EPTMen are not what they used to be... - Page 2
| Blogs > YanGpaN |
|
sqwert
United States781 Posts
| ||
|
rottedchode
United States17 Posts
On September 04 2008 14:08 nA.Inky wrote: I disagree Jibba; if someone cares about where I got that information from, they can look for themselves. This is the problem with citations: in modern technocratic societies, people are typically complacent and take cited statements as fact. "If it's in a journal, or even in a prestigious news paper, it MUST be true!" Bullshit! I'd rather not rely on that "unshakeable foundation of knowledge" that is built and protected by a priest-class of experts. I'd rather say what I believe to be true and let people think about it or look into it for themselves. For my purposes, I don't even really care if it's true. I'm interested in the interplay of ideas. I don't even necessarily believe in Truth. They once thought sperm "attacked" and fertilized the passive egg. Now it's said that sperm flounder aimlessly and the egg goes after the sperm. What is true? Is our truth ever divorced from politics and ideology? Can we ever escape metaphor in our observations? Should we even try? That's actually why people ask for citation - depending on how reliable the source is, they choose to either believe it or not. In this specific case source is Inky which usually contains some pseudo philosophical made up bullshit that has no background whatsoever. Therefore whole argument based on his one statement was garbage. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On September 04 2008 14:08 nA.Inky wrote: I disagree Jibba; if someone cares about where I got that information from, they can look for themselves. This is the problem with citations: in modern technocratic societies, people are typically complacent and take cited statements as fact. "If it's in a journal, or even in a prestigious news paper, it MUST be true!" Bullshit! I'd rather not rely on that "unshakeable foundation of knowledge" that is built and protected by a priest-class of experts. I'd rather say what I believe to be true and let people think about it or look into it for themselves. For my purposes, I don't even really care if it's true. I'm interested in the interplay of ideas. I don't even necessarily believe in Truth. They once thought sperm "attacked" and fertilized the passive egg. Now it's said that sperm flounder aimlessly and the egg goes after the sperm. What is true? Is our truth ever divorced from politics and ideology? Can we ever escape metaphor in our observations? Should we even try? What the hell? Are you serious, or did you trip out on some drug and get all weird? I will agree that there is no such thing as the ultimate truth, at least not one which we can understand. However, questioning the viability of peer reviewed sources that are done by some of the most brilliant minds in the world is a pretty fucking ignorant thing to do, simply because you have absolutely nothing to disprove them. Without this system of checks, you would have to sift through mounds of dog shit before you could find something even remotely close to substantial. I'm not saying you should believe newspapers, but you've pretty much just shat on the basis for scientific progress due to your inability to understand it. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
Figures, huh? | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On September 04 2008 15:15 travis wrote: People generally ask for citation in an attempt to stave off the possibility that they are wrong. People refuse to give citations due to the fact that they are wrong. You see, I can make broad assumptions too. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On September 04 2008 15:19 mahnini wrote: People refuse to give citations due to the fact that they are wrong. You see, I can make broad assumptions too. People generally ask for citation in an attempt to stave off the possibility that they are wrong. Should I have put "I think" in front of my post, your highness? | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On September 04 2008 15:20 travis wrote: People generally ask for citation in an attempt to stave off the possibility that they are wrong. Should I have put "I think" in front of my post, your highness? Um, no. If you told me the world was flat I would ask you for proof because I refuse to believe it unless you provide enough substantial evidence to disprove the idea that the world is round. This is the way to understanding. If I sat there and accepted your proposal at face value, what kind of person would I be? Answer: a dumbfuck | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
Unintentional. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
I could not comprehend why people would not put up citations because they actually give you different perspectives and a different understanding which you in turn could interpret. You, however, see citations being used as a means to prove someone wrong or right and not a path to understanding. Even worse, is the fact that citations are not simply citations, but the ideas of people put into writing and rejecting these means that the only thing that you consider to be true is what YOU think is true. That you hold within yourself some unfathomable ability to ultimately discern what is or isn't true. Something to think about. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On September 04 2008 15:43 mahnini wrote: Hey you know what I just realized? I could not comprehend why people would not put up citations because they actually give you different perspectives and a different understanding which you in turn could interpret. I am not sure what you mean. Isn't the purpose of a citation to validate what you or someone else is already saying? You, however, see citations being used as a means to prove someone wrong or right and not a path to understanding. Do not tell me what I see. Even worse, is the fact that citations are not simply citations, but the ideas of people put into writing and rejecting these means that the only thing that you consider to be true is what YOU think is true. I believe this is a good thing. Blind faith is a bad thing. Investigate, incorporate what makes sense, move on. That you hold within yourself some unfathomable ability to ultimately discern what is or isn't true. Something to think about. Don't understand what you are saying. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
I don't know what values you're hanging onto. Is a man cooking feminine to you? There have always been great male chefs. Is talking about feelings feminine to you? Every famous male writer in history is guilty of this. I think the only thing that's different about the men of today, and the men on yesteryear, is that some of us are confused about how to act toward women. It's not romantic to ask every step of the way, but it's risking rape accusations if you're wrong. Men are scared to be as bold as they would have been once before. But society is evolving to go compensate for that. A man can be romantic by confessing his feelings for the girl, in which case if the girl responds positively, he knows he has the go ahead. It replaces the mood killings questions of "is it okay if I...?" Women have changed too. In yesteryear it was an expectation that the woman tended to the home in a marriage, while the man made the money. Change isn't necessarily bad. Rocky is a macho man, and he talks about his feelings all the time. Bruce Lee was a philosopher. What the hell is wrong with not being a dense as fuck "Eat. Sleep. Have sex." mentality? Men have always been thinking creatures =/ In short: Worry about yourself. If most guys are screwing up and acting like pussies, well then I guess you'll be reeling in a lot of girls with your manliness  If you're wrong, you'll find out soon enough. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On September 04 2008 15:51 travis wrote: I am not sure what you mean. Isn't the purpose of a citation to validate what you or someone else is already saying? While that may be the superficial purpose, I believe the purpose of citations is to educate and enable the exploration of differing perspectives. I didn't, you did. See above quote. I believe this is a good thing. Blind faith is a bad thing. Investigate, incorporate what makes sense, move on. Yes, but inky is implying that the notion of citations themselves is not a viable method of presentation. That there is some big bad entity controlling it. Simply put, if you believe inky's implication then you wouldn't consider anybody's opinion other than your own. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
 I am not sure what you mean. Isn't the purpose of a citation to validate what you or someone else is already saying? A citation is provided in general so that two people arguing believe the same truths, but are comparing viewpoints and other experiences. If one person believes the gap between rich and poor in America is very low, and the other believes it is high, there is no point of them arguing about it. Neither one can come to a conclusion with the other because one or both doesn't know what they're talking about. Misunderstandings arise, and both thinks the other is an idiot until they discover this fundamental fact to their argument is disputed, and until they discover the correct answer... Neither has any business arguing. It's why you can't write a professional essay without citations... What if you have your facts wrong? You waste a lot of time arguing a point that quite frankly doesn't exist due to it being based on a false assumption. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On September 04 2008 16:01 mahnini wrote: While that may be the superficial purpose, I believe the purpose of citations is to educate and enable the exploration of differing perspectives. If that was the case, no citation should ever be necessary. No, I see them as a means to verify the accuracy of a statement or standpoint. And yes, that is different. I said absolutely nothing about their affects on the pursuit of understanding. Yes, but inky is implying that the notion of citations themselves is not a viable method of presentation. That there is some big bad entity controlling it. I don't think inky is conclusively saying anything. Simply put, if you believe inky's implication then you wouldn't consider anybody's opinion other than your own. I try to consider as much as possible. I try to believe what makes sense. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
Here's a basic summary: 1. inky believes citations are useless 2. inky believes you should do your own research (somehow different from what citations provide) 3. inky believes he doesn't have to backup what he says 4. travis believes citations are a way to validate arguments 5. i believe citations are a way to understand the other side of an argument 6. 4 and 5 are kind of the same but hold differing mentalities 7. i get into a discussion with travis in which backpedals his agreement with inky and takes the neutral stance on everything THERE | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
I feel no need to defend this statement. | ||
|
pyrogenetix
China5098 Posts
Just kidding. Anyway lol my mom was pointing this out to me over the summer, how men nowadays are acting all sissy and indecisive, wearing pink shirts and can't do any sports or anything athletic. She then says she's very glad that I'm not following this trend. I think this is a product of people having office jobs, long working hours so they don't have time to do any sports, and then they go home and watch TV that fills their minds with an image of what they're supposed to look like: covered in brands with skin as shiny as a newborn baby's butt cheek. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
It's only natural that men become more like women (or let's rather say: BEHAVE more like women). Because that's the smartest and most socially accepted way now. Women still like the men who play the tough guy, but it's not like you should behave most of the time anymore. | ||
|
8Pylon
United States223 Posts
1 star | ||
| ||
