Generalizing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-08-2012, 10:31 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2012 10:59 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Generalizing
(04-08-2012 09:40 AM)Ghost Wrote:  That's why I aint sayin it to you, jackass.

Buddy, you're pathetic. I pity you. Your reaction to opposition, but your resolution, the fact that you weren't content with keeping the argument about the facts and resorting to the pettiness of ad hominems is just sad. Like really, it's sad. I know you feel good about yourself so nothing I do could possibly bring you down or make you feel any kind of remourse. Such is life. You're an asshole. Straight up. I'm sure you'll wear that as a badge of honour, but it isn't one. You crossed way over the line and I have no more interest in you as a person. I'd appreciate it if you and I never crossed paths again and that you no longer mention me in any of your posts. I have no actual way to stop you, which is unfortunate. I can only hope that you will just leave it alone.

(26-07-2012 08:11 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Buddy, you're pathetic. I pity you. Your reaction in the other thread was petty, but this thread, the fact that you weren't content with what you did in the other thread and had to create an entire new thread to house your pettiness is just sad. Like really, it's sad. I know you feel good about yourself so nothing I do could possibly bring you down or make you feel any kind of remourse. Such is life. You're an asshole. Straight up. I'm sure you'll wear that as a badge of honour, but it isn't one. You crossed way over the line and I have no more interest in you as a person. I'd appreciate it if you and I never crossed paths again and that you no longer mention me in any of your posts. I have no actual way to stop you, which is unfortunate. I can only hope that you will just leave it alone.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 10:40 AM
RE: Generalizing
The anger from ghost in this thread reminds me of the belief identity problem.

By arguing his belief, he takes personal offense, as if you were calling him a bad person.

When in reality it's just an argument over somebody elses work.

Just remember you are not your beliefs!

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 10:51 AM
RE: Generalizing
Ghost, from what I read and my brain took on, it seems to be that identity problem is like this:

If someone believes in unicorns, and someone says that unicorns don't exist, they internalize the statement, and take offense, personally. What the person doesn't understand is that it's a choice on a piece of knowledge, on whether or not it's true, not a part of what you are.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cheapthrillseaker's post
05-08-2012, 06:14 AM
RE: Generalizing
Hey, Vosur.

Quote:The idea that all time exists simultaneously is based on how time would relate from one item to the velocity of other distant items.

To me this sounds like you're making an argument against simultaneous time. Is that so? I mean, relativity has a lot to do with how and why we understand it, but you seem to be using that to downgrade the idea. Is that so?

Quote:After watching your documentary, there is a portion of it also making the claim that time seems to have a linearity to it that we do not fundamentally understand.

The arrow of time explains why we PRECEIVE time in a linear fashion. It does not in any way contradict the notion of simultaneous time. The documentary quite clearly makes the case that past future and present exist simultaneously. The past is not gone, now is not absolute and the future already exists. They even said that this was true despite the persistence of the illusion of linearity. The entire episode is called the Illusion of Time for this very reason.

If people don't want to believe MIT physicists and Einstein about something that's already bee proven through experimentation, then what's the point?

And on the ad hom issue, if you prick me, do i not bleed? If you wrong me, shall I not revenge? This is not some new feature about me. I have zero patience for personal shit. If someone wants to play that game, I'll play it harder because that's how we roll. The solution? Don't ever come at me like that. Hypocrite? Never said I was Gandhi, homey.

Oh, Logica.

That's not even original, man. It's also highly decontextualised. Get some new material, homey.

I dropped science and after pages of people DEMANDING that Idea answer their questions, NO ONE engaged with the science. They came after me, my understanding of science and tried to downplay the importance of some pretty basic physics. That's what's sad. I will engage anyone in a respectful manner as long as they do the same with me. In game theory that's called tit for tat.

Oh, and Logica... I have no problem honouring your request.

Hey, fst.

My anger doesn't come from my beliefs. Someone made a truth claim and I offered a scientific theory and a counter argument. People essentially tried to tell me to shut up. That's horseshit. Simple as that. The only person, pages later, to even attempt to discuss the science was Vosur. In however many responses, one was an attempt to engage me in a rational conversation. The rest tried to dismiss me, undermine me, what have you. It's weak sauce and I don't accept it. My anger has been very clearly directed. I have flamed people for one thing and one thing only; making this personal. For something they did and did to me. I sleep easy after something like that. But I gotta say, when I offer physics into an argument and no one wants to engage with it or worse, when people try to dismiss it, that cheezes me off because come on! I mean, tell me "I don't think it applies in this case because of X" or "that may be so, but I find this other argument more compelling for these reasons" or anything for that matter. But don't shit on my head and expect me to call it a hat.

Hey, Cheap.

First of all, you got me all wrong for reasons I've outlined above. Second of all, you're doing the exact thing I'm talking about. What does any of what you just said have to do with the argument that I made? You've made this about me. It isn't about me. It's about ideas and having discussions about them in a reasonable way. Third, did you seriously just compare belief in physics to belief in unicorns?

Note. In this thread, I've made two relatively complex arguments. One about the dangers of accepting stereotypes as fact, and the other my counter argument to the notion that an omniscient God necessarilly negates free will and vice versa. That's what I enjoy doing. Making thoughtful arguments and having conversations about them. But look at this post. I'm barely discussing those arguments because I'm spending most of my energy defending myself against four different people. Why? Because the moment I made my second argument, people made it about me, which was bas enough, and then went on to dismiss a very serious scientific argument in much the same way Creationists dismiss evolution. Vosur is the only person I've been able to respond to about the issue, because he's the only one that gave me something to respond to. Everyone else has been throwing this personal stuff at me. I've responded. If people are willing to deescalate and return to rational conversation, I welcome it. But if people expect me to be their punching bag, they got another thing coming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 07:10 AM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2012 07:21 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Generalizing
(05-08-2012 06:14 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Vosur.

Quote:The idea that all time exists simultaneously is based on how time would relate from one item to the velocity of other distant items.

To me this sounds like you're making an argument against simultaneous time. Is that so? I mean, relativity has a lot to do with how and why we understand it, but you seem to be using that to downgrade the idea. Is that so?

Quote:After watching your documentary, there is a portion of it also making the claim that time seems to have a linearity to it that we do not fundamentally understand.

The arrow of time explains why we PRECEIVE time in a linear fashion. It does not in any way contradict the notion of simultaneous time. The documentary quite clearly makes the case that past future and present exist simultaneously. The past is not gone, now is not absolute and the future already exists. They even said that this was true despite the persistence of the illusion of linearity. The entire episode is called the Illusion of Time for this very reason.

If people don't want to believe MIT physicists and Einstein about something that's already bee proven through experimentation, then what's the point?

And on the ad hom issue, if you prick me, do i not bleed? If you wrong me, shall I not revenge? This is not some new feature about me. I have zero patience for personal shit. If someone wants to play that game, I'll play it harder because that's how we roll. The solution? Don't ever come at me like that. Hypocrite? Never said I was Gandhi, homey.

Oh, Logica.

That's not even original, man. It's also highly decontextualised. Get some new material, homey.

I dropped science and after pages of people DEMANDING that Idea answer their questions, NO ONE engaged with the science. They came after me, my understanding of science and tried to downplay the importance of some pretty basic physics. That's what's sad. I will engage anyone in a respectful manner as long as they do the same with me. In game theory that's called tit for tat.

Oh, and Logica... I have no problem honouring your request.

Hey, fst.

My anger doesn't come from my beliefs. Someone made a truth claim and I offered a scientific theory and a counter argument. People essentially tried to tell me to shut up. That's horseshit. Simple as that. The only person, pages later, to even attempt to discuss the science was Vosur. In however many responses, one was an attempt to engage me in a rational conversation. The rest tried to dismiss me, undermine me, what have you. It's weak sauce and I don't accept it. My anger has been very clearly directed. I have flamed people for one thing and one thing only; making this personal. For something they did and did to me. I sleep easy after something like that. But I gotta say, when I offer physics into an argument and no one wants to engage with it or worse, when people try to dismiss it, that cheezes me off because come on! I mean, tell me "I don't think it applies in this case because of X" or "that may be so, but I find this other argument more compelling for these reasons" or anything for that matter. But don't shit on my head and expect me to call it a hat.

Hey, Cheap.

First of all, you got me all wrong for reasons I've outlined above. Second of all, you're doing the exact thing I'm talking about. What does any of what you just said have to do with the argument that I made? You've made this about me. It isn't about me. It's about ideas and having discussions about them in a reasonable way. Third, did you seriously just compare belief in physics to belief in unicorns?

Note. In this thread, I've made two relatively complex arguments. One about the dangers of accepting stereotypes as fact, and the other my counter argument to the notion that an omniscient God necessarilly negates free will and vice versa. That's what I enjoy doing. Making thoughtful arguments and having conversations about them. But look at this post. I'm barely discussing those arguments because I'm spending most of my energy defending myself against four different people. Why? Because the moment I made my second argument, people made it about me, which was bas enough, and then went on to dismiss a very serious scientific argument in much the same way Creationists dismiss evolution. Vosur is the only person I've been able to respond to about the issue, because he's the only one that gave me something to respond to. Everyone else has been throwing this personal stuff at me. I've responded. If people are willing to deescalate and return to rational conversation, I welcome it. But if people expect me to be their punching bag, they got another thing coming.

No, honey, everyone asked you to back it up. If you are going to assert that a scientific hypothesis supports your argument, and then say it is a fact, your are in the wrong.

Concerning your usage of your rant, I think it was completely contextual to the way you are handling this situation.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 10:45 AM
RE: Generalizing
Hi, Logica.

I do believe that in order for both of us to honour a gentleman's agreement about not speaking to or referring to each other that you have to STFU. <Transmission ends>
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
05-08-2012, 11:00 AM
RE: Generalizing
(05-08-2012 10:45 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hi, Logica.

I do believe that in order for both of us to honour a gentleman's agreement about not speaking to or referring to each other that you have to STFU. <Transmission ends>

Jesus Ghost.

Must you really act like such a dick?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 11:07 AM
Generalizing
For the record, I'm still waiting for someone to address the science Matt has presented. All I keep reading is people's anger that they can't prove him wrong.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Erxomai's post
05-08-2012, 11:36 AM
RE: Generalizing
(05-08-2012 11:07 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  For the record, I'm still waiting for someone to address the science Matt has presented. All I keep reading is people's anger that they can't prove him wrong.

I thought I did? lol

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 11:49 AM
RE: Generalizing
Ehe, you is butthurt.

[Image: hairy-butt.jpg]

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: