GENIUS FORUMS

I should of taken heed to your warning!

[...] though I attest it is possible for a female to prove her worth as a philosopher around here - but what about in the field of philosophy as a whole? Or in any field? How much stereotyping must a quality thinker who happens to be female have to fight through to prove her worth in your opinion? ...

Well, I wouldn't make it a big issue, but I would compose as many new songs as I want in the time I had and publish everything. I think music is passed on to others better as a message, so why not end with it?

My thoughts before reading:

Looks interesting.

My thoughts after reading:

Bunk.

In addition to your declaration of identity, the fact that your initial assertion concerning religion, control, and emotion is unsubstantiated by evidence or reasoning, or even the less convincing substantiation of belief, also bolsters your self-identified feeble-mindedness. Unsubstantiated by evi...

I can express it much more succinctly: since nothing is really happening, if you don't believe what you see, you won't suffer. I would say it is what you feel, and what you see may incite what you feel. Which, by the way, is also the point of religion. When supreme importance over takes something, ...

The true nature of religion is to control emotions. From this would you then conclude that until emptiness is realized, identity latching onto the transitory phenomena of emotions obscures awareness with the delusion of attachment, thus making attachment itself, rather than the phenomena (emotions)...

The true nature of religion is to control emotions.

Dennis Mahar wrote:you just said.

everything =particles
A=A

A (particles)

Particles are tiny portions of matter, not everything.

Dennis Mahar wrote:A is A means consciousness.
the law of identity.

that's what you are doing all the time,

geddit?
meaningmaker.

let's hear it again,

the LAW of identity

Sorry? Please elaborate on "A is A means consciousness".

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Law-of-Identity-A-is-A-is-Contradictory Is Law of Identity really irrefutable? I recently stumbled upon this article: We hear this claim all the time: “The Law of Identity A=A (A is A) is self-evident. Each thing is the same as itself. There is no way around it. All ...

I found something I would describe as music that moves.
http://youtu.be/ASXnFRYf6LI

This is implying causation from correlation (logically fallacious), that if you are gay, you will pick the "correct" answers (and who decides which ones are "correct" in a "general sense"?). I think this test is completely absurd.