Will the irony never end! — baker

Well I think that irony is preferable to plain bullshit, but that is only my humble opinion.
And it is always better to get an ironic reply to questions that none at all.

Anyway, I'd like to see the OP's reply -- ↪schopenhauer1
! -- that's why I posted in this thread to begin with. — baker

Which reply? Are you waiting for him to come and explain it all?

When the participant IS in that state, as you so excellently describe above and has demonstrated it, as you have, and also has a history of the being part of a terrorist group engaging in acts of terrorism, in context of what we have already discussed, dismissing them politely is about the best alternative available to one who understands the value of correct usage of energy and time. Now, carry on. I will let you figure what that means this time. — skyblack

No need to even think about what it means. It was simply. Let me explain it for you.

It means that you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about therefore you have decided to try and blow off anyone that tries to discuss things with you by spouting a load of verbal diarrhea and hoping that they will walk away from the mess and that you will be able to claim victory because no one else will tell you that you are wrong.

Even if no one else tells you that you are wrong does not make you right.

Whether someone is Caucasian or not is not up to you (except if you were in some racial identity comission or some such). — baker

Well that is pretty obvious.

But whether someone "is" aggravating or not is 1. up to you, and 2. how you interact with that person. — baker

When I find someone aggravating, it is because of that person having a quality I do not like. It is possible that that person has acquired that specific trait because they have cultured it themselves or because it has been imposed upon them through nature or nurture. The ones I find most irritating are the self cultured traits such as snobby accents, exaggeration of intellect and the worst of all is the overbearing belief that some people have in their own superiority.

In the way you formulate your statements.
As if "Tom is aggravating" would ontologically and epistemologically be the same type of statement as "A cube has 6 surfaces." — baker

Now this is sort of silly. Where did I make a statement like that?

except that you don't formulate it as your thought, as your opinion, but as if it were an objective fact about the other person. — baker

OK, so you think that they way I am saying that I think Tom is a dickhead actually means that he is the head of a dick?

When someone says "I think" at the beginning of a sentence it is not to be counted true statement.

For instance, when I say that I find you to be a very irritating person, does that mean that you are one?

I do not know the truth about that, you may be a nice person. But based on the way you are interacting with me, I think I can safely say that you are irritating.

So either get used to everyday use of language and stop thinking that every interaction between parts of the universe HAS to be analyzed philosophically or find a better playpen.

Have you read the link? — baker

No, I just asked for fun. Anyone that uses the wiki as a serious reference leaves a lot to be desired as a bearer of knowledge.

What I asked, maybe not clearly enough is that I still don't understand what you mean by this. How does this apply to the topic? Are you trying to tell me that you think I am aggravating because of the way I speak and its nonconformity to someones theory about how to use language?

You said things like "this makes no sense", "people that ask pointless questions". You didn't say "I don't understand this" (until now, after all my trying to change the mode of the conversation). — baker

A person usually speaks what they think, it meant exactly what it said. "This makes no sense". Is it so confusing?

Right, i was waiting for that shift from the topic to the person.Says it all. — skyblack

Yes you are right, it is irritating when people start to get personal and insulting instead of discussing the topic.
Here is a very good example of someone doing exactly that.

Carry on. — skyblack

Being dismissive is one of the easiest ways out for someone that has their head so far up their butt that they think the light they see is the brilliance of their intellect. The truth is that what they really see is the light shining though their ears into the empty space where their brain should be. :rofl:

I wasn't giving you permission, it was my way of politely saying you are being dismissed. — skyblack

I don't need that either. But it serves as a good example of your conformity to society. :rofl:

Carry on. — skyblack

Best comedy films ever made in England.

But in case you are trying to give me permission, I don't need it.

I'm saying that other people don't have characteristics that would exist or have relevance regardless of the observer. — baker

I am really sorry to say that this makes no sense. If people don't have characteristic that would exist regardless of the observer then there is nothing to talk about here.

Also, "aggravating" is not the same kind of personal characteristic like "Caucasian". — baker

Both are descriptive of people, one is physical the other is personality. Did you just figure that out or do you think I am not able to recognize the difference.

You're externalizing, you talk of other people as if you're the one who decides who they really are or what is true about them. — baker

Exactly where did I say something like that? I am the one that decides what I think about them, or is that not obvious to you?

You use you-messages, not I-messages. Most people are like that. But it still makes for very low quality interactions. — baker

Again I do not understand what you are trying to say. Maybe you could give an example of what I have said that makes you think something like this.

I think that this thread is morphing into the "Quotable Quotes" section of the Readers Digest.

(And I swear the first person that points out it is actually 2 words is going to become acutely aware of another point.) — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It is so sad what we have become. In days gone by would not have had to worry about this dilemma at all, you could have simply written firemen.

All of this politically correct bullshit is making a mess of normal people and common sense.

Aren't you part of that group of terrorists? — skyblack

No.
Just because I adjust my needs to society does not mean that I am going to fight either for or against it.

As I said, one can and has to adjust to society without being happy with it (conforming).

And there is a difference between adjusting and conforming. When I adjust I can take advantage of the parts of society that are beneficial while avoiding the parts I disagree with.

So you neither feel nor take any responsibility for how you feel about (and react to) others. — baker

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Is it not obvious that I am the one that decided that I have a low tolerance threshold for people that ask pointless questions, or are you imagining that it is somehow genetic or programmed into me.

It must be terrible to have one's state of mind so affected/directed by others. — baker

Yes it is terrible having people ask pointless questions because they are either failing to understand what I am saying or purposely misunderstanding my words to try and provoke reaction.

But it does not really bother my state of mind, when I have reached the threshold I tell them to piss off.

There are three people in the room, a rich man, a sexy young lady and an hunky athlete.
The rich man spends a lot of time talk about his possessions.
The athlete spends the time talking about his exploits on the field and with the ladies.
The young lady listens to both with interest for a while and imagines what life would be like with lots of money to spend and with a handsome hunk. But then decides that they are both arseholes and walks out telling them that she will see them later on the golf course.

People can have tolerance for some aspects of other people while loathing others parts of their personality. Try to remember that everything is not black and white.

"It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society".----Anonymous — skyblack

One can adjust without conformity. That is what many terrorist do. And we all know how good they are for society.

So would you say richness, then, gives those who are rich a great sense of leisure instead of labor, — d Luke

No, but if you can explain how someone could have a sense of leisure or of labor I might rethink my answer.

I might agree that those who have enough money to not have to work to pay their bills might find it less necessary to work.

Or do you think richness would be more than these things? — d Luke

Richness could mean something different for each and every rich person, but to me it is meaningless because I have not experienced it.

I would a guess that some of those that have gone from rags to riches would celebrate their good lucky in doing so and live a happy life. But others either born into money or have gained it for themselves become money grabbers that are only interested in making more.

But the original problem is still there. — InPitzotl

Your right about that, and he will probably stick around for a while longer. :rofl:

Indeed. I think everything you've said is a load of Pollocks. — Bartricks

You must have been working on your charm class homework very hard. Some many compliments.

But you have still failed to address what I said.

From a psychological point of view it is extremely interesting to see how you abuse others that fail to meet your pathetic expectations even when they have the courtesy to write replies to your hogwash. But you do not even have the courtesy to reply.

Indeed, I think that everything you have said is a load of bollocks that is completely unsustainable in any form that you care to spout it.

Do you think that if Tom thinks Dick is aggravating, this has nothing in any way to do with Tom? — baker

Of course it has something to do with them both. One has a low tolerance for a specific characteristic of the other. For example, I have a low tolerance for people that ask pointless questions, therefore those that have a tendency to do that irritate me.

And that Tom is completey helpless in the face of Dick's aggravation? Ie. that if Tom is in Dick's presence, Tom will become aggravated, and there's nothing Tom can do about that? — baker

Tom can quite easily walk away or just tell Dick to piss off. How is this relevant to what I said?

Paint flinger. — Bartricks

Oh dear, thank you so much. I never imagined that a dipshit like you was capable of paying such a compliment,

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jackson-Pollock

There are a lot more famous paint flinger like him.

Thank you so much.

I'm sure that passes for wit in a Burger King or a Kentucky Fried Chicken, but you are talking to a champagne drinking truffle muncher, so you really need to up your game. Thicky. — Bartricks

If I was abusive as you, I would correct your opinion of yourself to read piss drinking shit eating type of person. But I am not at all abusive. :halo:

And the monkey-flung painting is clearly not a portrait of you. However, if your reason says otherwise, then i think it is too badly corrupted to be of any use. — Bartricks

Please explain how you dickionary contradicts my point of view. IF YOU CAN. :rofl:

I use to think richness could be enough money. But what if a person does not have to pay the bills because of government assistance or welfare. This person gets bills paid because of a lack of money. Why should this person not be considered rich? — d Luke

Because it does not fit into the definition I gave.
I said that anyone with enough money to pay the bills without having to work. That would mean that they choose not to work because they don't need to.
These people do not have enough money to pay the bills, that is why they are paid for them. And most of them don't work because they cannot do so.

What does it mean for a person to be rich? — d Luke

Anyone with enough money not to have to work to pay the bills. But most of those people work harder than the rest of us.

I would drop $100,000.00 for the right information any day of the week. — Book273

Do you work for the KGB or something like that?

What are the problems of the world today? — Xtrix

Not to get into too much detail for the answer, but I would guess it to be at least 90% of the population.
Myself included.

Shall I help you to see how dumb you are being? (Or willfully ignorant) — Bartricks

It is about time you got a dictionary so that you can stop using the dickionary you use. Maybe it will help to stop you fucking up so much.
Your lack of knowledge about the use of words, ignorance, is only surpassed by the flagrantly abusive use of them to suite your own ideas, dumbness.

You don't seem to understand the argument. — Bartricks

That makes 2 of us then. One that does not understand it and one that does not understand just how bloody stupid it is.

Visual sensations cannot tell us about the world unless they have representative contents.
That is, unless they are telling us something. — Bartricks

There seems to be enough consensus to let this go.

And they will only have those, if the faculty that created them in us was designed by an agent for that purpose. — Bartricks

This still sounds like bullshit even after you have repeated it so many times.

It's pointless arguing with you, but anyway, in the hope that someone somewhere will get the point - imagine a portrait artist paints a picture of you. That's a pictorial representation. Now imagine a monkey in a room randomly flinging paint at a canvas. And imagine that by some pure fluke the image the monkey's mad antics create exactly resembles the portrait painter's painting.

Is it a portrait of you? — Bartricks

If it is as good as the painters image of me and is indistinguishable from the other one then of course it is a portrait of me. Even if the monkey does not recognize the fact. Can you provide a definition of
"portrait" that specifies that only humans are allowed to create them or that they have to be intentional?

I think you have this wrong again. :gasp: All you have done were is try to prove that only agent created messages are capable of creating representative contents.

But even if I were to admit that it was true, which it is certainly not. It in no way whatsoever proves that the perception of those messages has to be through agent create faculties.

Our visual sensations are random monkey-flung paintings if our visual faculties are bot built. And thus lookingin the oven is not something one can do with bot built faculties. All one can do is 'look' in the oven. — Bartricks

Boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, BORING.

It's just that even your insults don't really make sense. — Bartricks

Oh dear, did I give you the impression that the list was of insults? Terribly sorry about that old chap, maybe I should have explained better. That is nothing more than a list of possible reasons for your "mistaken" (read as "Fucked up") ideas.

You proposed that I have read relevant philosophical works (can you tell me some of those, incidentally - ones that are not on an SEP page?) upside down or backwards. — Bartricks

That would be one way of explaining why you have these mistaken ideas.

That would require some skill. Leonardo da Vinci was capable writing backwards and so could presumably read backwards too. And he was a bright lad. So that's why it puzzled me. — Bartricks

No one said that you were/are capable of doing it. I think that you missed the point.
Penny will drop in 10 seconds from now, 9, 8,7..................................

But getting back to the rest of that post.

The whole problem could be solved by opening the oven and looking to see if there is a pie in it. That would eliminate any need of information being passed through any message and therefore even if there are such things as representers they would not be involved in acquiring information.
If I can then confirm that the pie is in the oven, it would seem that in some way I would have received that information directly from my evolutionary developed senses.

Now maybe if Fartrix can show why I am wrong, maybe I will continue to try to explain why he is wrong. — Sir2u

Don't you have anything to comment about it?

A hole exists as the space between boundaries not occupied by objects.

I think your original question lacks clarity, which makes it difficult for people to answer. What do you mean by ‘true awareness’? ‘Some things’? Why would you infer that if we were just the product of evolutionary forces, our senses would be unreliable or partial? Etc, etc. — Ignatius

He has no idea, and he will just tell you that it is in the OP and to read it again.

By the way, if you want to quote someone's text, just select it then click on the QUOTE button that appears.

Can you explain 3 to me above — Bartricks

Nope, if you are so freaking brilliant you should be able to figure it out all by your self.

If you can't do that, tough shit.

I think he just has a personality disorder and doesnt really know anything. Standard internet jerkoff. — DingoJones

That was possibility #6, but I am too polite to call people crazy even though it is possibly true. :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl:

Just one question. Does your theory apply to beer as well?

Or maybe 2 questions. Do all of the people involved in growing the ingredients, making the beer brewing equipment, brewing the beer, canning/bottling the beer actually do nothing at all?

Ya was very disappointed in you myself. He’s well fed and he won’t go away if people keep feeding him. — DingoJones

The world is a boring place right now, do you remember how enjoyable it was sitting in the park feeding the pigeons or squirrels? I used to loving going to a park in Mobile where the squirrels would sit in your hand to eat the nuts.

I am actually beginning to think that one of these might be the problem with Fartrix:
1. He never read the book about the topic, he just skinned the covers and maybe the introduction. Or got the Idea from the Amazon review.
2. If he did read the book it was either in a foreign language and he used google to translate it.
3. If the book was in his mother tongue he had it upside down or read from back to front.
4. He went to classes drunk or high.
5. The most probable is that he just does not know anything and is blowing ideas from his ass.

The whole problem could be solved by opening the oven and looking to see if there is a pie in it. That would eliminate any need of information being passed through any message and therefore even if there are such things as representers they would not be involved in acquiring information.
If I can then confirm that the pie is in the oven, it would seem that in some way I would have received that information directly from my evolutionary developed senses.

Now maybe if Fartrix can show why I am wrong, maybe I will continue to try to explain why he is wrong.

As if "being aggravating" were an objective, inherent characteristic of a person, and have nothing to do with the way two people interact with one another? — baker

Did I say anything about that?

But to be truthful, when "some" People find another person aggravating it is because of some trait or characteristic they have that is the cause. It would be logical to suppose that other would find that person to be aggravating for the same reason.

Most people do not have "being aggravating" as an objective but it is usually a inherent part of then.

When a book is expensive enough, it is not shared, because the price gets cheaper. — gikehef947

When something is expensive enough, someone will make a knock off, photocopy or just photos of it and sell it cheaper. It is the content that is valuable, not the book itself, And they don't care about the value of the original.

Fun fact of the day, pirating happens.

Why rent a house for $3000/month when you can assemble a tent under an overpass on the urban outskirts. — Nils Loc

Well that sounds like fun. We will have $2950 a month to spend on booze, and the ladies. Or maybe just the booze, safer maybe.

Capitalism is evil — gikehef947

Wait a couple of weeks and you will be able to download the PDF from Demoniod. :wink:

But what if a person is only perceived as aggravating by some other people? — baker

That is probably just because the rest of the people don't know them. If they did they would probably perceive that person to be aggravating as well

Teddybär A 200 page limited edition book of photographs of Germans posing with Bear (suit). SOLD OUT — Nils Loc

Eerrrr, thanks. I think. :smile:

I have had a few German friends, most of them seemed to be more obsessed with bear that anything else. But that might be because we are in the tropics and it never snows.

Note as well that I am not claiming evolutionary forces cannot have built our faculties, I am arguing that 'unguided' evolutionary forces cannot be responsible for them, for then they would not be representing anything to us.

"We cannot believe what our senses tell us about the world because it is not presented to us by an agent.
If we accepted that there is an agent that is purposely sending the information then we can believe it." — Sir2u


That's not a quote from me! That's not my view! — Bartricks

Is this not confusing to you. I know it is not a quote of something you said, but it is saying almost the same thing as you are.
Our sense cannot give us believable information.

Perception denotes that which is involved in perceiving something. And you perceive something when you are subject to a certain kind of mental state known as a perceptual experience. This kind of mental state has 'representative contents' (though it is not the only kind that does) - that is, it represents something to be the case. And when that perceptual experience has been caused, non-waywardly, by its representative contents, then you are perceiving something. — Bartricks

You are very short sighted, you cannot see beyond the end of your own twaddle.

What I am arguing, in case you didn't know, is that unless an agent has designed the faculty that created that experience in you, it won't have any representative contents at all and thus won't qualify as a perceptual experience (just something that is introspectively indiscernible from one). — Bartricks

We all know what you are arguing, but I don't think many understand exactly how it could be possible.

Descartes argued that our faculties are designed by God and on that basis we can trust them. But that's not what I have argued, is it? — Bartricks

No you certainly have not claimed that. You just said agent instead of god.

And why the freaking hell do people have to capitalize the word god all the time?

Anyways, I for one have had enough. It was fun.

I wish I could help you there mate, but all I can see is "D7foreh.jpg".

Nicely written caption though, sound like an interesting image.

Not everyone has a network connection or device. — Tiberiusmoon

Even fewer have them here, but if you want to get along you have to find a way to do it.