Let's get people who see things from their own perspective.
-
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.
Thank God for disproportional force.
The last time something was injected into my mind was 5-8 pints of lager followed by an even more indeterminate number of shorts and some rather strange smelling cigarettes. That certainly gave me a different perspective I can tell you?
-
Oh for god's sake. I'm aware of the joke concerning Mr Hunt. If AHZ isn't a euphamism for ARSE what is it? It's pronounced the same isn't it? Ok maybe the Z is a little softer.
Ægidius Ahenobarbus Julius Agricola de Hammo wrote:
If AHZ isn't a euphamism for ARSE what is it?
A euphemism for "OZ", pronounced "AHZ". As in "AAAAHHHHZZZZZ". Ahz is also a nickname for Ahmed Zahmed. Now who's being obtuse?
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
-
espeir wrote:
If you find criticism of your arguments so "insulting", perhaps the Soapbox isn't for you. That explains your defensive attitude, though.
Right. Every conversation we've had -- some of them bumping up against the limit on thread depth -- has been built entirely on mutual criticism, and I obviously have no problem with that. I don't even have a problem dealing with your insults -- sometimes witty, mostly only half so -- which I typically enjoy responding to in turn. However, it seems like you have recently developed some kind of mock-sensitivity, which you're trotting out every time you lack a decent response on point. You've ended nearly every recent thread by taking offense at some real or perceived insult, and refusing to respond further. Seems like you're the one who can dish it out, but, for whatever reason, can no longer take it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Right. Every conversation we've had -- some of them bumping up against the limit on thread depth -- has been built entirely on mutual criticism, and I obviously have no problem with that.
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. I did enjoy discussing such intellectually dangerous topics as "the tyranny of the majority" and what not, but I grew tired of your childish approach.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
What you actually wrote was "I obviously consider all perspectives that differ from my own to be wrong. If I thought a contrary perspective to be right, then I would adopt it as my own." That's a complete misunderstanding of what perspective means. It's inherent to the meaning of the word that more than one perspective can be valid. Perspective is the angle at which you are looking at something. I meant [i]Absolute tits[/i] actually. Sorry.
Ægidius Ahenobarbus wrote:
That's a complete misunderstanding of what perspective means. It's inherent to the meaning of the word that more than one perspective can be valid. Perspective is the angle at which you are looking at something.
Says the relativist. However, perspective does not always provide a correct view of something. Take Picasso, for example, who studied perspective by transferring 3-dimensional objects onto a 2-dimensional canvas, thus combining multiple perspectives into one and creating Cubism. Would you argue that Cubism correctly reflects reality, even though it's an amalgam of different perspectives? Not even Picasso would argue that. More relevantly, when taking into account political, religious and social perspectives, you have differing cultures which see intangible concepts in different and contradictory ways. Does the fact that Hindus and Buddhists have a different perspectives on all three of these intangible concepts concern me? No, because those perspectives are benign. Does Islam's perspective concern me? Certainly. They crossed the line and became violent aggressors against otherwise peaceful socities. I reject all three of those religions' perspectives, but I only advocate the destruction of the violent Islamic perspective.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
espeir wrote:
If you find criticism of your arguments so "insulting", perhaps the Soapbox isn't for you. That explains your defensive attitude, though.
Right. Every conversation we've had -- some of them bumping up against the limit on thread depth -- has been built entirely on mutual criticism, and I obviously have no problem with that. I don't even have a problem dealing with your insults -- sometimes witty, mostly only half so -- which I typically enjoy responding to in turn. However, it seems like you have recently developed some kind of mock-sensitivity, which you're trotting out every time you lack a decent response on point. You've ended nearly every recent thread by taking offense at some real or perceived insult, and refusing to respond further. Seems like you're the one who can dish it out, but, for whatever reason, can no longer take it.
-
Ægidius Ahenobarbus Julius Agricola de Hammo wrote:
If AHZ isn't a euphamism for ARSE what is it?
A euphemism for "OZ", pronounced "AHZ". As in "AAAAHHHHZZZZZ". Ahz is also a nickname for Ahmed Zahmed. Now who's being obtuse?
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
Now who's being obtuse? Not obtuse my dear, I'm taking the mickey out of you. Although now I'm having to spell it out it's falling a bit flat.
-
Ægidius Ahenobarbus Julius Agricola de Hammo wrote:
Not you too going on about people's names. Hoow's your pronounced? Is it ARSE?
No, not really. You obviously don't know that "Mike Hunt" is a euphemism for "My Kunt" (replace K with C).
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
Actually, "euphemism" is the wrong term. I think the one you're looking for is 'homophone'
-
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.
Thank God for disproportional force.
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?
-
espeir wrote:
but I grew tired of your childish approach.
:laugh::laugh::laugh: See Vincent you just don't understand that (D)espeir's is the "superior intellect" - The Wrath of (D)espeir
If espeir has a superior intellect, then both my butt cheeks should have a nobel prize each.
-- Torn from tomorrow's headlines
-
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?
You're still a Marxist. :rolleyes:
-- Torn from tomorrow's headlines
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Right. Every conversation we've had -- some of them bumping up against the limit on thread depth -- has been built entirely on mutual criticism, and I obviously have no problem with that.
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. I did enjoy discussing such intellectually dangerous topics as "the tyranny of the majority" and what not, but I grew tired of your childish approach.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
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.
-
What you actually wrote was "I obviously consider all perspectives that differ from my own to be wrong. If I thought a contrary perspective to be right, then I would adopt it as my own." That's a complete misunderstanding of what perspective means. It's inherent to the meaning of the word that more than one perspective can be valid. Perspective is the angle at which you are looking at something. I meant [i]Absolute tits[/i] actually. Sorry.
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
-
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.