views onto others, but I don't have a different opinion depending what the view is.

 

[Dak]

Intolerance of intolerance is intolerance. Period.

 

[skeptik]

Not all intolerance is bad.