Argue with me...

On February 12 2009 06:24 daz wrote:
say something stupid and ill gladly argue with you about it

On February 12 2009 06:17 Boblion wrote:
Why Kawaï is allowed to be in [light] but not to post on TL ?

:>

On February 12 2009 06:26 Chef wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Monty Python > Xeris

On February 12 2009 06:28 Chef wrote:
Yes it is.

On February 12 2009 06:29 Zozma wrote:
Oh no it's not.

On February 12 2009 06:30 minus_human wrote:
Seeking order in everything remains instinctual to the populace of man. It is a direct result of conscience and intelligence gain since prehistoric times, due to the incapacity of interpreting the Universe differently than narrowed-sighted ordinate strings of ideas and events. For nurturing of their own psychic, humans, when related to their social groups, still need cause as well as purpose for their existence. When not found, they are created or more often borrowed from each other and propagated within their societies – participant mechanism to the birth of religions. Exceptions from this desire of goal still remain only those who are intellectually inferior, thus allowing the mechanical necessities of their biological life to overwhelm their existence.
Solutions for this intricate innate self-deluding process prove extremely elusive

Prove me wrong, in an aspect of your choosing. I'll argue back, even if I may respond slowly.

On February 12 2009 06:30 minus_human wrote:
Seeking order in everything remains instinctual to the populace of man. It is a direct result of conscience and intelligence gain since prehistoric times, due to the incapacity of interpreting the Universe differently than narrowed-sighted ordinate strings of ideas and events. For nurturing of their own psychic, humans, when related to their social groups, still need cause as well as purpose for their existence. When not found, they are created or more often borrowed from each other and propagated within their societies – participant mechanism to the birth of religions. Exceptions from this desire of goal still remain only those who are intellectually inferior, thus allowing the mechanical necessities of their biological life to overwhelm their existence.
Solutions for this intricate innate self-deluding process prove extremely elusive

Prove me wrong, in an aspect of your choosing. I'll argue back, even if I may respond slowly.

On February 12 2009 06:30 minus_human wrote:
Seeking order in everything remains instinctual to the populace of man. It is a direct result of conscience and intelligence gain since prehistoric times, due to the incapacity of interpreting the Universe differently than narrowed-sighted ordinate strings of ideas and events. For nurturing of their own psychic, humans, when related to their social groups, still need cause as well as purpose for their existence. When not found, they are created or more often borrowed from each other and propagated within their societies – participant mechanism to the birth of religions. Exceptions from this desire of goal still remain only those who are intellectually inferior, thus allowing the mechanical necessities of their biological life to overwhelm their existence.
Solutions for this intricate innate self-deluding process prove extremely elusive

Prove me wrong, in an aspect of your choosing. I'll argue back, even if I may respond slowly.

On February 12 2009 06:38 PH wrote:

You kinda go all over the place...

So...you're basically saying that people seek order in their lives...that's the gist of it. There's not really anything to argue...there isn't a particularly controversial point in what you just wrote, I think...

On February 12 2009 06:26 Chef wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Monty Python > Xeris

On February 12 2009 06:48 x89titan wrote:
savior will beat upmagic and beat bisu in the finals and nothing in between.

On February 12 2009 06:50 Chef wrote:

That's such a mundane argument. You might as well say "human being need food to survive." It's so obviously true.

On February 12 2009 06:56 minus_human wrote:
He could go touch the religions reference. Although it doesn't seem too controversial also, since I didn't point any specific religion. Then I'm guess I'm referring to Xeris's own religion as deluding? I don't really wanna start that debate, it's so overdone and people just choose to believe what they want anyway.

How about this: as humanity evolves, the individuals that will effectively represent the new frontier generation of our intellectual evolution will represent a shrinking percent, when comparing those individuals to the mass of society - an excruciatingly smaller percent than today. Do you agree or do you consider that the majority of humans will become highly educated/ intellectually advanced, and basically differences in natural ability (intelligence, intuition etc) will become more and more reduced?

On February 12 2009 07:00 daz wrote:


I find it hard to agree or disagree since your initial argument makes no sense at all. Please explain it

On February 12 2009 06:56 minus_human wrote:
He could go touch the religions reference. Although it doesn't seem too controversial also, since I didn't point any specific religion. Then I'm guess I'm referring to Xeris's own religion as deluding? I don't really wanna start that debate, it's so overdone and people just choose to believe what they want anyway.

How about this: as humanity evolves, the individuals that will effectively represent the new frontier generation of our intellectual evolution will represent a shrinking percent, when comparing those individuals to the mass of society - an excruciatingly smaller percent than today. Do you agree or do you consider that the majority of humans will become highly educated/ intellectually advanced, and basically differences in natural ability (intelligence, intuition etc) will become more and more reduced?

On February 12 2009 07:11 Chef wrote:

It's not fair if I have to decipher what you're actually trying to say Stop trying to sound smart and just say what you want to say... "effectively" "frontier" in the first half of your opening sentence don't even serve any purpose... They're just there to make what you said longer and more complex sounding. A "shrinking percent" is also a confusing way to describe what you're explaining... If I had to guess, I'd say you're trying to claim that people are getting stupider, but it's not clear the way you explain it. Then you go on about people's genetic predisposition to intelligence varying? What are you trying to say?

Is every generation stupider than the last? I don't know. Maybe, if you consider how much we interfere with natural selection.

Are some people genetically less intelligent than others? Of course... Human variation is normal. But normally certain aspects of intelligence seem to be better or worse than the absolute average in any given individual.

On February 12 2009 07:24 minus_human wrote:
Frontier is intended to show that I'm talking about the ratio between the best (as in, international scientist/philosophers) individuals of an imaginary distant future generation and the mass of people of that very same generation. What I'm trying to say is that, considering humans will greatly increase in numbers in a few hundreds/thousands of years, the percent of really advanced persons from all the living people of a certain generation will be really small compared to what it is today, and as a balancing factor, those best individuals will be REALLY advanced compared to the rest, much more than the general top scientists of today are in comparison to the generation we're a part of.

So I'm saying, does he think that the scenario I described above is more likely or on the contrary, despite the fact that human variation is normal, the evolution of the human race will decrease the variety and allow a relatively uniform intellectual improvement of the vast majority of humans.


My initial post was indeed intended to sound smart, and there were pompous expressions that weren't really necessary. But after that I really expressed my self in the most simple/efficient manner I could without molesting the English language.

Sorry if it seems superfluous to you, to me it seems that you should try harder to associate the additional information words such as 'frontier' bring to a give sentence.

On February 12 2009 07:29 minus_human wrote:
When I first posted in this thread (which is a JOKE type of BLOG if you haven't noticed), I didn't though of something really interesting or smart to argue about, I just though it would be cool to write a big post with unnecessarily sophisticated language/phrases so that it would be really funny and immature to argue about it later.

Things took a WAY too serious turn

lighten up everyone

and where the fuck is Xeris
He lied in the OP

On February 12 2009 07:56 Chef wrote:

SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!

On February 12 2009 08:03 Chef wrote:
Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!

On February 12 2009 07:56 minus_human wrote:
do you understand the difference between 'number' and PERCENTAGE?

just drop it

On February 12 2009 08:21 daz wrote:


. I understand that you mean that the 'number' of all humans will increase, but why would the 'number' of humans increasing result in a smaller PERCENTAGE of 'really advanced persons'.

On February 12 2009 08:45 Chef wrote:
It might shrink I suppose, if smart people had fewer children than dumb people... But then you have to qualify what smart is, and what stupid is... and then you have to do studies to find out if they really are having fewer children... And it's really an impossible thing to argue. Either the facts are there or they aren't.

On February 12 2009 08:21 Hippopotamus wrote:
“Society is fundamentally responsible for class divisions,” says Foucault; however, according to von Junz , it is not so much society that is fundamentally responsible for class divisions, but rather the fatal flaw, and some would say the defining characteristic, of society. It could be said that Reicher states that we have to choose between deconstructive materialism and Foucaultist power relations. Baudrillardist simulation suggests that narrativity is capable of intentionality.

The main theme of the works of Rushdie is the genre, and eventually the fatal flaw, of precultural sexual identity. Therefore, in The Moor’s Last Sigh, Rushdie affirms socialist realism; in The Ground Beneath Her Feet, however, he deconstructs dialectic capitalism. The premise of structuralist nihilism states that consciousness, perhaps paradoxically, has objective value, but only if Baudrillardist simulation is valid; otherwise, the significance of the participant is social comment.

It could be said that Sontag uses the term ‘posttextual desublimation’ to denote the difference between class and society. The premise of socialist realism implies that the State is capable of deconstruction, given that sexuality is interchangeable with truth.

In a sense, if dialectic capitalism holds, we have to choose between socialist realism and deconstructive feminism. The primary theme of la Tournier’s analysis of postdialectic nationalism is the role of the observer as poet.

Therefore, Foucault promotes the use of dialectic capitalism to challenge hierarchy. The subject is contextualised into a that includes reality as a paradox.





Prove me wrong, in an aspect of your choosing. I'll argue back, even if I may respond slowly.

On February 12 2009 09:10 zulu_nation8 wrote:


I would bet my right nut Foucault has never in his life said: “Society is fundamentally responsible for class divisions.”

On February 12 2009 08:37 minus_human wrote:



I am not trying to insult you.
If just the number of people increases, the percentage should stay the same, it should not increase by default.

It was my theory, the first supposition, that this percentage will shrink. I wasn't a logical conclusion or anything, it was something I wanted to debate.

And stop inventing things you think I might have wanted to say

On February 12 2009 09:39 daz wrote:


of course the percentage should stay the same by default. And yet you state that it wont. But you fail to explain why. You failed to even attempt to explain why, you just said it. I didnt invent something that you might have wanted to say, i was trying to figure out what you were trying to say, and I still haven't figured it out. It's not really a theory if there is absolutely no reasoning at all behind it.

Oh and P.S. dont be a fucking pussy and say weren't trying to insult me just because your insult was a horrible failure. Have the guts to admit you were being confrontational

On February 12 2009 06:30 minus_human wrote:
Seeking order in everything remains instinctual to the populace of man. It is a direct result of conscience and intelligence gain since prehistoric times, due to the incapacity of interpreting the Universe differently than narrowed-sighted ordinate strings of ideas and events.

On February 12 2009 06:30 minus_human wrote:
For nurturing of their own psychic, humans, when related to their social groups, still need cause as well as purpose for their existence. When not found, they are created or more often borrowed from each other and propagated within their societies – participant mechanism to the birth of religions. Exceptions from this desire of goal still remain only those who are intellectually inferior, thus allowing the mechanical necessities of their biological life to overwhelm their existence.
Solutions for this intricate innate self-deluding process prove extremely elusive

Prove me wrong, in an aspect of your choosing. I'll argue back, even if I may respond slowly.

On February 12 2009 09:54 zulu_nation8 wrote:


do you mean direct cause instead of result, if so then i'd agree




This is pretty much what Heidegger calls meaning found in our everyday practices which covers up that our being (Dasein) is by default, meaningless. I don't necessarily agree with Heidegger but your premise whether intentional or not is well-founded.

On February 12 2009 10:26 PH wrote:
Man...I went and did some RL stuff for a while...now I come back on TL, and I can't follow what's going on at all in this thread anymore...

On February 12 2009 10:07 minus_human wrote:



Amen. I actually meant result, since I consider the tendencies which have dictated human evolution (seeking to organize tribes, cities, and eventually nations and modern societies) a result of the fact that we became intelligent and aware of each other.
I don't quite understand how it could be the other way around, because if the desire to be organized led to intelligence gain, then why did such a desire exist in the first place, and what could have been its causes, if not intelligence? (as people organized themselves into more complex structures, a human generated stimuli for the intellect to evolve was created, but I don't think this caused its initial appearance - this if of course valid if you take into consideration some sort of biological evolution theory, and not creationism)

Thanks for the feedback, but I believe you are more educated in the sense that I'm unaware of the philosophers/thinking systems you refer to

On February 12 2009 10:51 BalliSLife wrote:
do you want me to trash your fucking lights?

On February 12 2009 09:49 minus_human wrote:


You STILL don't get it. Despite all my pompous talking, Chef here seems to have no problem with it. I'll let the facts speak, and also, I actually tried to explain myself like three times only to realize now you don't get it because you're either stupid or just plain stubborn. Don't you see how faulty it is to try and prove me wrong by just repeating that you don't understand? If my silly smart talk was too much for you, but you still intuited that it's not that sophisticated at all you should have just quote it and post 'jibberish' like that other guy did.

Watch your language. If I would have wanted to confront someone like you it would have been obvious. But especially after your last post, I really don't care what you do or say so w/e

On February 12 2009 12:12 zulu_nation8 wrote:
oneofthem remember when you talked about how bertrand russell already has the idea of the table and therefore its properties in his mind when he talks about the self-evidence of the idea of the table, have you read anything that talks about that or no.

On February 12 2009 12:34 Dknight wrote:
You're a bloody terrorist and I will beat you up at BC.

On February 12 2009 12:48 oneofthem wrote:
human narratives are intentional, with actors and such. they presume categories of meaning. if you want to explain why people find stuff meaningful, your explanation can't invoke faculties of meaning. it would be circular. the explanation is just an expression of the result.

loli: why can people see grass?
mom: because grass is green.

someone who can't see will not be able to understand the explanation. the explanation is not itself terribly wrong, it is just presuming seeing, in the way of human experience. it does not explain seeing causally in a more universal manner. similarly with religion, i think the explanation for religion should tackle its significance, its magnetic hold. but when your explanation presumes such a significance, like say positing a category of the sacred etc, and then make religion the expression of that inner sanctum of significance, then you have merely paraphrased religion, translated it to a different language. compare that to an explanation that explain significance as a biological function of behavior adjustment. that at least jives with the materialistic, behavioristic evolutionary origin of life.

On February 12 2009 14:10 oneofthem wrote:
well, unintelligible could imply a number of things. in this case, you seem to want to attack the objective nature of sciences, not merely their terminology. for this result you'll have to show that the 16th century explanation of grass is working on an entirely different logical structure, to the extent of not being able to have a truth value in today's science, that is, our science cannot even say whether the description of grass is talking about something that exists in the realm of nature at all.

On February 12 2009 06:59 minus_human wrote:
Xeris: I believe you are not actually bored, since you didn't really post in this thread.

Hear that? YOURE NOT BORED. YOU WERE LYING IN THE OP.

On February 12 2009 06:14 Xeris wrote:
I'm bored for the next 30 minutes or so, someone argue with me!

On February 12 2009 06:47 liger13 wrote:

lol... thats exactly what i thought off when i saw the thread

On February 12 2009 06:17 Boblion wrote:
Why Kawaï is allowed to be in [light] but not to post on TL ?

:>

[B]Valhalla. On February 07 2009 16:31. FakeSteve[TPR] wrote
kawaiirice is annoying but overall he's a nice kid and seems to have
distanced himself from all the bullshit

i'm never gonna unban him because he helped LS abuse in TSL
but you guys shouldn't just shit on him

On February 12 2009 08:14 minus_human wrote:
lol maybe some mod will drop by and ban us for this without reading the thread

On February 13 2009 14:49 fanatacist wrote:

"However it has now become more of a burden in its quintessential form (God created the world in 6 days, garden of Eden, Jesus being the son of God, etc.). Provide a counter-argument for this statement."

Quintessential
From the medieval Latin, "Quinta Essentia," or "the Fifth Essence" -- what we would now call, "The Fifth Element." That which is quintessential is of the fifth element that would come after the four classical elements (earth, wind, rain, fire). The OED summarizes this original sense best, "The `fifth essence' of ancient and medieval philosophy, supposed to be the substance of which the heavenly bodies were composed, and to be actually latent in all things, the extraction of it by distillation or other methods being one of the great objects of alchemy."
"Quintessential" began life as an alchemical term, the Quinta Essentia, the fifth that arises from the four elements you mention in your etymology. The Fifth was thought to be the fabled Philosopher's Stone which the alchemists sought, a Stone that could cure illness, extend life, and turn base metals into gold and silver. How to combine the four elements to make the Fifth was the great problem of alchemy (from the Arabic "al-kimiya").

On February 14 2009 03:00 fanatacist wrote:



Read books. Learn n' shit.

On February 14 2009 05:54 fanatacist wrote:

You need support to argue a statement? Don't be silly.

The sky is green.

I don't tell you how I arrived at said conclusion but you can sure as hell argue it.

Seriously lol.

On February 14 2009 05:58 fanatacist wrote:

Uh, you are going to teach me English after that sentence? I thought this was a serious thread, not a joke thread.

Anyways, deciphering your poor excuse for sentence structure, let's examine the following:

My goal: describe a state of ANY religion in it's purest form, without the individual (from person to person) differences in belief and faith.
Word of choice: quintessential
Definition: "representing the perfect example of a class or quality"
Does it fit?: religion in its purest form = perfect example of religion
QED: I am right, you are wrong, learn English and read books, thank you.

On February 14 2009 06:07 fanatacist wrote:

LOL YOU ARGUE THE STATEMENT I COUNTER YOUR ARGUMENTS DIPSHIT
ROOOOOOOOOFL HEWWO

On February 14 2009 06:14 fanatacist wrote:
"Exactly, you should now realize what a horrible definition you used."

On February 14 2009 06:14 fanatacist wrote:
seems like someone isn't very ARTICULATE, which usually implies their LACK OF MASTERY of the English language at best, although a LACK OF A LITERATE BACKGROUND is more probable in your case.

On February 14 2009 06:25 fanatacist wrote:

Hey hey let me help you out, I will show you how it's done:

Me: The sky is green.
You: I disagree, the sky is blue, although dependent on the time of day and weather conditions. Here are my reasons why:
1. __
2. __
3. __
Me: (Here I either argue my point, or I concede defeat)

What you did:

Me: The sky is green.
You: ROFL CAN'T DISAGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU DID NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR YOUR CLAIM, CANNOT PROCESS ALT F4 ALT F4 CTRL Q

EDIT: I admire your ability to copy and paste the same thing over and over again for a few consecutive posts, you are clearly as master of debating and deserve a star for your contributions to this website. Maybe a cookie for your ever-expanding post count.

On February 14 2009 06:28 fanatacist wrote:

Reading your posts, seeing other people ridicule you, and laughing as I scroll further down the page because nothing I have seen you post has been worth more than a shit on a plate.

On February 14 2009 07:37 fanatacist wrote:
I think it's a matter of perception.

Thank you, I bow to your mastery of the caps lock and your debating prowess.

Now, care to argue against the statement? (lol)