Let's get people who see things from their own perspective.
-
If espeir has a superior intellect, then both my butt cheeks should have a nobel prize each.
-- Torn from tomorrow's headlines
-
espeir wrote:
Correction. they have been built on my criticism of your flawed arguments coupled with your personal insults aimed at me. I admit that I insult you personally from time to time after you've hurled about a dozen personal insults at me.
On the rare occasion when it doesn't start out there, your "criticism" moves into sophistry and insults so quickly I would expect the text to be measurably blue-shifted.
espeir wrote:
I grew tired of your childish approach.
...says the author of the "Brad Pitt Advocates Polygamy" thread. Yes, reading and thinking are such childish pursuits. Maybe someday I'll set aside the books, logical thought, and rational discourse, and grow up into a mature, adult, faux fundamentalist troll, just like you.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
then both my butt cheeks should have a nobel prize each.
Maybe they do! There must be web site you can check on right? :laugh:
I tried wikipedia, but I couldn't find anything. :(
-- Torn from tomorrow's headlines
-
Ægidius Ahenobarbus wrote:
That's a complete misunderstanding of what perspective means
First, you are contradicting yourself by your own words. First you say that "more than one perspective can be valid." Then you tell espeir that his "understanding" (or perspective) is wrong. Second, reality and truth are what they are regardless of one's perspective. There is only ONE true prespective and it is the one that sees reality and truth exactly as they are, all others are false and wrong. Hence, espeir is saying "prove to me that my perspective on some subject is wrong, and I'll adopt it for my own." Since he obviously believes (as most people do, even you) that his is the ONE true perspective, then it'll be necessary to convince him.
Ægidius Ahenobarbus wrote:
Perspective is the angle at which you are looking at something.
You're mixing up geometric perspective with philosophical perspective. The two are not the same idea.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
ahz wrote:
You're mixing up geometric perspective with philosophical perspective. The two are not the same idea.
Aren't they? That would seem to be the reason that particular word was chosen. It indicates a subjective view, a view that depends on the position of the subject. The fact that more than one perspective can be right doesn't imply that all perspectives are right; or, to stretch the parallel with physical objects, some perspectives distort the object being examined. However -- again, just like with physical objects -- the more perspectives you examine and understand, the better your chances are of approaching objectivity, or at least seeing a shared objective aspect.
-
I tried wikipedia, but I couldn't find anything. :(
-- Torn from tomorrow's headlines
-
ahz wrote:
You're mixing up geometric perspective with philosophical perspective. The two are not the same idea.
Aren't they? That would seem to be the reason that particular word was chosen. It indicates a subjective view, a view that depends on the position of the subject. The fact that more than one perspective can be right doesn't imply that all perspectives are right; or, to stretch the parallel with physical objects, some perspectives distort the object being examined. However -- again, just like with physical objects -- the more perspectives you examine and understand, the better your chances are of approaching objectivity, or at least seeing a shared objective aspect.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Aren't they?
Only when there isn't a right or wrong answer, just choices. Like what food you like or what clothes to wear. But when it's right/wrong, good/evil type of thing, then there's only one correct perspective.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Answer the damn question. When was the last time anything was injected into yor mind? When was the lsat time you ever felt compelled to challange your preconcieved opinions? I'm just curious.
I feel compelled to challenge my preconceived opinions every day. That's pretty much why I spend any time at all in the soapbox. Sometimes the challenge changes my preconceived notions -- you, Jeremy, Judah, ahz have all at some point shifted my thinking on issues -- and sometimes it doesn't. Most times, espeir's arguments have left my opinions on firmer intellectual ground. Some specific major changes: Prior to 9/11, I did not consider religious fundamentalism, Islamic or Christian, to be a major threat to this country. Prior to the 2000 presidential election, I considered elections at the national level to be relatively immune from tampering. Prior to the 2004 election, I thought we had learned from our first mistake. I used to naively think that, in government, rational discourse would usually triumph over money and sloganeering. I used to be more libertarian and less socialist, although that's been more of a gradual change as other preconceived notions fell. In science, I've had many assumptions proven wrong, although I'm not sure I would categorize them as preconceived opinions. Does that answer your question?
Wow, thanks for the compliment.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Aren't they?
Only when there isn't a right or wrong answer, just choices. Like what food you like or what clothes to wear. But when it's right/wrong, good/evil type of thing, then there's only one correct perspective.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
ahz wrote:
Only when there isn't a right or wrong answer, just choices. Like what food you like or what clothes to wear. But when it's right/wrong, good/evil type of thing, then there's only one correct perspective.
Yes but the problem is that where one group may see an absolute, another may see a matter of perspective. As in the examination of physical objects, you can usually look to the commonality for at least some objectivity. For instance, many people see socialism as helpful. Many see it as harmful. This is a matter of perspective, and, while they may disagree, each side can typically understand the other's view. The commonality seems to be some form of socialized medicine, and some degree of care for the unfortunate. Some, however, see socialism as evil, as an absolute. This people may even fight or kill to prevent the spread of this "evil" in any form. When you consider that there are people who feel the same way about Christianity, Islam, Catholicism, and pretty much any religion you care to name, you start to gain... well... perspective. If fewer people saw the world in absolutes, there would likely be just as much disagreement, but the disagreement would certainly be far less violent.
-
I don't actually understand what you mean. I know that my name takes two lines, why does that make the thread double spaced? Forgive my ignorance, or maybe my browser.
Because nearly every other message takes up three lines, it takes 1.5 times (roughly twice) the vertical screen space to display it (with messages collapsed, of course).
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Answer the damn question. When was the last time anything was injected into yor mind? When was the lsat time you ever felt compelled to challange your preconcieved opinions? I'm just curious.
I feel compelled to challenge my preconceived opinions every day. That's pretty much why I spend any time at all in the soapbox. Sometimes the challenge changes my preconceived notions -- you, Jeremy, Judah, ahz have all at some point shifted my thinking on issues -- and sometimes it doesn't. Most times, espeir's arguments have left my opinions on firmer intellectual ground. Some specific major changes: Prior to 9/11, I did not consider religious fundamentalism, Islamic or Christian, to be a major threat to this country. Prior to the 2000 presidential election, I considered elections at the national level to be relatively immune from tampering. Prior to the 2004 election, I thought we had learned from our first mistake. I used to naively think that, in government, rational discourse would usually triumph over money and sloganeering. I used to be more libertarian and less socialist, although that's been more of a gradual change as other preconceived notions fell. In science, I've had many assumptions proven wrong, although I'm not sure I would categorize them as preconceived opinions. Does that answer your question?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
feel compelled to challenge my preconceived opinions every day.
Then, just as I suspected, you are no different than anyone else I know. For my part, I once considered the left to be at least a sane, rational political movement. Now I don't. Comments like: "religious fundamentalism, Islamic or Christian, to be a major threat to this country" and ... "I considered elections at the national level to be relatively immune from tampering." have helped convince me otherwise. We are attacked by Islamic extermists and the left twists that into their own long standing jihad against Christians. An American president is portrayed as being a threat greater than the terrorist themselves. Such comments convince me the left is as dedicated to the destruction of American civilization as the terrorists themselves. We all evaluate information as it becomes available to us, and change our perceptions accordingly. -- modified at 23:07 Monday 11th September, 2006 -- modified at 23:07 Monday 11th September, 2006
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
feel compelled to challenge my preconceived opinions every day.
Then, just as I suspected, you are no different than anyone else I know. For my part, I once considered the left to be at least a sane, rational political movement. Now I don't. Comments like: "religious fundamentalism, Islamic or Christian, to be a major threat to this country" and ... "I considered elections at the national level to be relatively immune from tampering." have helped convince me otherwise. We are attacked by Islamic extermists and the left twists that into their own long standing jihad against Christians. An American president is portrayed as being a threat greater than the terrorist themselves. Such comments convince me the left is as dedicated to the destruction of American civilization as the terrorists themselves. We all evaluate information as it becomes available to us, and change our perceptions accordingly. -- modified at 23:07 Monday 11th September, 2006 -- modified at 23:07 Monday 11th September, 2006
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
feel compelled to challenge my preconceived opinions every day.
Then, just as I suspected, you are no different than anyone else I know. For my part, I once considered the left to be at least a sane, rational political movement. Now I don't. Comments like: "religious fundamentalism, Islamic or Christian, to be a major threat to this country" and ... "I considered elections at the national level to be relatively immune from tampering." have helped convince me otherwise. We are attacked by Islamic extermists and the left twists that into their own long standing jihad against Christians. An American president is portrayed as being a threat greater than the terrorist themselves. Such comments convince me the left is as dedicated to the destruction of American civilization as the terrorists themselves. We all evaluate information as it becomes available to us, and change our perceptions accordingly. -- modified at 23:07 Monday 11th September, 2006 -- modified at 23:07 Monday 11th September, 2006
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We are attacked by Islamic extermists and the left twists that into their own long standing jihad against Christians.
Any kind of fundamentalism is dangerous, Stan.
Stan Shannon wrote:
An American president is portrayed as being a threat greater than the terrorist themselves.
How did you arrive at that?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Such comments convince me the left is as dedicated to the destruction of American civilization as the terrorists themselves.
You are quite insane.
-
Ægidius Ahenobarbus wrote:
That's a complete misunderstanding of what perspective means
First, you are contradicting yourself by your own words. First you say that "more than one perspective can be valid." Then you tell espeir that his "understanding" (or perspective) is wrong. Second, reality and truth are what they are regardless of one's perspective. There is only ONE true prespective and it is the one that sees reality and truth exactly as they are, all others are false and wrong. Hence, espeir is saying "prove to me that my perspective on some subject is wrong, and I'll adopt it for my own." Since he obviously believes (as most people do, even you) that his is the ONE true perspective, then it'll be necessary to convince him.
Ægidius Ahenobarbus wrote:
Perspective is the angle at which you are looking at something.
You're mixing up geometric perspective with philosophical perspective. The two are not the same idea.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
ahz wrote:
Only when there isn't a right or wrong answer, just choices. Like what food you like or what clothes to wear. But when it's right/wrong, good/evil type of thing, then there's only one correct perspective.
Yes but the problem is that where one group may see an absolute, another may see a matter of perspective. As in the examination of physical objects, you can usually look to the commonality for at least some objectivity. For instance, many people see socialism as helpful. Many see it as harmful. This is a matter of perspective, and, while they may disagree, each side can typically understand the other's view. The commonality seems to be some form of socialized medicine, and some degree of care for the unfortunate. Some, however, see socialism as evil, as an absolute. This people may even fight or kill to prevent the spread of this "evil" in any form. When you consider that there are people who feel the same way about Christianity, Islam, Catholicism, and pretty much any religion you care to name, you start to gain... well... perspective. If fewer people saw the world in absolutes, there would likely be just as much disagreement, but the disagreement would certainly be far less violent.
Exactly. The whole concept of perspective entails one amongst several ways of looking at something. There can't be just one perspective. That makes the word meaningless. If there were less than two perspectives then there would, by definition be no perspectives.
Farmer Giles was fat and enjoyed a slow, comfortable life. Then one day a giant blundered on to his land. Farmer Giles managed to scare him away and instantly became a hero. So it was natural that when the dragon Chrysophylax visited the area, it was Farmer Giles who was to do battle with it.
-
Oooh words, those inconvenient things that give meaning to what we say. Who cares about them, they're not important.
-
Actually, "euphemism" is the wrong term. I think the one you're looking for is 'homophone'
Are you calling me homophonic?
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Maybe someday I'll set aside the books, logical thought, and rational discourse, and grow up into a mature, adult, faux fundamentalist troll, just like you.
I think you would need to start off more like "See Spot Run". :-D
led mike wrote:
I think you would need to start off more like "See Spot Run".
"See Spot pray," maybe. :-D
-
There's nothing worse than someone who sees things from their own perspective. Why can't they see things from mine. I'm intelligent and went to a proper school, what's the problem? Looking at things in different ways from different angles and weighing them up in a nbalanced way is the sort of liberal and downright dangerous bullshit that lead to the US national strategic interest being compromised. Next time one of thise liberal commie muslim mother f&&&Ckers looks at something frolm his own god damned perspective he's going to get a big fat missile comming straight at his face from the perspective of the good ole YOU ESS OF AY. God mother F&^%$king damn it felt good to get that off of my chest!
Farmer Giles was fat and enjoyed a slow, comfortable life. Then one day a giant blundered on to his land. Farmer Giles managed to scare him away and instantly became a hero. So it was natural that when the dragon Chrysophylax visited the area, it was Farmer Giles who was to do battle with it.
Erm...it looks like you've watched Chicken Run one too many times... ;P
Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
Exactly. The whole concept of perspective entails one amongst several ways of looking at something. There can't be just one perspective. That makes the word meaningless. If there were less than two perspectives then there would, by definition be no perspectives.
Farmer Giles was fat and enjoyed a slow, comfortable life. Then one day a giant blundered on to his land. Farmer Giles managed to scare him away and instantly became a hero. So it was natural that when the dragon Chrysophylax visited the area, it was Farmer Giles who was to do battle with it.
There are many perspectives, but often there is only one, correct or best perspective. If I view my perspective as the best or correct one, then unless you prove to me that yours is better or the correct one, then I would, of necessity, retain my prespective and thereby reject yours. Otherwise, I have no integrity and will allow myself to be "tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine," and will likely go mad. Of course, in order to ascertain whether or not your perspective has merit, of necessity, I must listen to you and understand your perspective. Understanding does not mean adopting or endorsing nor even tolerating. And, just because I may disagree with you does not mean I don't understand or appreciate your perspective. I just view your perspective as "wrong" or "flawed" or "less good".
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay