|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 7, 2017 22:08:19 GMT -5
I'm not a waitress. Say please and look at me like snoopy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 22:13:26 GMT -5
I was answering the question. What I want right now? What does that say about me?
|
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 7, 2017 22:52:39 GMT -5
That you're hungry?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 23:06:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 8, 2017 1:05:47 GMT -5
Go and get your food.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2017 1:16:08 GMT -5
I recently read "Refuting The External World" and remain unconvinced that it is a valid proof that a separate world does not exist. I have not really seen a valid proof of this. I have seen arguments that provide a an alternative theory for our experience. For example I think the argument that it's possible this is an illusion cannot be refuted. But it does not prove that it isn't an illusion. I recently heard an argument that says that if we change the underlying assumption, we can prove that we are not separate and that the world is not separate, but this seems flawed. If you change the underlying assumption you can prove that frogs talk. I'm open to the notion. Not that frogs talk, but that we are not separate. But I feel strongly that what it comes down to is a matter of belief. No different than believing in God. I am open to the notion and in fact believe that the world is not separate, but feel uncomfortable saying and defending that statement. I believe that since this debate has raged for thousands of years without a convincing proof, then there is none. How can you prove to me that physical objects have extrinsic existence? And f#ck philosophy dude. I want you to prove to me that a rock exists in and of it's own right based on a set of scientific principles that can be laboratory tested.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 1:19:25 GMT -5
I recently read "Refuting The External World" and remain unconvinced that it is a valid proof that a separate world does not exist. I have not really seen a valid proof of this. I have seen arguments that provide a an alternative theory for our experience. For example I think the argument that it's possible this is an illusion cannot be refuted. But it does not prove that it isn't an illusion. I recently heard an argument that says that if we change the underlying assumption, we can prove that we are not separate and that the world is not separate, but this seems flawed. If you change the underlying assumption you can prove that frogs talk. I'm open to the notion. Not that frogs talk, but that we are not separate. But I feel strongly that what it comes down to is a matter of belief. No different than believing in God. I am open to the notion and in fact believe that the world is not separate, but feel uncomfortable saying and defending that statement. I believe that since this debate has raged for thousands of years without a convincing proof, then there is none. How can you prove to me that physical objects have extrinsic existence? And f#ck philosophy dude. I want you to prove to me that a rock exists in and of it's own right based on a set of scientific principles that can be laboratory tested. Well it has a certain weight,a size, a hardness, it hurts if you get hit by it, it has a certain age etc |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 8, 2017 1:23:29 GMT -5
How can you prove to me that physical objects have extrinsic existence? And f#ck philosophy dude. I want you to prove to me that a rock exists in and of it's own right based on a set of scientific principles that can be laboratory tested. Well it has a certain weight,a size, a hardness, it hurts if you get hit by it, it has a certain age etc And I don't want a seperate world. What I want, besides what is already known about my wants, is that everybody in the world is in the right position. The position were one belongs. Babys are not leaders. And leaders are not babys. Is that a true statement? |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 8, 2017 5:48:28 GMT -5
Since I'm in unmoderated speak. I believe I can say this without Saint Peter shutting me down. Gopal is a religious fanatic. You need a sledge hammer to crack that brick. Well that is true, I'm not really expected to intervene here. However, my view of the purpose of the unmoderated section was so that two or more members could have a full and frank discussion without worrying about anyone stepping in if it got a bit personal. There's something to be said for losing your cool you know, lets you know where you've still got edges to round off. To use a cage fighting analogy, it was intended that consenting adults would enter the area together and make up their own rules. What it wasn't intended for, was for participants to walk out to the street and drag in some member of the public back to the cage who hadn't signed up for the event. So by coming in here and discussing someone who wasn't participating in the conversation (and is apparently unable to ignore any criticism levelled against them in any part of the board), well that seems a bit unfair to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 5:56:06 GMT -5
Since I'm in unmoderated speak. I believe I can say this without Saint Peter shutting me down. Gopal is a religious fanatic. You need a sledge hammer to crack that brick. Well that is true, I'm not really expected to intervene here. However, my view of the purpose of the unmoderated section was so that two or more members could have a full and frank discussion without worrying about anyone stepping in if it got a bit personal. There's something to be said for losing your cool you know, lets you know where you've still got edges to round off. To use a cage fighting analogy, it was intended that consenting adults would enter the area together and make up their own rules. What it wasn't intended for, was for participants to walk out to the street and drag in some member of the public back to the cage who hadn't signed up for the event.So by coming in here and discussing someone who wasn't participating in the conversation (and is apparently unable to ignore any criticism levelled against them in any part of the board), well that seems a bit unfair to me. Thank you Peter, It's well said. That's my point as well! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 8, 2017 6:23:01 GMT -5
Since I'm in unmoderated speak. I believe I can say this without Saint Peter shutting me down. Gopal is a religious fanatic. You need a sledge hammer to crack that brick. Well that is true, I'm not really expected to intervene here. However, my view of the purpose of the unmoderated section was so that two or more members could have a full and frank discussion without worrying about anyone stepping in if it got a bit personal. There's something to be said for losing your cool you know, lets you know where you've still got edges to round off. To use a cage fighting analogy, it was intended that consenting adults would enter the area together and make up their own rules. What it wasn't intended for, was for participants to walk out to the street and drag in some member of the public back to the cage who hadn't signed up for the event. So by coming in here and discussing someone who wasn't participating in the conversation (and is apparently unable to ignore any criticism levelled against them in any part of the board), well that seems a bit unfair to me. I think this is your personal moral code speaking here, not the rules of the forum Peter. Ive been dragged here endless times to deal with something said about me, as many of us have, its just that it is quite rare to happen these days. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 8, 2017 7:50:03 GMT -5
Coming in here and discussing someone who wasn't participating in the conversation (and is apparently unable to ignore any criticism levelled against them in any part of the board), well that seems a bit unfair to me. I think this is your personal moral code speaking here, not the rules of the forum Peter. Ive been dragged here endless times to deal with something said about me, as many of us have, its just that it is quite rare to happen these days. Yup, think you're right there Andrew. And it's even rarer to having someone raise a complaint about it  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 8:14:30 GMT -5
I recently read "Refuting The External World" and remain unconvinced that it is a valid proof that a separate world does not exist. I have not really seen a valid proof of this. I have seen arguments that provide a an alternative theory for our experience. For example I think the argument that it's possible this is an illusion cannot be refuted. But it does not prove that it isn't an illusion. I recently heard an argument that says that if we change the underlying assumption, we can prove that we are not separate and that the world is not separate, but this seems flawed. If you change the underlying assumption you can prove that frogs talk. I'm open to the notion. Not that frogs talk, but that we are not separate. But I feel strongly that what it comes down to is a matter of belief. No different than believing in God. I am open to the notion and in fact believe that the world is not separate, but feel uncomfortable saying and defending that statement. I believe that since this debate has raged for thousands of years without a convincing proof, then there is none. How can you prove to me that physical objects have extrinsic existence? And f#ck philosophy dude. I want you to prove to me that a rock exists in and of it's own right based on a set of scientific principles that can be laboratory tested. I can't. But if you were here I'd throw one at your huge head. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 8:32:27 GMT -5
Since I'm in unmoderated speak. I believe I can say this without Saint Peter shutting me down. Gopal is a religious fanatic. You need a sledge hammer to crack that brick. Well that is true, I'm not really expected to intervene here. However, my view of the purpose of the unmoderated section was so that two or more members could have a full and frank discussion without worrying about anyone stepping in if it got a bit personal. There's something to be said for losing your cool you know, lets you know where you've still got edges to round off. To use a cage fighting analogy, it was intended that consenting adults would enter the area together and make up their own rules. What it wasn't intended for, was for participants to walk out to the street and drag in some member of the public back to the cage who hadn't signed up for the event. So by coming in here and discussing someone who wasn't participating in the conversation (and is apparently unable to ignore any criticism levelled against them in any part of the board), well that seems a bit unfair to me. I will not mention Gopal again. I would not have mentioned him had not ASW made a comment about him. I was responding to ASW's comment. I was being honest, BTW. His comment about animals not being able to think and therefore not suffering smacks of fanaticism and is offensive to me, since I see myself as one of them, an animal. But that is a different issue altogether. I will tow the line. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2017 12:26:41 GMT -5
How can you prove to me that physical objects have extrinsic existence? And f#ck philosophy dude. I want you to prove to me that a rock exists in and of it's own right based on a set of scientific principles that can be laboratory tested. I can't. But if you were here I'd throw one at your huge head.  |
|
