|
The double-lifer thread (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by mizzuno
Maybe you want to learn how to spell empirical.
Listen show me any evidence, stop trying to play with my words, at first i said i dont want anecdotal, you made an excuse, then i said show me one instance, these are discrete questions from separate posts, all i am learning from you is that you have the gift of twisting words and not answering questions. I don't need you to explain to me the definition of anecdotal evidence.
BTW you can't back up your statement that i am hostile, when you were the one that fired the first shot, you start i end, very simple. So your conclusion is flawed. I am hostile to your condescending tone, and your projection of being an arbiter without any evidence. And you didn't simply state anything, show me where you said that "you do not subscribe to the prevailing morality of western society". I must have missed that one
Mizz |
Yeah, spelling is not my strong point. It has slipped by the wayside due to years of dictating rather then typing.
I did not state you were hostile, I stated you were competitive, you have capitulated on this point. I trust there is no need to discuss this further.
With regard to your question of evidence, how can you state you want empirical (thanks for the spelling tip) and then request antecdotal? One does not fit with the other. If what you really want is for me to share with you a lie I have told for another's benefit I can certainly do this, however, you have already stated that you do not accept such evidence as proof of a position therefore I question what the purpose of sharing such an instance would be.
You are welcome to believe what you will with regard to the value of honesty or dishonesty, that is your right and the product of your socialization. You really have no choice but to believe what you were taught to believe. Should you wish to challeng your beliefs I invite you to read the works of Nietzsche and Schopenhaurer as I did before, they are very good critiques of judeo-christian morality. You may even find some truth in what they wrote. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by mizzuno
As i said you will never be my arbiter, if you think you can devine who I am from 5 posts then more power to you, but you're fooling yourself. I think one can be competitive in situations and altruistic in others, its part of having a dynamic personality and having introspect.
mizz |
I do not pretend to know you, I mearly have gleened some perspective as to how you think. |
|
|
| dinoXpress |
| quote: | Originally posted by mizzuno
well you don't know me, i am one sarcastic NYer. And as for detecting sarcasm...sarcasm is not easily construed in plain text, it usually requires inflection.
Mizz |
Hence the reason why the internet fails at life.
Lack of inflection.
Use smileys next time!:p |
|
|
| Ygrene |
| quote: | Originally posted by dinoXpress
Hence the reason why the internet fails at life.
Lack of inflection.
Use smileys next time!:p |
Pfft nooblol, they're called 'emoticons'. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| dinoXpress |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ygrene
Pfft nooblol, they're called 'emoticons'. :rolleyes: |
Emoticons are so emo.:( |
|
|
| mizzuno |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Yeah, spelling is not my strong point. It has slipped by the wayside due to years of dictating rather then typing.
I did not state you were hostile, I stated you were competitive, you have capitulated on this point. I trust there is no need to discuss this further.
With regard to your question of evidence, how can you state you want empirical (thanks for the spelling tip) and then request antecdotal? One does not fit with the other. If what you really want is for me to share with you a lie I have told for another's benefit I can certainly do this, however, you have already stated that you do not accept such evidence as proof of a position therefore I question what the purpose of sharing such an instance would be.
You are welcome to believe what you will with regard to the value of honesty or dishonesty, that is your right and the product of your socialization. You really have no choice but to believe what you were taught to believe. Should you wish to challeng your beliefs I invite you to read the works of Nietzsche and Schopenhaurer as I did before, they are very good critiques of judeo-christian morality. You may even find some truth in what they wrote. |
explain find truth, how does one do that. honestly, philosphy bores me, if you want talk about quantum mechanics i'm open, but as far as reading someone elses opinions on right and wrong, i find it dubious, i am not looking for the "truth", i make decisions based upon many criteria. The truth is not in some book, its in my eyes.
Mizz |
|
|
| mizzuno |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I do not pretend to know you, I mearly have gleened some perspective as to how you think. |
so why don't you tell me then, how do i think...what do i hold true...and lets get off this religious bent, its tiresome.
Mizz |
|
|
| Ygrene |
| quote: | Originally posted by dinoXpress
Emoticons are so emo.:( |
I'm thinking about double-lifing it emo-style. :sadgreen: |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by mizzuno
explain find truth, how does one do that. honestly, philosphy bores me, if you want talk about quantum mechanics i'm open, but as far as reading someone elses opinions on right and wrong, i find it dubious, i am not looking for the "truth", i make decisions based upon many criteria. The truth is not in some book, its in my eyes.
Mizz |
Truth = what one knows to be correct. Truth is always subjective when dealing with things that are internal to the individual. What I meant by finding truth is that you may find some of their reflections/positions reconsile with your own experience. Reading philosophy is not about learning someone's thoughts and adopting them, it is listening to another's position and contrasting it with your own. It is only by hearing every answer that we can hope to find arrive at the correct one.
BTW, I doubt that I would be of much use in a discussion on quantum mechanics and I could not contribute much more then the basic theories, which I'm not sure I fully understand. |
|
|
| dinoXpress |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ygrene
I'm thinking about double-lifing it emo-style. :sadgreen: |
Make a blog and buy a guitar.
then chop an onion. |
|
|
| mizzuno |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Truth = what one knows to be correct. Truth is always subjective when dealing with things that are internal to the individual. What I meant by finding truth is that you may find some of their reflections/positions reconsile with your own experience. Reading philosophy is not about learning someone's thoughts and adopting them, it is listening to another's position and contrasting it with your own. It is only by hearing every answer that we can hope to find arrive at the correct one.
BTW, I doubt that I would be of much use in a discussion on quantum mechanics and I could not contribute much more then the basic theories, which I'm not sure I fully understand. |
haha we agree, cause i don't understand nor does anyone else, its all very "spooky" as einstein once said..
Mizz |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by mizzuno
so why don't you tell me then, how do i think...what do i hold true...and lets get off this religious bent, its tiresome.
Mizz |
The former has already been addressed. I can't comment with regard to what you hold to be true, that is not decernable from our discussions. |
|
|
|
|
