Visitor Messages

Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 20 of 615
  1. Amore
    Yesterday 11:26 AM
    First off, it is NOT my "opinion" that doctors warn of anal-sex risks (like anal fissurs, anal cancer, colon rupture, bacterial infection) and it is NOT my "opinion" that the US CDC as reported high stats of STDs, AIDs/HIV and mental illness among homosexuals, based on nation-wide health reports, gathered from doctors/clinics. What better source is there than these?

    Obviously, the masses are herd-thinkers - they don't think through things themselves, they just go along with what others are thinking. You're a good example of this. Even when your own existence and basic human anatomy contradicts homosexuality, you and others still buy into the mind-control you've unknowingly been subject to and influenced by.

    That is what frustrates me - how people don't THINK. They just go along with whatever illogically, insane and unethical ideas - whether they are religions financial corruption & cognitive distortions, or people justifying killing children when they can FEEL their bodies being ripped apart through abortion, or legally denying children a mother or father to support "rights" based on statistically harmful sexual substitutes (homosexuality).

    The only reason why someone would suspend logic and basic science, is because either peer pressure, mind control, or they have emotional investment which clouds their judgement.
  2. yoginimama
    11-22-2015 02:53 PM
    yoginimama commented on An Obsession with Homosexuality as Sin
    great post
  3. Amore
    11-22-2015 10:36 AM
    Yeah, and to you, what is most popular is most important. Truth and facts are irrelevant.
    The way you handled that was very immature and cowardly. If somebody presents an argument to the topic, mature people don't make another thread, but rather discuss then and there. You just created another thread because you felt STUPID because you have nothing to respond to - you still didn't respond - but just asked, "hey, what do you guys think?" which was basically like saying, "I have nothing to respond to these undeniable facts, but I don't want to feel like the only ignorant one, so please, support me in my ignorance."

    To accuse me of expressing and defending truth when it is unpopular, is actually a compliment, even though you probably meant it as an insult. I hope the best for you, but if you continue prioritizing popular opinion over truth, you will inevitably be frustrated and disrespected.
  4. Devoras
    11-10-2015 11:25 AM
    That is a good point. I think in order to adequately demonstrate that 'truth is incoherent', he would need to dispute the logical framework that truth is built upon; which is very difficult if not impossible, I'm not sure how he could do this.
  5. Devoras
    11-09-2015 11:57 PM
    Thank you, I'm a little confused on where he's trying to go with this. It's starting to look like just another attempt to say 'we can't know anything, therefore it's reasonable to say *blank* is real', where *blank* is whatever he wants to believe, and he doesn't want to have to justify it. Maybe I'm just being cynical and I could be wrong.
  6. PunkinA
    11-06-2015 05:51 AM
    What are your course titles?
  7. PunkinA
    11-05-2015 08:33 AM
    I got mine yesterday too. I have just started with the introduction, but the style of the translator looks challenging. I hope we have fun working through this together.

    Would you like to lay out an informal schedule we can both follow to tackle certain chapters? That may be a little confining, but it would give us both the ability to tackle the same material at the same time and bounce ideas off each other when we get stuck. Just a thought.
  8. slade19
    11-05-2015 08:05 AM
    I am not supposed to expect results, but yes, in a way that's what I was expecting: maths/logic people (wether field or inclination) tend to know the statement is not true because they know there are limits to our reasoning (it has nothing to do with axioms, it only has to do with what set of questions can be solved, or proven right/wrong, in a finite number of discrete steps of reasoning-what we define reason to be).
    I am expecting other patterns but since I haven't observed them yet this would count as a prejudice.
  9. slade19
    11-05-2015 07:39 AM
    slade19 commented on Survey on Logic and Reason.
    Thank you.
  10. Kisai
    11-04-2015 07:18 AM
    Writing an article sounds like a nice change of pace. Is there a list of topics, format, word count, etc.?
  11. Kisai
    11-03-2015 01:09 PM
    All right, the forum is going through a lull and I'm bored. If you are still extending your invitation about writing, I'm more interested.
  12. PunkinA
    11-03-2015 11:27 AM
    I think your intuition is right on what would be necessary to consider unknown truths. I'm interested in hearing your ideas, then I'll share my narrative. I think there may be parts of the postmodern approach that you haven't heard before. We'll see if you enjoy any of what I have to say, but first I want to hear your considerations on the topic.

    Oooh, I have spoilers.
  13. PunkinA
    11-02-2015 09:21 PM
    Ooh, using contingency to prove God exists sounds like a new idea I've never heard before.

    I'm going to get back to you on the possibility of unknown truths. That idea will take a bit of unpacking, and I'd like to do it by asking you questions instead of telling you what I think all the time. It's not that I don't have opinions, nor is it that I want to play Socratic method with you, but rather, you have great contributions and sometimes I feel like I dominate the conversation by just telling you what I think all the time.

    I'd like to talk to you about your ideas on "knowing", "truth", "possibility" and "exists" and see if we have similar or different intuitions. I'm a little bogged down at work for the next 48 hours, but I would like to start a thread with you in the near future, if you'd be willing.
  14. PunkinA
    11-01-2015 11:15 AM
    The point about incoherence denies the proposition "Some sentences are not contingent." The only way one can come to this conclusion is by showing that "All sentences are contingent." is false, which it isn't. But "All sentences are contingent." is neither false, nor absolute in that on occasion it simply has no meaning.

    This may seem trivial, but the pursuit of absolute truth is a trivial distraction. Once we define what it is, we find it is a useless concept that does not add any merit to any proof.
  15. PunkinA
    I think you summarized my ideas in clearer language than I did. Thanks.
  16. PunkinA
    10-31-2015 10:55 AM
    I need to study the way you communicate more. You ask lots of questions and respond to people like they are human beings. I've gotten into the habit of spouting my beliefs with no reflection on the attitude of my audience. Look for this shift.
  17. PunkinA
    10-30-2015 08:03 PM
    I ordered Philosophy as a Way of Life
  18. PunkinA
    10-30-2015 04:07 PM
    PunkinA commented on What is your thought on Stocism?
    I ordered the Pierre Hardot book but it is taking a long time to arrive. i'll let you know how it impacts me.
  19. scorpiomover
    10-27-2015 05:06 PM
    scorpiomover commented on How Would You Disprove Chalmers?
    Bit of a complex answer. Don't have the time now. Will have to get back to it a bit later.
  20. geniusofmozart
    10-27-2015 03:14 PM
    Yeah, Galef's YouTube channel has a good video on it that you might have seen, which tries to stress the positives of being seen as someone who changes their mind, namely that you'll be seen as a reasonable person which may lead others to be more open to changing their minds too.

    The problem of flip-flopping may still be a problem when you've invested so much time and effort into a position and you've had heated debates about it with people such that changing your mind may make them even more overconfident. I suppose there's also a concern about giving them the satisfaction of feeling right.

    There are probably a few ways people could deal with this: they could privately and surreptitiously change their mind about an issue after researching it in detail alone (I still find that I'm more likely to change my mind when alone rather than in public, unfortunately). The best way may just to not get into debates without having fully researched the issues first, or to signal that you're willing to change your mind from the start rather than going in all guns blazing. And, with people you've just met, I suppose signalling that you're willing to change your mind from the outset would be beneficial.

    But yeah, I'm considering attending a CFAR workshop, though I'm not sure how much I'll get out of it after having read the Less Wrong sequences and so on.

About Me

  • About clock40man
  • Personality
    MBTI Type
    Brain Dominance


Total Posts
Visitor Messages
General Information
  • Last Activity: Today 04:20 PM
  • Join Date: 01-27-2013
  • Referrals: 0


Showing Friends 1 to 20 of 33
  • Atamagahen
    • Atamagahen is online
  • Bevan
    • Bevan is offline
  • blueback
    • blueback is offline
  • Brynja
    • Brynja is offline
  • Daoist
    • Daoist is online
  • EcoGnomist
    • EcoGnomist is offline
  • Einarr
    • Einarr is offline
  • Exodus
    • Exodus is offline
  • FORE
    • FORE is offline
  • Ghoster
    • Ghoster is offline
  • Grepley
    • Grepley is online
  • Holiman
    • Holiman is offline
  • Hume
    • Hume is offline
  • JulesIsMe
    • JulesIsMe is offline
  • Kisai
    • Kisai is offline
  • Lawtey
    • Lawtey is offline
  • Leviathan
    • Leviathan is offline
  • Madden
    • Madden is offline
  • Monte314
    • Monte314 is online
  • NoQuarter
    • NoQuarter is offline

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.