Certainly, but not necessarily.

I'm sorry, I just do not have the intelligence to interpret the complexities of your argument. It is likely that these symptoms of stupidity are widespread on TPF, and that is the reason you are incapable of communicating your points.

Interesting, I had to Google it. But I suppose you could say, I am a student practitioner of game theory. The first thing to recognize regarding this strategy, it that every engagement is particular in its totality.

I'm never not talking about cavities, that is my primary agenda.

I was just referring to your considerations of this thread's OP.

Should This Thread Be Considered?

Considered as in, as in being a load of crap.

Considered as in, believed to be a load of crap.

Considered as in, thought of as being a load of crap.

Considered as in, looked upon as a load of crap.

I don't do not know. :chin: — Sir2u

Sorry, I just read "load of crap" four times and mistook it for a judgment, instead of a 4 different ways to consider this thread. Sorry for my mistaken assumption.

No, dear, you're just another mini-me. But it's nice you have aspirations, I suppose. — S

Don't you dare call me Mini, that mouse is a total slut, and my loyalty lies with Bugs.

You should give me the benefit of the doubt, I'm currently being overwhelmed by replies to my nonsense here on good old TPF

You fuckin instigator, I'm also the best instigator on TPF

She's a Warrior Queen. She forward slashes her foes with a sword made of pure redundancy. — S

Sounds hot.
Do they bleed tautology?
Even hotter.

Why do people not bother answering questions here. How can it be the greatest thread ever if no one answers questions. — Sir2u

Ask me anything, I promise to answer to the best of my ability.

But it is the greatest thread ever, you'll see in due time.

I think you guys may have invented a new school of philosophy with this thread.

She sounds so wise and exalted by the gods. I can't wait for her to correct me.

No one can ruin a thread quite like me, but this puts us in a bit of a quandary, because this is my own thread. — S

Fuck off. I'm the best at ruining threads.

Should I spectacularly ruin my own thread? And it is also a paradox, because my threads are always brilliant. — S

They are brilliant, but that is even more reason to ruin them. And, if you don't ruin it I will, and I will have been victorious.

So cool. I want to meet her.

I did

This thread will be monumental, just wait. — Merkwurdichliebe

Told you. Wait for the fire to spread. I'm predicting all out war, a Hobbesian paradise: Bellum omnium contra omnes.

My pappy told me that whenever anyone calls something crap, it means its doo doo, and doo doo is bad 'cause its full'o'germs.

Is that the Oracle of TPF?

They can add whatever superfluities or supereffluences they like as long as it is in the form of nicely manageable pellets. — Janus

:smile:

Also, as long as they don't start overpopulating this thread with evil self-referential rabbit (or mouse) jokes. — Janus

:grin:

On a different tangent; do you think Mighty Mouse was a greater philosopher than Bugs Bunny? And please don't mention that dopey sap Mickey Mouse (oh shit I just mentioned him!) — Janus

:lol:

(I used to have the hots for Minnie when I was a kid, but I'm not a bot or bestial or anything just a sad "phuq" who can't wallow successfully). — Janus

:rofl:

I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less! — Janus

:scream:

Janus In what way do you disagree? — Sir2u

:death:

So very pessimistic.

Yes, there are extreme examples that are obvious, but I'm talking about the more subtle examples that aren't so clearly weird. On the other hand, attributing ordinary language to a matter of common sense puts too much emphasis on subjectivity. I am asking what criterion we can use, which will account for the subtle examples that lie in the grey area between ordinary and weird, yet, while reigning in the arbitrary subjective determinations.

Yes, ad infinitum. Wallow in grace. — Wallows

Even more of a mindphuq when spoken by Bugs. (Yes, we are on a first name basis.)

Because I don't know if I know, or because I know I don't know, or because I think the very idea of an evil rabbit is super cool, or because the very idea of the very idea of an evil rabbit being super cool is satisfying to Wallows, or even simply to wallow in? And so on, ad infinitum...? — Janus

Ok. I think we are getting somewhere.

Too bad you shooed off the field mice, they might have had something superfluous to add. Oh well, we'll just have to wonder.

probably do, but I seem to have forgotten. I need a little of that good ole northern anamnesis! — Janus

Tell him, he just needs to Wallowsomemore. Patience is the key to Wallowsing

To be fair, Bugs Bunny is my greatest influence
— Merkwurdichliebe

I can relate to that: the very idea of an evil rabbit is super-cool. — Janus

We still have to consult the Oracle, but you may be the wisest philosopher on TPF.

This is where the distinction between science talk and ordinary language is useful. Ordinary language takes priority in my book — S

This is a question I've always pondered, maybe you can help me. What is the best criterion for assessing what constitutes ordinary language?

I'm ignorant, just asking.

(Don't let the Anals in: they'll start rabbiting on about self-reference). — Janus

Lol. Sorry, I am a type of instigator who cannot help himself. To be fair, Bugs Bunny is my greatest influence

The problem is, this thread is stuck in the lounge, and lounging is not conducive to monumentality. — Janus

Fuck!!!!

Goddamn censorship of insignificant topics.

(ADD. But, I have faith that the best philosophers on TPF will find this thread, and ruin it better than any thread ever published on TPF.)

I don't know, and I love not knowing... (and I'm not a bot, either!) — Janus

Isn't that the ultimate purpose of philosophy, to show ourselves that we know nothing, and that we know nothing in regard to knowing nothing. It is a good thing to be a philosopher and love not knowing.

(Btw, I am a bot)

"Monumental" or monomaniacal? — Janus

What's the difference?

OK, I guess that's true. Should this thread be considered? I don't know how to begin considering it. — Janus

So are you saying that it is impossible to consider this thread to begin with?

But is this not in fact considering it?

I don't know ...

You are the one who came up with the idea for this thread, so you get first honors.

So, should this thread be considered?

Awesome!!!

This thread will be monumental, just wait.

It's like creating a thread titled "Should this Thread be Considered?". — Janus

Greatest thread ever.

That is an accurate point. To clarify, my position here, I am regarding science as human artifice, and include all human artifice under the category of aesthetic existence. The aesthetic sphere is navigated by assessing the interesting (what is my interest?), and beauty is only one aspect of the interesting.

I would call scientific fact interesting, and in it's own way, it is beautiful without intending to be. But then again, is a beautiful maiden beautiful, only because she intends to be? And do we not find interest in the beautiful? I would say we are attracted to the beautiful for the mere fact that we find it interesting. Such is the capriciousness of aesthetic assessment.

I agree, such a claim is only an aesthetic assessment, and highly debatable. But, nevertheless, science is, at least, up there in the top 5? Hmm?

:cry:

We just don't seem to be getting to the point at all on this issue, but just kind of going around and around, traversing a downward spiral. The end point will come when we all disappear up our own arses if we're not careful! — Janus

I believe such a thing is inevitable.

Any time you make a South Park reference, you get two thumbs up.

:up: :up:

Don't get me wrong, fuck Society (qua. the entrenched system) too.