• Transubstantiation
    But why do you believe that? Because it's what the doctrine says? — Sapientia
    It's not about believing it at this point, it's about judging a doctrine by the claims that it makes. If a doctrine claims that X is false, you cannot judge the doctrine as false because X isn't true, obviously. That's a basic logical fallacy.

    What if the doctrine said that a fig will transform into a flying octopus, but would keep the appearance of a fig, if it is eaten in a special ceremony? Would you believe that? — Sapientia
    I wouldn't believe that because firstly I don't understand what it means, so I can't believe it. But I certainly don't disbelieve it because I don't see the fig having the appearance of a flying octopus, obviously.

    Yes I can, because the doctrine itself, if taken literally, is full of rubbish. — Sapientia
    Empty assertion.

    I can do both. — Sapientia
    One is a logical fallacy, but I see you like logical fallacies :P
  • Transubstantiation
    I'm not. I said that that's what I'd expect to see if it were true. I don't base my expectations on what is absent from an old work of fiction. I base my expectations on what I know about science. — Sapientia
    Why do you expect to see that if it were true? :s

    When the doctrine itself says that the wine and the bread retain the appearance of wine and bread, how can you possibly expect that appearance to be changed so that you'd find that it is biologically blood and not wine, and biologically flesh and not bread? :s

    Obviously I don't believe in miracles or faux mysteries. I'm curious why you do. That's how our conversation began, but now you're making it about me. — Sapientia
    That's another discussion, but you cannot expect transubstantiation to meet your standards of evidence because the doctrine itself makes it explicitly clear that it doesn't. So you can disbelieve transubstantiation because you don't believe in mystical possibilities or miracles, BUT you cannot disbelieve it because there is no biological change in the bread and wine.
  • Transubstantiation
    Obviously it doesn't claim that there will be biological evidence. — Sapientia
    Exactly, so why are you looking for it?

    Obviously it doesn't claim that there will be biological evidence. The rest seems fine, and Google backs it up. Transubstantiation is the miraculous change by which according to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox dogma the eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearances of bread and wine. — Sapientia
    If it's miraculous (ie mystical), why do you expect to find a biological change in the composition of the wine and bread? If there was such a biological change, then it wouldn't be mystical at all. The Eucharist is mystical in nature - Christ is mystically present in the bread and wine, not in terms of the atoms that compose it. As you say, it still has the appearance, physically, of bread and wine.
  • Transubstantiation
    I would expect to see biological evidence of the body and blood of Christ — Sapientia
    Why? That's not what the doctrine claims.
  • Transubstantiation
    without scientific basis — Sapientia
    What do you mean without scientific basis? What kind of scientific basis would you expect? Finding God in the atoms of the wine or what?
  • Does a Bird Know It's Beautiful? - A Weird Argument For Theism
    Does a bird know that it's beautiful? — Noble Dust
    Well, you have to specify what exactly you mean by "know"? Knowing something has a multitude of different senses, and one of the things that annoys me about even this forum, is that people talk in extremely vague ways which render the discourse effectively incomprehensible - I just cannot understand what this man is trying to tell me as Borat said...


    Let's take the example of playing tennis. Initially, when you learn to play tennis, or when you're trying to improve your hits, what you do is that you concentrate on some basic theoretical precepts which are conceived to get you to achieve whatever you're trying to achieve in the most effective manner possible given the tools that you have (ball, racket, etc.). You try to get your body and your muscles to act those principles as best as possible. However, this is not so easy. Because you have to learn to use different muscles that you were never aware of before, you have to learn to control and concentrate different subtle parts of your body at the same time and so on.

    So the practice is always an attempt to approximate the theoretical. And in some cases - if you have a particular deformity, etc. - the practice is also an attempt to refine the theoretical to your own particularities, which is a higher level of the practice - a synthesis of the theoretical-practical if you want.

    So in a sense, I know the theoretical aspects of tennis. And in another, I know to practically execute them. These are two different senses of knowledge, and I believe for example Heidegger and Aristotle both distinguish between one and the other.

    Now which of this form of knowledge is prior to the other is an interesting question. I think that Heidegger would argue contrary to the rest of the tradition that the practical know-how comes before the theoretization of it.

    There's also the difference between knowing that, and knowing how. I know that quarks are the basic building blocks of matter, I do not know how - to know how I'd have to understand how the concept of quarks was initially arrived at, ie. I need to practically travel the same path that those who discovered quarks did.

    There are also "gradations" of knowledge. All knowledge can be recaptured to a certain extent or another. I know how to solve a Rubik's cube. A few years ago, I could solve it with my eyes closed. Now I can still solve it. But not with my eyes closed, and much slower. Why? Cause I forgot the exact steps. It's like going in a labyrinth I've been in many years ago. I may have forgotten the exact steps, but I have stored into memory a few key principles from which those steps were derived and I can both retrieve other forgotten details, and recreate those that I cannot retrieve. I may not know the entire labyrth a priori as it were, but as I travel along it, I remember more and more, and as a result I'm capable to make my way through it. I can still say I know it, though I mean something quite different now.

    So 1) someone may know that they are beautiful without knowing how. 2) Someone may also be unaware that they are beautiful theoretically, but practically show a refined awareness of it.

    With regards to (1) this shows a practical or intuitive understanding of beauty without being able to specify its causes. And with regards to (2) you can take the example of a woman who is insecure about her physical look on a discursive level, but on a practical level - through the way she is flirting and using her body for example - she shows extensive awareness of her beauty.

    (figuratively in the sense that conciousness is a mirror in which we reflect on ourselves) — Noble Dust
    Well, I think the bird is definitely conscious, in that it reacts to stimuli, and probably projects a world for itself the same way us humans project a world for ourselves. What I think you might mean is that a bird lacks the self-awareness of human beings, and the reflexivity of our thought. In other words, the bird does not think about what it is thinking. It does not think about why it is singing, why it is flying, etc.

    There is also the difference between subjective consciousness and objective consciousness. The bird is objectively conscious of the prey that lies before it. But it is not subjectively conscious of its own being, including how that relates to the meta-context it finds itself in.

    So a bird is not capable of, say, antinatalism, the way a human being is. A bird cannot attempt to judge the whole of its existence (or all existence as such) since its consciousness is not self-reflective as Hegel would say.

    A bird's subjective consciousness is limited to the consciousness of impulses, desires, etc. but it lacks a faculty (reason) to judge those impulses, desires, etc. It lacks what Nietzsche called that debilitating faculty of man which makes him different from the blonde beasts of prey which feast and pillage the fields.

    So a bird may be conscious objectively of its beauty when attracting a mate for example. If the bird sings to attract a mate, then it is conscious objectively that its singing is beautiful - it attracts the mate.

    So it's not consciousness itself that is the mirror, it is self-consciousness, or better said reflective consciousness and reason which permit this mirroring to take place.

    There is a sense in which both bird and man may not know of their (full) beauty - and that's in-so-far as they are unaware of how they fit into the larger picture. If you are unaware of the greater purpose, then you may not see why X Y Z happened the way they did. That's also why man's greatest happiness is knowing God.

    "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." Genesis 50:20.
  • Transubstantiation
    Ooh. How embarrassing. Do you believe in transubstantiation? — Sapientia
    Yeah, the latin doctrine of transubstantiation is quite close to the EO doctrine of Metousiosis. The Eastern and Western Church are not that different. They were the result of the first schism, which was mostly over political issues, and the role the pope wanted to have over all the churches, which the East opposed.
  • Communism, Socialism, Distributivism, Capitalism, & Christianity
    distributivism — Bitter Crank
    :-O - why distributivism? Distributism sounds simpler. This series of videos here is a good introduction. I link to this particular video, but you can watch from episode 1:


    The wiki page is otherwise quite detailed for an introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

    Distributism is similar to other left ideologies like communism, except that it prizes the individual over and above society, and society is aimed to be merely a servant to the individual (each individual). As such private property becomes very important, and also its wide distribution or availability.
  • Cut the crap already
    If you are so unhappy, why not start your own forum? — TimeLine
    Have you spoken to @jamalrob before making this comment or have you already assumed ownership of the forum? Knowing you, I can see where this is going. Too bad almost everyone else is blind.

    Yes, we can absolutely start our own forum. A forum where moderators are elected, where the guidelines are voted upon, where new moderators are approved by the community. Sure, we can do that, and we'll see where the people flock to. Not a place where a moderator is chosen in the middle of the night, in a closed room of 7 people - that sounds like a community for the moderators, not for the posters. One gets a request, and who gets to agree on it? Oh, the moderators. Fantastic! As if you are going to moderate the moderators, not us the people.
  • Cut the crap already
    Work ethics comes under ethics. Ethics comes under philosophy. It's therefore not out of bounds, given the context. Why should he refrain from saying what he thinks just because Agustino finds it offensive? I don't think that Agustino would hold back if the shoe was on the other foot, and I don't think that he should, moderator or not. That's displaying integrity, in my opinion. — Sapientia
    If Hanover would have said something based on what I said, there would be no problem there. If he wasn't a moderator, that wouldn't have been an issue either. But when he makes an unsolicited personal attack based on nothing but his pure imagination, an attack that is aimed to insult - that is a problem, and it's called as you rightly recall flaming. I wasn't talking with Hanover in that thread, I don't understand why he had to reply, and reply with insulting intentions.
  • Cut the crap already
    Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with Hanover saying that you've got a questionable work ethic. — Sapientia
    No, there's nothing wrong in the sense of "Hanover must be banned", but there IS something wrong in terms of the 1) the attitude a moderator has with regards to someone he knows nothing about, and 2) the sheer rudeness of it. Hanover knows nothing about me. If he was a simple poster, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But it's not acceptable behaviour for someone who wants to be a moderator. Someone who goes around making stuff up about another poster, initiating character assassinations, and the like is not fit to be a moderator. That doesn't mean it's anything against the guidelines. It's not against the guidelines for me to start swearing at you. But that would certainly be uncivilised, and not welcome, especially in a moderator.
  • Cut the crap already
    ↪Benkei
    Or take Hanover who dares to say that my work ethic is questionable with regards to my private life, when I work literarily 7 days a week, working probably even up to 100 hours a week. Such rudeness is absolutely unacceptable - how can someone have a relationship with such a character? And then he dares talk to me about social ineptitude. Really, if none of you sees that there's a problem there, you really are blind.

    Hanover is fine as a member, although I find him extremely rude, I don't think he should get banned. But definitely not as a moderator, it puts a bad name on all the mods.
  • Cut the crap already
    With Hanover I just don't discuss the ME any more as we'll never see eye to eye there. That's fine. There's more to a person than his political convictions, their stated positions on wanting to ban you or whatever you might not like about them. — Benkei
    You may be right, and I certainly admire your perspective, however, I believe that for there to be any kind of relationship between two people, there must be mutual respect. Without mutual respect, it is impossible to have any kind of relationship.

    So take me and you. I don't agree with some things you think, but I've come to see and understand that you're a nice man with good intentions at heart, and I respect you for that. And I think you've come to a similar understanding. When we talk together, I can see that you respect me too - we can have a relationship even if we disagree.

    But take Hanover for example, who still, even today, says that if he was in charge, I would be banned. He said it right above. I do not believe that it is possible to have a relationship with such a person. They are clearly vindictive by nature.

    TimeLine — Benkei
    Yeah, and I can have a laugh with her too, that's fine, but she's not the right person to be a mod. TimeLine is very talented and skilled, but she doesn't have the cool head it takes to be a mod, nor the right personality, since she's very self-conscious and personally minded in her actions. By her own admissions, she's impulsive and takes decisions she later regrets. She's not balanced enough to be a mod.

    But she can absolutely be a great contributor.

    SLX funnily enough strikes me as one of the most emotionally balanced persons. — Benkei
    What about when he says that the fact that there are biological differences between men and women which are reflected through testosterone, for example, is a myth that is sexist and should be a reason for being banned? Is that emotionally balanced? If SLX had complete power, he would have banned anyone who thinks there are biological differences between men and women. That is clearly very dangerous, and while he can be articulate in some matters when I presented him with scientific evidence to the contrary, he refused to even acknowledge it. He is arrogant through his nonchalance, impulsive and again doesn't have the personality that it takes to be a mod. But he can absolutely be a great contributor, just not a mod.

    I don't see why we need to make people like SLX mods. Why? They're fine as contributors. What recommends them to be mods? :s Someone like BC, or Tiff, or even you yourself would make much better mods than them. A certain degree of tolerance of other views and open-mindedness is absolutely necessary in a mod. A mod isn't supposed to be just a contributor with special privileges to impose his views on others.
  • Cut the crap already
    So let's work out the conspiracy angle, considering it's all about you. — Hanover
    No, it's all about the diversity of this community, and I'm only relevant when it comes to that. I'm a particular example of how that diversity is threatened, and I'm by far not the only one.

    I mean, if we all hate you, why bring me aboard? — Hanover
    Who is "you all"?

    Who was it that added me in the hopes of gaining enough votes to get rid of you? — Hanover
    The segment of the moderator team who was looking to get rid of me (in that context, and of other conservatives in a larger context) and failed to garner sufficient support amongst themselves for that when the opportunity arose.

    Would this place be better without you and this constant immature stupidity promoted by you and others with the social ineptitude to interact appropriately with others. — Hanover
    Yeah, quite frankly I think this place would be much better off without butt-kissing and vindictive mods like yourself, who seek to take vengeance on other members because they disagree with them.

    My views have been unapolegetically pro American and pro Israel before a crowd often hostile to that sentiment. I've been snarky, perverse, and stubborn, yet on zero occassions have these or the prior mods had to moderate me. — Hanover
    You're only conservative on some economic issues, you're nowhere near a conservative religiously or socially, so stop being silly. You talk of yourself as if you were the arch-conservative of the forum. Yesterday you even had the audacity to say that conservatives aren't also socially conservative on sexual issues for example and other perverse fantasies of yours.

    The mods here simply are not as conservative as me and all the law and order such a personality entails, and for that you owe your continued existence. — Hanover
    Yes, and for that reason, you should be off the moderating staff. You are a pernicious influence, who seeks to get rid of those you disagree with by other means. You don't have the courage of a real man to talk through things, you're petty minded, vindictive and hold grudges. You're also manipulative, intolerant, impulsive, and extremely rude, especially to those you perceive yourself to be above. You're the textbook example of the kind of person who bows his head to superiors and steps over those who he perceives as inferiors.

    Not to mention that your philosophical knowledge is abysmal, and your actual contributions - philosophically - to this site are very few. The only relevant things you've really contributed were with regards to some economic issues and Cartesianism (of which you do seem to have a decent understanding) - the rest is you playing around like a kid in the Shoutbox. You're free to do that, don't get me wrong, but that doesn't recommend you as a mod. There's many others here, like Janus, who have contributed a lot more philosophically, but they don't have as loud (and dirty) a mouth as you do.
  • Cut the crap already
    Thank you for your love dear friend, as I treasure that more than any moderator position, as goes with many of my fellow forum members that I call friends. However I must admit that this is the third time in my life that I have been told that "Tiff" is not capable of a, b or c because "she's too nice".
    Do you really think I am incapable of being a bitch?     — ArguingWAristotleTiff
    No, I think you'd make a great mod :D - you're both caring, but you can be stern too when you have to. Like when you reprimanded me for invading your thread :P
  • Cut the crap already
    Fair enough. Still, don't you think it's unlikely his willingness to ban you was a factor considering you're still here? ;) — Benkei
    Well it's obvious that he cannot take that decision himself (but he has made it clear which way he wants to go). No doubt that there are reasonable mods in the team, I don't have issues with all mods. But some of them, perhaps a majority now, are definitely questionable in my eyes. For example, I think people like SLX, Hanover and TimeLine are clearly biased, don't keep a cool head and really do not make great mods. I'd go as far as saying that SLX and TimeLine especially are a danger to the diversity of this community. Hanover tends to get stuck on certain people (like myself in this case), but he hasn't shown dangerous ideological and unquestioned presumptions like the other two I've mentioned.
  • Cut the crap already
    Really? Well, I must have it backward in my memory then. I thought he was a moderator before I remember you becoming active here. Did you lurk more before? — Benkei
    No, he was made a mod right after he said he'd like to see me banned in one discussion, and that he would have done it were he a mod. Not right after, but soon after, in about a month. I was surprised to see him made a mod. He wasn't one of the original mods, he was however an editor.
  • Cut the crap already
    He was a mod before you were a member. — Benkei
    Hanover? I don't think so. He wasn't a mod at the old place. And he wasn't a mod here before I was a member.
  • Cut the crap already
    she is a good thinker, a good writer, and shows good judgement. — jamalrob
    Funny, especially the judgement part.

    If you think that she didn't follow the guidelines, then you should have flagged it. You can still do so. Moderators are subject to the same guidelines as regular members. — Sapientia
    Right. If the North Korean people don't like Kim Jong Un they should go vote. It says it's a democratic people's republic afterall, so it must be true. It's sad to see you defending the status quo, I thought better of you. You do lack class consciousness in this regard.

    we thought that Timeline would make a good moderator based on her qualities and behaviour. — Sapientia
    >:O, sorry, I can have no other reaction.

    Stop can kicking and tell us why we conspired to bring her aboard. — Hanover
    Because of your friendly alliance with her and shared mutual interests, that's why. She agrees with the whole host of POMO ruling beliefs, she hates Agustino and other conservative posters and will continue the status quo.

    And you should stop being so belligerent because we both know that the only reason you're a mod is because you publicly expressed a desire to see me banned (in other words, you were doing what you do best, being a servant to those in power and kissing butt while trying to step over everyone who is underneath you)

    I must say, this does come as a surprise considering that I thought I was fantastic.

    But, jokes aside, Thorongil, I hear you and appreciate your feedback and I would like to publicly acknowledge why you felt it wrong to have me on the mod team particularly relating to the comment. I retract it accordingly and apologies for any offence that you have taken to it, it was rhetorically cruel and it stemmed from an anger that I felt at the time towards the judgement and accusations being made against women who protested for feminism. If there are other concerns relating to any of my posts to you, please both past and future, flag them either with me or to others and we will proceed from there.     — TimeLine
    Sorry, yes I am at work and only just had my lunch break. I am glad you accepted my apology because I do feel bad; I tend to make jokes in the "Shoutbox" thread that are more or less intended to provoke in some way and should recognise the differences in what some would constitute as humour. I respect you enough to acknowledge that. While my posts in many other threads probably reflect more of who I am, I will attempt to convey a bit more decorum. It is something I should learn nevertheless being a tad bit too emotional for my taste for certain subjects. If anything, my editing would probably be more or less the PhiSci stuff. — TimeLine
    So by her own admission, TimeLine is incapable to control her anger, is impulsive, and takes decisions she later regrets. That's what you @jamalrob, @Baden, etc. like to see in a fellow mod yes? It should come as no surprise remembering how impulsive @Baden showed himself to be when banning Emptyheady or warning @Buxtebuddha, @Thorongil and myself about sexism, based on nothing, no evidence whatsoever.

    But I forgot to add the most important piece of the puzzle. TimeLine is easily the most manipulative poster to have graced this forum. She will change her colors as she has to in order to obtain what she wants. She wants to stop this discussion and keep her mod position. So she will apologise and do whatever it takes to achieve that aim. But don't be deceived - be very VERY careful.

    This is not an indication she will change now that she already has the power. She couldn't control herself before, what makes you think she can control herself now? This is all a farce set up to deceive you. We have many decent women on these boards who are not given modship. Tiff or Lone Wolf come to mind. So if the moderators really want a female, they could certainly pick a reasonable choice.

    That said, yall should be warned against romanticizing what a modship entails - it's essentially forum janitorial work, and frankly the less one has to speak or act in the capacity of a mod, the better. — StreetlightX
    Good, so why don't you give it up then? Multiple people have asked for your resignation already. And if it's such slimy janitorial work, I'd like to see you give it up - it should also be in your interests, so what are you waiting for?

    making Agustino a mod — Thorongil
    Agustino should be a moderator. :D — Lone Wolf
    Pff - you'll never see them make Agustino a mod, are you kidding me? >:O

    Thank you for your support and confidence, I really appreciate it. As for wanting to be a mod. I have already said in the past that I do not want to be a mod. However, if you and many others think that I can fulfil your interests - the public's interests - in that position, and that I can balance the power in this community to represent you and not private interests of a small clique then I will gladly accept it. Though my acceptance itself is useless. The mods do not want Agustino there. The fact that there are no "spaces" left is a petty excuse - spaces can always be made. The thing with me is that I cannot be controlled - I cannot be a puppet, so I cannot represent the interests of a small clique.
  • What will Mueller discover?
    ↪ssu
    And I'm not talking about tweets and things he says. Yes, he clearly cannot control his mouth. But he hasn't shown that he's incapable of controlling his actions.
  • What will Mueller discover?
    Remember that before the whole mess he was actually contemplating meeting Putin when he still was a candidate. — ssu
    Yeah, saying he wants to do it vs actually doing it are two different things. As far as things go, and apart from the Comey firing (which wasn't due to just the Russia thing, though that certainly played a part), Trump, even if he has colluded with Russia, has played his cards in a very smart way.
  • What will Mueller discover?
    For Trump it was a win-win: Russians help him, he helps Russia and gets a diplomatic breakthrough. Everybody wins. Or so he thought. That the FBI would basically have to look at this likely didn't come to his mind. He was even when the campaign was on having backchannels on building a Trump Tower in Moscow. Just as Metaphysician Undercover above states, Trump publicly stated Russians to openly to look for the e-mails, so basically he was totally ignorant what it would mean. — ssu
    No, if he had been totally ignorant, he would have gone himself to meet with Russian officials. Why didn't he?
  • Moderation Standards Poll
    Discussions have to end, and most people like to have the last word. So rather than continue with endless nonsense, I stop. Except when I am very bored, and feel like indulging your desperate attention-seeking. Like now. — unenlightened
    Yah, but it's kinda boring if they end, don't you think? >:)
  • Moderation Standards Poll
    Though you do have a peculiar tendency to stop replying or not carry discussions through when you disagree. — Agustino
    No comment. — unenlightened
    Does that mean you disagree? >:O
  • Moderation Standards Poll
    They're just trying to replace the loss of yours truly. Inevitably this needs at least two of your normal assholes. — unenlightened
    Well yeah, I have to say, I certainly felt safer with you there, at least you could be reasoned with. Though you do have a peculiar tendency to stop replying or not carry discussions through when you disagree.
  • Moderation Standards Poll
    Why those attributes made someone think, "she'd make a great mod," is beyond me. — Thorongil
    You forget an important one: she dislikes Agustino. First Hanover is made a mod, and now TimeLine. It's evident, if you want to become the next mod, you must express your hatred of Agustino publicly and vehemently >:O

    And I agree with the rest of the post.
  • Philosophy in our society
    ↪Aurora
    It's funny how your posts change over time.

    "total crap" becomes "total shit"

    "response" becomes "shitty response"

    And so forth.

    I guess that's what happens with enlightened people, they don't really know what to say, so they have to fidget around and change it on the go. And those changes are usually towards the vulgar.
  • What will Mueller discover?
    ↪Wayfarer
    ↪ssu
    You're both dreaming. I highly highly doubt that Trump will resign or that he will be impeached. Even if you are right, and there was collusion, it will be impossible to prove it. Trump will go and testify before Congress, saying that he personally never met with any Russian official, has no idea about it, that he only once directed part of his campaign to discuss how to deal with ISIS in Syria with the Russians. Then he will say that he wasn't aware of what other people from the campaign were doing, and that will be it. They'll easily let him go.

    You people really have no understanding of politics. You think it's so easy to get caught with something like this. At that level, if they're smart, it's almost impossible.

    The basic point about Russian involvement in the US election is, I think, beyond dispute. Russia wanted Clinton to lose, partly because Putin hates her, but also because I think that Russia thinks she would have been a much tougher adversary. Whereas Trump - all you have to do is flatter him, and he'll think you're terrific (if he perceives you as a powerful man, someone whose flattery is significant.) Putin plays him like a fiddle; Trump is obnoxiously rude about almost everyone, including people who work for him, and people on his own side of politics. But notice he will never say anything negative about Putin, whom he accords great respect. After the G7 meeting, he said he believed Putin over and above his own intelligence agencies (a claim he was later obliged to retract.) — Wayfarer
    And if he was colluding with Putin, you think that he would be praising him?! Are you people so dumb?! If I'm colluding with someone, I don't want the public to know that, do I? So what will I do? I will say in public that the respective person is the absolute worst, while behind closed doors doing his politics. If he really was colluding, you think Putin would want him to get ousted from the White House? A puppet President is almost his dream.

    Trump is obnoxiously rude about almost everyone — Wayfarer
    That's not true. He's not been rude to important leaders of state like China's President, etc.
  • Family matter, help?
    What would you recommend I do? — Posty McPostface
    Nothing. You simply cannot do anything since they are your parents and they will likely not listen to you anyway, since they view you as their child. So all you can do is wait for things to calm down (which they will as things get resolved, eventually people get tired of fighting).

    You also want to make yourself useful in the house, with all the housework and similar things that are necessary. But it's best not to get too involved between the parents, they can solve their own problems. Parents sometimes try to manipulate children in such situations to use them against their partner, so make sure that doesn't happen and if you help one side you really believe that it's the right thing to do. It's also acceptable to tell them that you don't want to get involved between them since you respect them as parents and will wait till they resolve the issue. I would recommend not trying to arbitrate between one side or the other (as in telling them you're right here, and she's right there, or things like that).

    So what you can do is bear the ordeal until it ends. Also, focus on other issues where possible, don't keep your mind on it. Remember to stay active.
  • Sometimes, girls, work banter really is just harmless fun — and it’s all about common sense
    Do you have one? — TimeLine
    Last I checked I did, what happened, did you steal it in the meantime? :s

    Does that make sense? — TimeLine
    No. Next question please.

    Unfortunately, most do not transcend to this state of conscious awareness — TimeLine
    I'm not interested in transcending towards that state, so I cannot buy what you're selling, sorry.

    Love is not economical. — TimeLine
    That love transcends economics is clear - someone who loves you won't abandon you even if you're destitute or poor for example. However, that love also involves economics is also without question.

    You cannot serve God and mammon. — TimeLine
    That is true.
  • Philosophy in our society
    ↪Aurora
    So first you create an insulting post, and then you completely change it to tell me a useless thing. And not only that, you already responded to the same post like two days ago already...

    You are more likely right than I am. I don't have all the answers. I have very few.

    I only said what I felt was the truth. I may be utterly wrong ... I know.

    But, I am strangely, and extremely, comfortable with being wrong :)     — Aurora
    So what's wrong with you, why do you need to respond again after days? :s Does it itch or something if you don't say a few insulting words? One would expect better from someone searching for "enlightenment".

    I may not be worth your time, but thank God that you're not worth mine either - that makes the two of us a match made in Heaven.
  • Sometimes, girls, work banter really is just harmless fun — and it’s all about common sense
    I wanted to give my love - and I can be incredibly loving - to a crazy man. — TimeLine
    *Bullshit detector goes off*

    When a client starts telling me how easy it is to work for him, how simple his project is, how nice he is etc. I know he wants to screw me - he either wants a very cheap price, or otherwise wants to abuse my labor. I tend to refuse to work with such clients. And when a girl tells me how incredibly loving she is, but how all guys she ever dated were such pricks, I instantly know that she's looking to abuse me. Only an abuser tries to "sell" him or herself. Great clients, those I love working for, tend to be the people who say here's what I'm looking for, take it or leave it. They don't need me, they come from a position of high value. I tend to learn the most from them, and also enjoy it the most. They also pay well - that's why they never have to negotiate.

    authenticity — TimeLine
    Your authenticity is nothing but a dream. There is no such authenticity. The only authenticity is before God, in the world people get together and form groups, ideally, to serve God and better the world. Not abandoning each other - loyalty - is merely an expedient allowing for success. Building a network of great friends everywhere is a good thing - it really allows you to do much good in the world.

    And I don't think you understand what loyalty means. Loyalty means not abandoning the other even if they are pricks once you have made that commitment.
  • What will Mueller discover?
    What's dirt? — Benkei
    Unproven allegations. Trump may be guilty, but the ridiculousness of this situation is that Wayfarer has, for more than a year, been like a little child, and every time he reads something negative about Trump he immediately believes it and jumps cheering anti-Trump slogans. It's almost as if his heart skips a beat... That's the annoying part, not the part that he just dislikes Trump. Many people dislike Trump, and in certain regards, I dislike him too, but there's a difference between disliking someone and acting the way Wayfarer does.

    If these are crimes and it doesn't bring him down, I'll be disappointed both in the legal and political system of the USA. — Benkei
    Hmmm... do you think the legal system is capable to deal with those who have real power? I don't really think so.

    We are allowed to have favourites here without that being stupid and that goes both ways. You are a bit of a Trumpet, I'm obviously not. That's fine, we can still talk about what he does even if we have certain preconceptions about the person - especially if we're open about them. — Benkei
    Sure, and I actually quite agree with a lot of the analysis you posted in the previous comment.

    Nevertheless, I think there's a real possibility that nothing will come of this with respect to Trump even if he directed Flynn and others to contact the Russians. — Benkei
    Yeah, I agree. I think even if Trump is guilty of collusion, he was smart enough in doing it, and it won't get back to him anyway.
  • What will Mueller discover?
    I don’t know how the Mueller thing will pan out, but everyone reading should know about this book. — Wayfarer
    :-} What a waste of time. I think people like you need to read a book titled "How to stop fapping daydreaming about another man's ruin"

    Trump puppets — Wayfarer
    There aren't any Trump puppets here, there are reasonable people, and unreasonable ones like you, who have developed an irrational fear of Trump and, from time to time, go around digging some dirt and gloating about how wonderful it will be when Trump gets ruined (which of course hasn't happened so far, beating absolutely ALL of your idiotic predictions). How pathetic.
  • Is belief a predicate for salvation?
    In the early Christian era, there were beliefs in 'metempsychosis' which is an old Greek term equivalent to re-incarnation. — Wayfarer
    Not amongst Christians though - at least the vast majority.
  • Is belief a predicate for salvation?
    The difference is that in one case (Christian grace) it is a gift from an agent (God) to the subject; in the other case, it is a precondition that is not offered by an agent. In Buddhism (as far as I know) there is no mind guiding or attracting people towards 'salvation' -- it is a result of personal effort + necessary preconditions. Therefore, it is quite unlike Christian grace in that it does not require external conscious help by an agent. — Mariner
    Also on this point, there is a conflation between salvation on the Christian worldview which is given by grace and salvation on the Buddhist worldview which is actually what Christians know as theosis or deification (which is not given by grace).

    I guess Buddhists would take the equivalent of Christian salvation to be encountering the Dhamma or Buddha-nature.

    Regardless, I feel that the most significant & incompatible difference between Christianity and Buddhism lies on the topic of reincarnation.
  • Welcome to The Philosophy Forum - an introduction thread
    If you wear too much fake tan, up close they almost look purple. — TimeLine
    Weed, or something stronger? >:)
  • Welcome to The Philosophy Forum - an introduction thread
    Trump is purple-people eater? — TimeLine
    Why is he purple? I thought he was orange.

    Borat is not funny? — TimeLine
    So you agree with these ladies:


    Lathering melted swiss cheese all over your body is not the secret to youthful looking skin? — TimeLine
    I don't have secrets - except business ones :P
  • Welcome to The Philosophy Forum - an introduction thread
    ↪TimeLine
    You might want to say something against my consent, it may wake me up >:O
  • Welcome to The Philosophy Forum - an introduction thread
    Unless you are Agustino in which case you can sod off. — TimeLine
    :-d
Home » Agustino