|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 10:38:38 GMT -5
Methinks you're having fun in your own head. I am, but it's a serial question. And I gave you a serious answer. You're trying to make a point about hypocrisy. That's fine. It seems like you are saying that I shouldn't give you a hard time about not being able to give a 'good faith' reading when i clearly can't do it myself. Eh? I don't care about that. I would hate to be penned in by always giving good faith readings -- boring. I'm not asking that of you by the way. But if you want one from me just ask and I'll give it a try. You still seem interested in one so we'll wait for your linkmaster to hook me up. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 11:45:08 GMT -5
To make that little joke all you need to read is 'you're ugly' and that that judgement was made effortlessly. Then the #funwithlogic thing follows from there. But it's a wickedly beaten old horse by this point -- apparently the target was purposely being ugly (failed mirroring perhaps), which makes the joke moot. And also there is disagreement over whether conscious rationale can be effortless. In my haughty opinion, it's not worth delving into more. But if you want me to look into your exchange with Lolly in detail give me a starting point. The comment that Lolly was being ugly was not a joke. Not even a little. You're getting your good faith readings confused. A good faith reading of my effortless comment would have revealed something completely different than what you read. A good faith reading of Lolly's original post that started this couldn't even happen because you didn't even read it. Get your own good faith house in order and maybe we can talk. No I was saying my comment -- #funwithlogic -- was the joke. I wasn't interested in a good faith reading of the Lolly/Enigma post exchange. I cursorily read 'ugly' and 'not trying' which I translated to effortless and presto made a snarky remark. That's it. You're right I did not do a good faith reading. And I have never said I did (just the opposite). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2016 12:16:04 GMT -5
 well, I didn't brand you a villager, but I did suggest that your view was occluded by the torch smoke. Both the lolz narrative and the mob meme are ugly, this much is true, but if you want to compare the two you have to read what he wrote. Did you seem me putting him in stripes? Did I write anything reactive to him? Dang you mean I don't get a pitchfork? I have no idea what you're talking about btw. Where was the smoke coming from again? is too vague to respond to other than to point out that it's too vague. The smoke was coming from the torches of the villagers, of course.  |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 12:24:26 GMT -5
Dang you mean I don't get a pitchfork? I have no idea what you're talking about btw. Where was the smoke coming from again? is too vague to respond to other than to point out that it's too vague. The smoke was coming from the torches of the villagers, of course. haha well I got that part. Who were the villagers and what were they storming around about? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2016 12:34:58 GMT -5
It might if it involves deliberation, fact-finding or learning about topics relative to the judgment that you're unfamiliar with. Not all rational judgment requires this kind of effort, lots of it is conditioned. For example, if you're on a budget it's a no-brainer to pick the generics from the supermarket shelf, even though there's arithmetic involved. And not every seemingly rational choice is always the result of influences that you're conscious of. If a cop pops his cherries in your rear-view, the rational thing to do is to pull over and comply, but the connection to that complex of your body/mind that involves fear should be obvious. Yea I get what you're saying. But I was riffing on the use of 'effortlessness' we've had here with respect to meditation for example. In that case, the distinction between what is effortful and effortless becomes extremely subtle. Comparing the two notions might make for some good comedy if you want a laugh at E's expense, but on one hand the effortlessness of meditation is about an absence of internal resistance, while the crack about not having to try hard to make lolz appear ugly was quite obviously about something else altogether. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 12:37:31 GMT -5
Yea I get what you're saying. But I was riffing on the use of 'effortlessness' we've had here with respect to meditation for example. In that case, the distinction between what is effortful and effortless becomes extremely subtle. Comparing the two notions might make for some good comedy if you want a laugh at E's expense, but on one hand the effortlessness of meditation is about an absence of internal resistance, while the crack about not having to try hard to make lolz appear ugly was quite obviously about something else altogether. Oh wait laughing at E's expense is not permitted?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2016 12:53:08 GMT -5
No, but the smoke that wafts from the torches between your field of view of the mob and myself occludes your image of me to the extent that you misread what I've written ... sorta' just like with what ya' wrote right there.  For you to characterize E's characterization of what lolz himself acknowledged was ugly with the idea of the eye of the beholder when you hadn't even read what lolz wrote, involves that same occlusion. Essentially, it's just the Occam's Razor answer as to why you'd do that.  Just so you know, the important thing I wrote was 'please elaborate.' The double questionmark sentence is supposed to be knowingly not understanding. I don't see how saying 'please elaborate' qualifies as seeing being occluded by smoke (and I still really don't know what you are referring to there.) The #funwithlogic thingy only requires reading "you're ugly" and an admission as to how that judgement was "effortless." It requires zero backstory and can be applied to anyone making that judgement. Now, as noted, in this case the target was purposely and knowingly saying ugly things, so that particular #funwithlogic is just totally moot and therefore lacking fun or relevance. For this, I am sorry. What you wanted me to elaborate on wasn't what I wrote, but instead your misinterpretation of it: VA causes perceptual collateral damage among peaceful bystanders transforming them via mob psychology into additional marauding morons?? So I declined. There's no need to apologize, but this is what you missed at the time. What lolz wrote would likely only be beautiful in the eye of a beholder that wanted to paint a picture of E' as upset and unconscious, if that beholder was sharing the occluded perspective of the mob. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 13:00:19 GMT -5
Just so you know, the important thing I wrote was 'please elaborate.' The double questionmark sentence is supposed to be knowingly not understanding. I don't see how saying 'please elaborate' qualifies as seeing being occluded by smoke (and I still really don't know what you are referring to there.) The #funwithlogic thingy only requires reading "you're ugly" and an admission as to how that judgement was "effortless." It requires zero backstory and can be applied to anyone making that judgement. Now, as noted, in this case the target was purposely and knowingly saying ugly things, so that particular #funwithlogic is just totally moot and therefore lacking fun or relevance. For this, I am sorry. What you wanted me to elaborate on wasn't what I wrote, but instead your misinterpretation of it: VA causes perceptual collateral damage among peaceful bystanders transforming them via mob psychology into additional marauding morons?? So I declined. There's no need to apologize, but this is what you missed at the time. What lolz wrote would likely only be beautiful in the eye of a beholder that wanted to paint a picture of E' as upset and unconscious, if that beholder was sharing the occluded perspective of the mob. Oh I see. THANK YOU. I understand now. So my little jabs at E and jokes at his expense fall right into place in the grand angry villagers scenario. Got it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2016 13:19:01 GMT -5
This is too vague to respond to other than to point out that it's too vague. The smoke was coming from the torches of the villagers, of course. haha well I got that part. Who were the villagers and what were they storming around about? Well look at the villagers and you can see that they're not all the same, like, at all:  .. and this picture doesn't capture how they sometimes even fight amongst themselves, but it does depict the different lines corresponding to who's out in front at any given time. Go back and read what lolz wrote and notice how at that time satchi's fork was dripping red as well. From there, quin takes up lolz' cause in a more reasonable tone after he fades into the back of the crowd and that cascades to ZD's critique of the forum overall and suddenly JLY flies in out of nowhere with a firm double-bind jab in the side all the while with a gleeful running color commentary from anja and then ... well, it's quite endless actually. .. because now we're very possibly and likely careening into yet another brand new scrama with you playing the lead role as victim-hero. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2016 13:24:05 GMT -5
Comparing the two notions might make for some good comedy if you want a laugh at E's expense, but on one hand the effortlessness of meditation is about an absence of internal resistance, while the crack about not having to try hard to make lolz appear ugly was quite obviously about something else altogether. Oh wait laughing at E's expense is not permitted? .. yeah you don't read my stuff very often so much like it seems ..  |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 13:28:04 GMT -5
haha well I got that part. Who were the villagers and what were they storming around about? Well look at the villagers and you can see that they're not all the same, like, at all: .. and this picture doesn't capture how they sometimes even fight amongst themselves, but it does depict the different lines corresponding to who's out in front at any given time. Go back and read what lolz wrote and notice how at that time satchi's fork was dripping red as well. From there, quin takes up lolz' cause in a more reasonable tone after he fades into the back of the crowd and that cascades to ZD's critique of the forum overall and suddenly JLY flies in out of nowhere with a firm double-bind jab in the side all the while with a gleeful running color commentary from anja and then ... well, it's quite endless actually. .. because now we're very possibly and likely careening into yet another brand new scrama with you playing the lead role as victim-hero. uh oh. Can't imagine it ends well for victim-heros in an angry mob.... So it's an interesting thesis. JLY and Satch and ZD and quinn...not such bad company. Not united in common critique necessarily.... Just united in having any critique at all. Yea that's the ticket. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2016 13:28:14 GMT -5
What you wanted me to elaborate on wasn't what I wrote, but instead your misinterpretation of it: So I declined. There's no need to apologize, but this is what you missed at the time. What lolz wrote would likely only be beautiful in the eye of a beholder that wanted to paint a picture of E' as upset and unconscious, if that beholder was sharing the occluded perspective of the mob. Oh I see. THANK YOU. I understand now. So my little jabs at E and jokes at his expense fall right into place in the grand angry villagers scenario. Got it. Well, as I already wrote, you're to the side of the crowd, and I'd have to say that the humor has alot to do with that positioning, but looking back, the ideas that he's unconscious and upset sure have you sympathizing with them. But no, you're still not acknowledging that all I had expressed the other day was that your vision was occluded by the smoke, and as you're now owning up to having missed that point about lolz own admission as to what he was writing, how far off is my parody, really? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2016 13:31:44 GMT -5
Well look at the villagers and you can see that they're not all the same, like, at all: .. and this picture doesn't capture how they sometimes even fight amongst themselves, but it does depict the different lines corresponding to who's out in front at any given time. Go back and read what lolz wrote and notice how at that time satchi's fork was dripping red as well. From there, quin takes up lolz' cause in a more reasonable tone after he fades into the back of the crowd and that cascades to ZD's critique of the forum overall and suddenly JLY flies in out of nowhere with a firm double-bind jab in the side all the while with a gleeful running color commentary from anja and then ... well, it's quite endless actually. .. because now we're very possibly and likely careening into yet another brand new scrama with you playing the lead role as victim-hero. uh oh. Can't imagine it ends well for victim-heros in an angry mob.... So it's an interesting thesis. JLY and Satch and ZD and quinn...not such bad company. Not united in common critique necessarily.... Just united in having any critique at all. Yea that's the ticket. Oh, no, there's a very definite thread that runs through what quinn and ZD wrote that flows directly from lolz' story of abuse. While they were unrelated, calling what satch and jly wrote "critiques" is quite kind of you and morphs the nature of what they wrote considerably. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 13:34:12 GMT -5
Oh I see. THANK YOU. I understand now. So my little jabs at E and jokes at his expense fall right into place in the grand angry villagers scenario. Got it. Well, as I already wrote, you're to the side of the crowd, and I'd have to say that the humor has alot to do with that positioning, but looking back, the ideas that he's unconscious and upset sure have you sympathizing with them. But no, you're still not acknowledging that all I had expressed the other day was that your vision was occluded by the smoke, and as you're now owning up to having missed that point about lolz own admission as to what he was writing, how far off is my parody, really? Note that I explicitly said it seemed like he was upset but I didn't believe it. And the unconscious thing was deductive reasoning snarkiness. But now I'm beginning to think the angry villager storyline you two have may be 'occluding your vision.' I missed the Lolly admission to ugliness cuz I hadn't read anything like that, because I didn't read it. Are you suggesting that I didn't read anything because of being occluded in the first place? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2016 13:40:32 GMT -5
Well, as I already wrote, you're to the side of the crowd, and I'd have to say that the humor has alot to do with that positioning, but looking back, the ideas that he's unconscious and upset sure have you sympathizing with them. But no, you're still not acknowledging that all I had expressed the other day was that your vision was occluded by the smoke, and as you're now owning up to having missed that point about lolz own admission as to what he was writing, how far off is my parody, really? Note that I explicitly said it seemed like he was upset but I didn't believe it. And the unconscious thing was deductive reasoning snarkiness. But now I'm beginning to think the angry villager storyline you two have may be 'occluding your vision.' I missed the Lolly admission to ugliness cuz I hadn't read anything like that, because I didn't read it. Are you suggesting that I didn't read anything because of being occluded in the first place? No, I'm reasoning that for you to apply "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" to something you hadn't read in order to conclude that E' was unconscious suggests the occlusion. Sure, it's possible that I misread why you entered this the way you did .. I mean, it is your motivation after all, so in that argument I'll always come out a loser. But dude, look at how far we've come at this point .. where there's fire, there's smoke.  |
|
well, I didn't brand you a villager, but I did suggest that your view was occluded by the torch smoke. Both the lolz narrative and the mob meme are ugly, this much is true, but if you want to compare the two you have to read what he wrote. Did you seem me putting him in stripes? Did I write anything reactive to him?
