Poof - Page 3

On April 02 2012 18:29 Azera wrote:


Ah , I guess the fact that we come from completely different cultures slipped my mind. The thing is, with all his involvement in all these co-curricular activities, it means that he is very capable (reason why he has so many). They don't let you get involved with so many things if they think you can handle it.

On April 02 2012 18:31 RogerX wrote:
Not worth keeping if he acts like that really.

On April 02 2012 18:32 RedJustice wrote:


I don't disagree that these things probably mean he is very smart. He has good time management skills as well no doubt. I don't know if you are purposely avoiding my point that these abilities have no relevance to the fact that he may have misinterpreted your intentions, or if you honestly believe that these prove he is infallible and can't possibly have made a mistake? I am not following your train of thought here at all.

On April 02 2012 17:15 Precipice wrote:
When someone tells you, "I know what I want to say but I can't think of the words for it," they are wrong. All knowledge exists on top of words and symbols. If you cannot speak with clarity or precision then you do not *know* what you are trying to say. Therefore you are either using the words to fulfill a sense of self and a specific identity, or you simply do not understand what you are saying. It is obviously the former.

On April 02 2012 18:27 Precipice wrote:
Writing and speaking are a display of one's ability to organize thoughts. Tell me: how can you understand a complex philosophical point or argument without organizing your thoughts? Further, how can you transmit this information to others without this ability. You cannot. Knowledge grows through interaction. How can you have a theory of knowledge which does not accept language - communication itself - as fundamental to its growth and continuation.

On April 02 2012 18:44 RedJustice wrote:
Oh ok, lol. I didn't think you would try to make that argument, but I was pretty confused by what you were trying to say otherwise. That said-- it seems like you may be leaning towards ditching him, but if you really did respect him previously as much as you say you did, you should seriously consider double checking with him about why he said that to you. If it was just all a misunderstanding, great you get to keep a friend you really enjoy and respect. If he's just an ass, well then you'll never wonder. Imo though, there is just no downside to a clarification in any kind of relationship. As you get older, or already if you are observant and interested in the relationships that form around you, you will see that most problems and fights between people happen because of misunderstandings.

On April 02 2012 18:27 Precipice wrote:
@Makra (and the other guy who disagreed with me)

I'm only going to respond to this once since I do not wish to derail this thread.
Infants acquire language and understanding through the establishment of heuristics (which translate into symbols). These symbols allow them to develop more knowledge etc etc. The rest is really just symbolic interactionism.

If you want to dive into a debate about the legitimacy of symbolic interactionism etc, sure, okay, I guess that's fine. But if you do so, please give me something from your quest. I have suggested a simple point. Writing and speaking are a display of one's ability to organize thoughts. Tell me: how can you understand a complex philosophical point or argument without organizing your thoughts? Further, how can you transmit this information to others without this ability. You cannot. Knowledge grows through interaction. How can you have a theory of knowledge which does not accept language - communication itself - as fundamental to its growth and continuation. If you want more to think about... go do some research on the human organism before the bicameral brain. Lastly, please do not try to rip this apart through some tautological debate over the word "language" - the counter-argument is flawed and I'm not going to respond to it anyways.

On April 02 2012 18:49 Scarecrow wrote:

He's a high school kid calling you out for faux-intellectualism whilst writing like a pompous douche

On April 02 2012 18:49 Scarecrow wrote:

He's a high school kid calling you out for faux-intellectualism whilst writing like a pompous douche

On April 02 2012 19:37 RedJustice wrote:
Oh btw, I was curious if English is his primary language and he just talks like that, or if he has learned it in an academic context. Unless there is a definition of entreat I am not aware of (there may be) or I am misreading it, he has used the word entirely incorrectly. That last sentence just seems off.

On April 02 2012 19:37 RedJustice wrote:
Oh btw, I was curious if English is his primary language and he just talks like that, or if he has learned it in an academic context. Unless there is a definition of entreat I am not aware of (there may be) or I am misreading it, he has used the word entirely incorrectly. That last sentence just seems off.

On April 02 2012 19:20 ImbaTosS wrote:
Yup, the word "pompous" keeps cropping up here, for good reason. That reply looks like a self-serving attempt at intellectual superiority. I mean, really, what a complete arse. Tell him to stuff his attitude, and stuff his pointlessly long-winded sentences. They don't make him look clever, just like an absolute try hard, despite what he clearly thinks of himself. He also thinks people hate him for this kind of thing, because they're jealous of his "intellect". Also complete rubbish. What he has written is a clear sign of somebody who thinks they are far more clever, and more revered for it than they in fact are.

On April 02 2012 17:56 Dagobert wrote:
Well, looks like he was spot on.

Besides not-copy-pasting stuff people post on the internet (especially if it's faux intellectualism!), you can read and apply this when having written conversations with people: http://www.amazon.com/Style-Lessons-Clarity-Grace-Edition/dp/0205747469/ .

Hide nested quote -
The demystification of the present (nonsense) is the precondition of praxis, which (ambiguous) is necessarily future-oriented (unsubstantiated claim) and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable (double negative, unsubstantiated claim).


This is not something you can discuss, it's nonsense. If you genuinely want to make a point, or steal someone else's point, you present a case and an argument.

1) Define an actor ("We need to" - by using 'need to' you also replace the useless "precondition" with a useful construction).
2) Define what you mean by "demystifying the present".
3) Replace "praxis" with an action that can be performed by the actor, because as it stands, this is meaningless.
4) Resolve the ambiguity. It is rarely a good idea to use "which" after having introduced several nouns.
5) Present arguments ("since...", "because...") for every claim you make.
6) Use affirmatives instead of multiple negatives, otherwise...

"Except when expenses do not exceed $250, the Insured may not refuse to provide the Insurer with receipts, checks or other evidence of costs." (example taken from Style)

On April 02 2012 20:39 TheKwas wrote:
It might sound extreme, but look up some of the resources that people with Asparagus' Syndrome use to improve their social skills. Maybe taking a more 'logical' approach to understanding other people will be useful.

On April 02 2012 20:46 Klockan3 wrote:

Yeah, this is a good site:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Asparagus_Syndrome

Another good idea could be to look up Aspergers syndrome instead.