|
I used to like Philosophy. Then I realized what a waste is and how you can get more of it by just meeting people and exchanging some simple ideas. So now, when I have a...
technical argument vs. "philosophical" argument
My new rule in life is: technical argument wins by default! 
For example, the Universe is mostly empty, particles take less space (way less actual space) compared to their force fields.
A philosophical argument would say that it's just an illusion, or since wave and energy can pass through matter, anything or anyone might be capable of doing so, thus you have to be open to this possibility. And then we drag on and about the whole history and known applicable principle and sciences.
Technical argument: particles will still have valid force fields, like electrostatic fields and matter can only pass through matter with ease, if the energy is either high enough to move the particles apart, or in serious cases, pass through them. Humans can't actually survive being hit with high energy particles, nor can any practicality arise from the above possibility, so there is no point in discussing it further.
|
On July 14 2010 06:26 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 06:24 oceanblack wrote:
If you are saying that all truth is subjective, and declaring it objectively, then I hope you understand your position is in need of abandoning. It seems to me the criteria of "empirically falsifiable" is not well applied in discussions of ethics.
In any case, I "personally believe" morality to be objective, rather than subjective. The values of a culture are not necessarily definitive moral statements, and the two should not be confused.
This. But don't try to be politically correct and force yourself to insert that it is your own personal belief. There is no absolute truth. Because each of us shares an individualized experience, truth is nothing but a dream.
So is it true that there is no truth?
|
On July 14 2010 07:22 mrproper wrote:I used to like Philosophy. Then I realized what a waste is and how you can get more of it by just meeting people and exchanging some simple ideas. So now, when I have a... technical argument vs. "philosophical" argumentMy new rule in life is: technical argument wins by default! For example, the Universe is mostly empty, particles take less space (way less actual space) compared to their force fields. A philosophical argument would say that it's just an illusion, or since wave and energy can pass through matter, anything or anyone might be capable of doing so, thus you have to be open to this possibility. And then we drag on and about the whole history and known applicable principle and sciences. Technical argument: particles will still have valid force fields, like electrostatic fields and matter can only pass through matter with ease, if the energy is either high enough to move the particles apart, or in serious cases, pass through them. Humans can't actually survive being hit with high energy particles, nor can any practicality arise from the above possibility, so there is no point in discussing it further.
theres a certain probabiltiy (albeit very veryvery veryveryveryvery unlikely of coursE) that any object might pass through any other. google up quantum tunneling.
|
On July 14 2010 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Yes, I understand that. The concept of slavery has always been inherently wrong
...
Why?
This is not a philosophical statement, is is a statement out of faith. Lets deconstruct the definition of wrong in this context. Normally, wrong can be defined as "A value that does not represent "truth"". However, in an ethical context of "this is "wrong"", such a definition of does not make any sense. What is true has nothing to do with what is moral. In an ethical sense, a wrong action is not a value that is "not the truth", but a value that is "Opposed to what can be defined as moral".
The statement that something is wrong means it is opposed to something it is defined somewhere as "moral", or "right". If a person is the one defining moral or right, then that statement can be easily made without any contradiction. However, in order for it to be universally wrong, then "the universe"...
If the universe can define human action, the universe must thusforth be humanistic. You must prove the universe is humanistic before you can even start defining what it thinks is wrong or right.
This is your first challenge. Your first challenge is not to find evolutionary basis for our behavior. That is entirely irrelevant because it does not translate into morality, unless evolution itself is humanistic.
I don't see how you could possible accomplish showing how the universe is humanistic.
A humanistic universe could more or less be called a god.
On July 14 2010 07:22 mrproper wrote:I used to like Philosophy. Then I realized what a waste is and how you can get more of it by just meeting people and exchanging some simple ideas. So now, when I have a... technical argument vs. "philosophical" argumentMy new rule in life is: technical argument wins by default! For example, the Universe is mostly empty, particles take less space (way less actual space) compared to their force fields. A philosophical argument would say that it's just an illusion, or since wave and energy can pass through matter, anything or anyone might be capable of doing so, thus you have to be open to this possibility. And then we drag on and about the whole history and known applicable principle and sciences. Technical argument: particles will still have valid force fields, like electrostatic fields and matter can only pass through matter with ease, if the energy is either high enough to move the particles apart, or in serious cases, pass through them. Humans can't actually survive being hit with high energy particles, nor can any practicality arise from the above possibility, so there is no point in discussing it further.
No wonder you think Philosophy is a waste of time, your approach to it is completely wrong. Philosophic perspectives should never be arguing with a scientific argument. Philosophy is not speculating what should fall under the jurisdiction of science. What you described is shitty armchair pseudosicence speculation.
Philosophy is about making sense of science, among a host of other things. So Science figured out we can send messages back into the past. k.
Philosophy's job is figuring out why the hell does this matter to us. I don't mean its technical applications. I mean what does that fact mean for us. How will it change our perspectives on life? How will it effect our culture? Is x still a meaningful action? Its about translating cold, hard and ultimately meaningless logic of the universe into a form that matters to human.
|
On July 14 2010 07:13 alphafuzard wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 14 2010 06:17 oceanblack wrote:On July 14 2010 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 14 2010 06:05 Usyless wrote:On July 14 2010 05:49 zizou21 wrote:I am a philosophy major, and I have found that the theory of evolution answers most of these questions I am also a philosophy major and I have found that the theory of evolution answers none of these questions. I find people who think this are generally trading on a confusion between explaining people's opinions or tendencies of belief about X (say, morality) with explaining the facts about X. Finding an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs doesn't tell us the moral facts anymore than finding an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs tells us the mathematical facts. Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival. On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy. Can you elaborate please? Thank you. Your understanding of an objective morality "evolves" as you reason and derive knowledgeably. Just because we abolished the slave trade (in some places) in the last century, doesn't mean it hasn't been wrong since the inception of the human species until it has been abolished. Morality isn't objective. It's subjective. Mathematics is objective. I don't see how the two are comparable, nor how the latter could be part of that evolutionary analogy. If morality is subjective then it has no real meaning.
Yes, but it still has meaning to those who value it subjectively
On July 14 2010 07:13 alphafuzard wrote: It is then simply a product of circumstance, and cannot be of any practical ethical use.
If what you mean is that you can't order people to do or not do something on the grounds of an objective moral code, yes I agree, and I used to feel the same way too. But morals can still be agreed upon and respected like a mutual social contract.
|
Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to.
What you perhaps are actually wanting to ask is, "Why do we live?" or "What end justifies people in general continuing their existence?" In that case, what we really need is a single value that would apply to every human being on the planet. If it was subjective, then the result would of course be that there is no objective meaning to life. That, my friends, is something undesirable by many people. Thus, what is the one thing that every human being acts on?
I would say that every human being justifies their continuing existence by seeking happiness. Going to college, robbing a bank, killing human beings, killing yourself, getting a job, making money.... all of it comes down to one thing. Seeking satisfaction, furthering yourself, making things better for you. It's my opinion that humanity is quite hedonistic, and even the belief in God and the pursuit of religion is hedonistic at its core.
|
List of things that are good.
Free food
Free car
Free home
notice a pattern? 
Things that are bad.
Evil monsters
Simple no?
|
On July 14 2010 07:35 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Yes, I understand that. The concept of slavery has always been inherently wrong ... Why? This is not a philosophical statement, is is a statement out of faith. Lets deconstruct the definition of wrong in this context. Normally, wrong can be defined as "A value that does not represent "truth"". However, in an ethical context of "this is "wrong"", such a definition of does not make any sense. What is true has nothing to do with what is moral. In an ethical sense, a wrong action is not a value that is "not the truth", but a value that is "Opposed to what can be defined as moral". The statement that something is wrong means it is opposed to something it is defined somewhere as "moral", or "right". If a person is the one defining moral or right, then that statement can be easily made without any contradiction. However, in order for it to be universally wrong, then "the universe"... If the universe can define human action, the universe must thusforth be humanistic. You must prove the universe is humanistic before you can even start defining what it thinks is wrong or right. This is your first challenge. Your first challenge is not to find evolutionary basis for our behavior. That is entirely irrelevant because it does not translate into morality, unless evolution itself is humanistic. I don't see how you could possible accomplish showing how the universe is humanistic. A humanistic universe could more or less be called a god. Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 07:22 mrproper wrote:I used to like Philosophy. Then I realized what a waste is and how you can get more of it by just meeting people and exchanging some simple ideas. So now, when I have a... technical argument vs. "philosophical" argumentMy new rule in life is: technical argument wins by default! For example, the Universe is mostly empty, particles take less space (way less actual space) compared to their force fields. A philosophical argument would say that it's just an illusion, or since wave and energy can pass through matter, anything or anyone might be capable of doing so, thus you have to be open to this possibility. And then we drag on and about the whole history and known applicable principle and sciences. Technical argument: particles will still have valid force fields, like electrostatic fields and matter can only pass through matter with ease, if the energy is either high enough to move the particles apart, or in serious cases, pass through them. Humans can't actually survive being hit with high energy particles, nor can any practicality arise from the above possibility, so there is no point in discussing it further. No wonder you think Philosophy is a waste of time, your approach to it is completely wrong. Philosophic perspectives should never be arguing with a scientific argument. Philosophy is not speculating what should fall under the jurisdiction of science. What you described is shitty armchair pseudosicence speculation. Philosophy is about making sense of science, among a host of other things. So Science figured out we can send messages back into the past. k. Philosophy's job is figuring out why the hell does this matter to us. I don't mean its technical applications. I mean what does that fact mean for us. How will it change our perspectives on life? How will it effect our culture? Is x still a meaningful action? Its about translating cold, hard and ultimately meaningless logic of the universe into a form that matters to human.
Yup, that's why theres so many different religious sects all claiming to hold the onne absolute truth. Given proof that God exists, the question then becomes, which religion is right? Then the objective areas of morality begin to form basic concepts of good and evil and in between.
|
What is the point of life ?
The point of my existence, the existence that I perceive as mine at least, is to make as big a splash as possible in our inconceivably small puddle to help allow people to be able to drink and imbibe for themselves. That is to not only return the valuable resources that I waste to live, but exponentiate that return to allow others to be able to safely compete on a relatively level field.
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Either knowing that I allowed science to advance by bringing more into that light of technology from the chains of starvation and an area previously un-brightened by electricity...or earning the means to tinker and create to my hearts content for those I love...preferably both
What are your most important values ?
Kindness, honor, respect, truth, logic, and love
What is good and what is evil ?
Evil is that which knowingly spreads ignorance and deceives others by dulling their mind for its own gain. Good spreads truth and kindness with no care of anything but the desire to learn and advance
What is Wisdom ?
Knowledge, modesty, and kindness
|
Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites.
|
On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote:
Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to.
I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused.
On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote:
Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites.
I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it.
|
What is the point of life?
- Nothing. No matter what we do on Earth, nothing will change. If I die as a nobody or die as the next multi-billionaire does not matter at all. The world will continue as it is no matter what.
What can bring you lasting happiness?
- Learning to do and getting acknowledged at something I want to do.
What are your most important values?
- Honesty (even if it means being blunt. I rather have a blunt honest person as a friend)
What is good and what is evil?
- Good and evil? I think that's changes as perspectives change.
What is Wisdom?
- Something you gain with age. It's not knowledge for sure. It's something that builds up with experience.
What philosophers or philosophical doctrines do you especially like and why?
- Nietzsche. Existentialism seems to make sense to me.
|
On July 14 2010 06:48 Usyless wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 06:45 Kishkumen wrote:
I really like Levinas's philosophy of ethics. I learned about it this year in my college English class. If you're into philosophy, give Levinas a look. I would be as suspicious of any philosophy you learn in an English class as the economics you learn in a cellular biology class.
I agree, although in this case we learned about it by actually reading some Levinas. I don't see how it would differ much if we read the same thing in a philosophy course. Less of a focus on how it applies to literature would be about the only difference I can think of.
|
On July 14 2010 08:01 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote:
Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to. I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused. Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote:
Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites. I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it.
Lol. Can you expand on that? What are these bad ideas?
You edited your post lol. If you disagree don't be shy. I won't take offense. If what you have to say makes sense then thats awesome. : )
|
sorry for being a wet blanket, but I've been to a few philosophy lectures with a friend, and I find that it really consists of a bunch of people with nothing better to do arguing over really pointless things using totally opinionated arguments. It seems like a course that is focused on arguments for the sake of arguing ("Imagine if you are a time-travelling dragon, which era would you be living in?"), and a course designed for people who like to hear their own voice. Oh, and those people get really defensive when they are asked what their career plan is going to be, I mean, I didn't mean to stir up anything sensitive, it is really just an honest question every time. critical thinking, on the other hand, is achievable by studying so many other majors.
|
On July 14 2010 08:07 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 08:01 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote:
Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to. I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused. On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote:
Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites. I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it. Lol. Can you expand on that? What are these bad ideas? You edited your post lol.
I often say things without proper reflection, hence the edit. I apparently find it a difficult habit to amend.
Though to answer your question, teachings - not necessarily yours (I edited the post because I believe the language was too harsh and presumptuous) - which express the illusory nature of reality, the "in your mind" mentality concerning perspectives (particularly concerning "right" and "wrong"), etc. Teachings which as I understand them, so undermine their own authority that they have no place being taught.
|
What philosophers or philosophical doctrines do you especially like and why?
- Nietzsche. Existentialism seems to make sense to me.
Nietzsche wasn't an existentialist. Perhaps you'd like the works of Saren or Satre.
|
On July 14 2010 08:11 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 08:07 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 14 2010 08:01 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote:
Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to. I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused. On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote:
Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites. I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it. Lol. Can you expand on that? What are these bad ideas? You edited your post lol. I often say things without proper reflection, hence the edit. I apparently find it a difficult habit to amend. Though to answer your question, teachings - not necessarily yours (I edited the post because I believe the language was too harsh and presumptuous) - which express the illusory nature of reality, the "in your mind" mentality concerning perspectives (particularly concerning "right" and "wrong"), etc. Teachings which as I understand them, so undermine their own authority that they have no place being taught.
But why? You still haven't told me why. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a strictly 'Buddhist' guy. What I would say is that Buddhism, for the majority of it, makes sense to me. When it starts getting into the very religious side I get turned off. But I would like to know why you think this. What is the basis of your argument and opinion? If your one of those people, and I'm not saying you are, who just glide over a subject and make a face value judgement without delving at least a little far into anything at all religious then I would say you should take another look. Not at the religious aspect of Buddhism but what the Buddha actually tried to teach before people turned it into a religion.
|
On July 14 2010 08:17 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 08:11 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 08:07 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 14 2010 08:01 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 07:50 shinosai wrote:
Honestly, the question is a bit of a misnomer. What is the meaning of life? Well, you really have to define what you mean by life. The question itself is kind of misusing grammar. It is similar to saying "what is the meaning of car?" or "what is the meaning of law?" or even "What is the meaning of death?" Well, obviously, the meaning of these words is in the subject itself. It's analytic. People that try to push the question onto atheists "what is the meaning of life" are often confused, not really understanding that what they are asking makes no grammatical sense. The only way to actually ask this question is: "What is the meaning of YOUR life." It requires qualification. You must reference what life it is that you want the meaning of. There is no life without a subject to reference it to. I believe that is what the OP is asking, though I agree his questions are inexact and some what confused. On July 14 2010 08:00 Epsilon8 wrote:
Don't you guys ever get tired of arguing about what 'truth' really is? And the differences between subjective and objective...? Moreover, don't you get tired of always finding opinions of things and upholding them? What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind. What if subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin and that coin by its very nature is unnameable? Truth if there ever was one could never be based on something that has opposites. I don't get tired of it, no, there are too many bad ideas out there to get tired of it. Lol. Can you expand on that? What are these bad ideas? You edited your post lol. I often say things without proper reflection, hence the edit. I apparently find it a difficult habit to amend. Though to answer your question, teachings - not necessarily yours (I edited the post because I believe the language was too harsh and presumptuous) - which express the illusory nature of reality, the "in your mind" mentality concerning perspectives (particularly concerning "right" and "wrong"), etc. Teachings which as I understand them, so undermine their own authority that they have no place being taught. But why? You still haven't told me why. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a strictly 'Buddhist' guy. What I would say is that Buddhism, for the majority of it, makes sense to me. When it starts getting into the very religious side I get turned off. But I would like to know why you think this. What is the basis of your argument and opinion? If your one of those people, and I'm not saying you are, who just glide over a subject and make a face value judgement without delving at least a little far into anything at all religious then I would say you should take another look. Not at the religious aspect of Buddhism but what the Buddha actually tried to teach before people turned it into a religion.
It may be better if you explained your beliefs more, however, I will reply to what you've posted thus far. Forgive me if I've misunderstood your position.
Allow me to take your statement as an example:
"What if you were to consider if there was no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths and that they're only ideas in your mind"
This statement - whether you acknowledge it or not - assumes itself to be meaningful in some way--I believe it assumes itself to be meaningful, in that it assumes itself to be a true proposition. That is, that it is "true" that there are no 'subjective' or 'objective' truths. However if that is the case, then we have arrived at a proposition which is self-contradictory (i.e it is objectively true) and should be rejected. Further, the teaching that truth - either 'subjective' or 'objective' - is an "idea of the mind" is itself an "idea of the mind" (is it an idea of the mind which corresponds correctly to reality, and is therefore true?), and cannot express something true, even though it tries.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an "unnameable coin"--how could you predicate a philosophy on such a thing? Further, I see no reason to believe that truth could not be based in (or on) a system of opposites, not that I necessarily believe it is.
I'm sure I've misunderstood you in some way, so please feel free to correct me.
|
Meaning of life - To achieve the skill of Flash and Jaedong combined.
Lasting happiness - Win every OSL/MSL/Proleague final, ever. And ofc getting Ayumi Hamasaki as your gf.
Most important - Macro, Micro, decision making.
Good and evil - I'm the good, opponents are evil.
Wisdom - Accepting that I am the best, and stop trying to teach others my skills, because it is just utterly incomprehensable to all the noobs in the world, that is everyone but me.
I win!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.neogaf.com/forum/images/smilies/laugh.gif)
