This place has gone to the dogs!

[Nick]

Pye,

Take with a grain of salt the pissing and moaning about the admins not being around enough. The people on here that I know have a grasp of the truth and posses some wisdom don't require any input from the admins on any kind of basis. The complaints you hear are from people who have no grasp of the truth and have no wisdom. They are just parasites who have found a place that happens to be built on a solid foundation and will feed off of it by any means until it's gone. It's no surprise really, because when they see the admins as having disappeared, they feel like their platform is disappearing. So you're right, there is a dependency on their part, but if it wasn't this it wouldn't take long for them to find something else. It's in their nature, so to speak, and I am doubtful that even the most talented teacher could break them of it.

[Kunga]

There are many differnt subjects in this form to keep everyone happy...
i myself have no interest in posting poetry/songs
if i do not want to discuss a subject i stay out of that form
if everyone was of the same intellect this world would not function
as well as it does...
you need people like me to clean your house and massage your feet
i do it with love and compassion
i don't give a shit how intelligent i appear
i'm not here to impress anyone
i'm here to learn
and express myself
like most people here
i'm extreamely interested in the truth
and i'm extreamely interested in
knowing about extraterrestials
i love astronomy,geology,astro physics,
but because i was not educated in those fields
maybe i gravitate towards wanting to know
about extraterrestials & life on other worlds
should i appoligize for not being a scholar ?

_/\_

[Animus]

Pyle,

Take with a grain of salt the pissing and moaning about the admins not being around enough. The people on here that I know have a grasp of the truth and posses some wisdom don't require any input from the admins on any kind of basis. The complaints you hear are from people who have no grasp of the truth and have no wisdom. They are just parasites who have found a place that happens to be built on a solid foundation and will feed off of it by any means until it's gone. It's no surprise really, because when they see the admins as having disappeared, they feel like their platform is disappearing. So you're right, there is a dependency on their part, but if it wasn't this it wouldn't take long for them to find something else. It's in their nature, so to speak, and I am doubtful that even the most talented teacher could break them of it.

Maybe this is just a matter of preference, but I find the admin's comments to be less laced with egotism than "the people on here" that have "a grasp of the truth". I notice a strong tendency to immediately attack the motives of posters rather than to examine with equanimity their truth claims. For example, I started a thread on responsibility and intentionality and the first responder moved past my analogy and onto examining my motives. Of course this individual was not privy to information sufficient for making any such judgments. So is this poster - in all truth and honesty - trying to liberate poor old me from my egoic biases, or is this poster simply projecting their own ego-in-superiority onto the discussion?

[Nick]

Of course I like to attack people's motives. You can't seperate what drives people from what they claim or do. Besides, it makes sense that others and myself have a different M.O than the admins, just like they themselves do, we are different people. I also like to put myself in other people's shoes so I can understand where they're coming from. If I didn't do a good job of that, or I misunderstood you, then you should have cleared things up for me instead of getting all defensive.

This isn't a forum for people, it's a forum for truth.

[Animus]

Of course I like to attack people's motives. My M.O. doesn't depend on what QRS does. I like to put myself in other people's shoes so I can understand where they're coming from. If I didn't do a good job of that, or I misunderstood you, then you should have cleared things up for me instead of getting all defensive.

Oh, I'm just being critical of the approach is all. I'm used to it myself, as there isn't a place of refuge from such assumptions. Sure there may be occasions when it is highly effective, but I'm sure these will be few and far between the back-and-forth trashing that usually ensues. If anything, it would be my fault for expecting something different.

[Nick]

I edited my post, you might want to edit yours in accordance. But I'll make my point again, that you can't separate one's motives from what the end up doing, so it's only natural to attack them.

[Animus]

I edited my post, you might want to edit yours in accordance. But I'll make my point again, that you can't separate one's motives from what the end up doing, so it's only natural to attack them.

It may be natural, but so is defecating in public.

Let me use another example to illustrate my point:

About a year ago I joined a political forum call TheAgenda and argued for criminal justice reformation in light of neuroscience, basically I argued for a more consequentialist and less retributivist approach to criminality. Of course, central to any such debate is the belief in "free-will" and I built several arguments against it.

What followed was not a rational inquiry into my propositions or the widely-held belief in free-will, instead members embarked on character attacks aimed at "determinists" claiming "Determinists believe what they do, in order to avoid their own responsibility for something egregious they've done."

Right, so instead of my arguments being based in experiences like being the victim of a motor vehicle accident that left me struggling to fit into society, and through my desire to make sense of this and other atrocities I arrived at the conclusion that people are determinate. No, instead, it must all be because of some deep-seeded guilt on my part. Apparently it has nothing to do with the mountains of empirical data or ethical arguments I presented, it must of course be something wrong with me.

This is a good example - from my perspective - of how the approach can go terribly wrong. If anything, my ideas are an excuse for the society at large for my past experiences, there is nothing in my past worthy of such guilt. But at the same time I was excusing societies ills through the assertion that "free-will" is false, I was also placing greater emphasis on societies accountability, because whatever the societies neglects it will ultimately have to deal with, albeit not as much as the individuals whom it neglects.

its like, the paedophile, the paedophile - statistically speaking - shows signs of early-childhood sexual abuse, often self-reports early-childhood sexual abuse, and has brain abnormalities consistent with early-childhood sexual abuse. Society has a funny way of dealing with childhood sexual abuse, the method is to treat the paedophile as a self-made demon and the child as an unwilling victim (not alwasy the case) and this is only to appeal to people's emotions about the incidences. But the facts are what they are. All this is obscured by the "self-made" delusion of crime.

There is a quote by Skinner on this: "To say that a man is sinful because he sins is to give an operational definition of sin. To say that he sins because he is sinful is to trace his behavior to a supposed inner trait. But whether or not a person engages in the kind of behavior called sinful depends upon circumstances which are not mentioned in either question. The sin assigned as an inner possession (the sin a person "knows") is to be found in a history of reinforcement."
- B. F. Skinner

Society at large thinks: the paedophile is sinful because he sins and he sins because he is sinful - what? empirical evidence to the contrary? Blasphemy! You must be a pedo-sympathizer!

So, here is a case where the jump to motives is full of errors and distorts the original message which was highly productive, albeit highly critical, as regards society at large. I'm not saying your attempts are as shoddy as TheAgenda forum members, but it is subject to the same folly and especially when sufficient information is not available.

[Nick]

By natural, I meant logical. Naturally.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

By natural, I meant logical. Naturally.

If you meant "logical" wouldn't it be more logical to say "logical" than natural, if you did not mean natural?

it's only natural to attack them.

"Attack" is a rather emotion-driven concept, and judging by observation, I'd say that it is far more natural for people to be emotional than logical. A logical person might challenge a thought process that they found illogical, but a logical attack is a contradiction in terms.

[jupiviv]

If you meant "logical" wouldn't it be more logical to say "logical" than natural, if you did not mean natural?

Why? In both cases he is saying that A=A, so being equally logical.

"Attack" is a rather emotion-driven concept, and judging by observation, I'd say that it is far more natural for people to be emotional than logical. A logical person might challenge a thought process that they found illogical, but a logical attack is a contradiction in terms.

"Attack" is neither logical nor illogical if not otherwise specified, so a "logical attack" is not a logical contradiction.

[Nick]

By natural, I meant logical. Naturally.

If you meant "logical" wouldn't it be more logical to say "logical" than natural, if you did not mean natural?

No. Natural was a great choice on my part if I do say so myself, if only because it's natural for me to be logical.

it's only natural to attack them.

"Attack" is a rather emotion-driven concept, and judging by observation, I'd say that it is far more natural for people to be emotional than logical. A logical person might challenge a thought process that they found illogical, but a logical attack is a contradiction in terms.

The term "attack" is just that, a term. The concept we envision it to be is in the eye of the beholder.

To sum it up, it is natural for me to attack what I see as irrational, unreasonable, and illogical.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

If you meant "logical" wouldn't it be more logical to say "logical" than natural, if you did not mean natural?

Why? In both cases he is saying that A=A, so being equally logical.

No, the concept of A=A means that logical=logical and natural=natural. Saying that logical=natural is saying that A=B, which from a purely logical standpoint, may or may not be true. Mr. Superiority Complex is doing a lot of backtracking in order to avoid the blow to his ego that admitting that he mis-spoke would entail.

To sum it up, it is natural for me to attack what I see as irrational, unreasonable, and illogical.

I agree with you that it is strongly in your nature to attack. In fact, I have seen little from you other than attacks. Since your eyes are shut and your fingers are in your ears as you repeat the mantra "I'm superior, I'm superior," I will not bother to debate you further. It would be as useful as debating the wall.

[divine focus]

I would say defense is logical, but attack is emotional. Neither is necessarily right or wrong. Attack as defense is, of course, emotional too. There is no defense as attack.

[jupiviv]

No, the concept of A=A means that logical=logical and natural=natural. Saying that logical=natural is saying that A=B, which from a purely logical standpoint, may or may not be true.

He later said that by natural he meant logical, so he was conforming to A=A. Besides, "natural", even if not separately defined as "logical", is identical in meaning to "logical", as far as I'm concerned. Whatever is natural(happens in nature) is also necessarily logical.

Mr. Superiority Complex is doing a lot of backtracking in order to avoid the blow to his ego that admitting that he mis-spoke would entail.

Not to imply anything(as I don't know either of you), but it seems to me that you are the one who is being emotional here.

[Blair]

Bear in mind, QRS is based around the false ideals of Buddhism.

The idea of A=A is concrete, but can only be understood correctly through God.

[Nick]

Stop attacking me Elizabeth!

[Kunga]

now this place has gone to the cats and dogs ! LOL !

[Sapius]

Stop attacking me Elizabeth!

Heheheee.... but isn't that natural!?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Oh, good grief.

Whatever is natural(happens in nature) is also necessarily logical.

Humans think all human thoughts in nature.
Therefore all human thoughts are logical.


Hmm, I sense a false premise here.

[jupiviv]

Oh, good grief.

Whatever is natural(happens in nature) is also necessarily logical.

Humans think all human thoughts in nature.
Therefore all human thoughts are logical.


Hmm, I sense a false premise here.

A human thought is a human thought, a human emotion is a human emotion - so it is logical in that way.

[divine focus]

Bear in mind, QRS is based around the false ideals of Buddhism.

The idea of A=A is concrete, but can only be understood correctly through God.

Reading on this, A=A seems to be from Theravada. The 'false ideals' are a different path.

[baulz owt]

it's "deep-seated" and that's all i am able to contribute :)

[Animus]

it's "deep-seated" and that's all i am able to contribute :)

You know, I know it is "deep-seated" but I frequently mistype words, sometimes I'll type out words that I'm thinking in an alternate stream of thought or which is several words ahead of my typing. I don't catch it because I'm typing sometimes at 80-90 WPM and thinking a few words ahead. Really, its just a misfiring of synapses.

I get comments like this all the time on my youtube channel, either my voice is too boring or I stutter when I pronounce a word.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

What's your youtube channel?

[Animus]

http://www.youtube.com/user/Rybot9000