Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE

WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 05, 2011, 03:22:30 AM
Who cares?

You're standards are useless except to yourself, and no one could give half a shit about what you think.

Back to your online philosophy 101 course loser.

WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 05, 2011, 03:47:44 AM
Who cares?

You're standards are useless except to yourself, and no one could give half a shit about what you think.

Back to your online philosophy 101 course loser.

Don't trust anyone who uses you're when they should use your.

WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 05, 2011, 04:04:58 AM
They should script filter all contractions. Band names like Pantyweara ARE YOU TALKIN TO ME? and ancient usual culprit type people like sandalwearers are filtered as it is.

WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 05, 2011, 04:54:43 AM
Who cares?

You're standards are useless except to yourself, and no one could give half a shit about what you think.

Back to your online philosophy 101 course loser.

Don't trust anyone who uses you're when they should use your.

Try not to worry about it too much.

WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 05, 2011, 06:39:59 AM
Try not to worry about it too much.

I have not seen one reply by you to a point another member brought up on these boards that was not negative. Well, maybe this could be your first, but it's useless too: while you excel at pointing out the errors of others, you fail at acknowledging your own and thus, only error and negativity remain.

I suggest you change your attitude, quickly.


WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 05, 2011, 07:00:51 AM
-

WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 05, 2011, 08:30:32 AM
I agree with the contrarian, but only in the fact that this list is useless to me because points 1-6 are better consolidated into one point that reads "compost." It's impractical to have to rank and sort through different kinds of turd and put them into their own little heirarchy.

The bulk of listenable material would fall under 7 and 8, with the pyramid stretching up to 10 where only one, two, perhaps three Metal albums would sit atop at the apex.

WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 05, 2011, 09:59:05 AM
Try not to worry about it too much.

I have not seen one reply by you to a point another member brought up on these boards that was not negative. Well, maybe this could be your first, but it's useless too: while you excel at pointing out the errors of others, you fail at acknowledging your own and thus, only error and negativity remain.

I suggest you change your attitude, quickly.

Why? I'm a nihilist, aren't I? Error and negativity are surely the base substance of existence to me. What else, should I be trying to construct a happy society where we can all develop equally?

FYI, I've made plenty of constructive criticism; and what errors of my own (aside from my punctuation mistake) were there in that post to acknowledge?

As for 'conservationist' - I do not support 'relativism' but the deconstructive technique (you seem to conflate the two), and as a nihilist of course believe that nothing can have any inherent value.

WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 05, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
Try not to worry about it too much.

I have not seen one reply by you to a point another member brought up on these boards that was not negative. Well, maybe this could be your first, but it's useless too: while you excel at pointing out the errors of others, you fail at acknowledging your own and thus, only error and negativity remain.

I suggest you change your attitude, quickly.

Why? I'm a nihilist, aren't I? Error and negativity are surely the base substance of existence to me. What else, should I be trying to construct a happy society where we can all develop equally?

FYI, I've made plenty of constructive criticism; and what errors of my own (aside from my punctuation mistake) were there in that post to acknowledge?

As for 'conservationist' - I do not support 'relativism' but the deconstructive technique (you seem to conflate the two), and as a nihilist of course believe that nothing can have any inherent value.

Your constructive criticism has amounted to little more than claiming that others are wrong for having standards. As I pointed out to you in another thread, standards and preferences are not completely the result of social conditioning. Anything that involves the transfer of information, including music, can either be congruent with reality or incongruent with it. Human beings have the ability to tell what values are most conducive to this on a basic level, but the truth is we haven't developed to the point to where we are able to, on a wide-scale, recognize this correspondence theory in other forms of information-transfer, such as music. This website has made a more convincing attempt at that than any other attempt I have come across heretofore, barring Arthur Schopenhauer.

If you are unable to explain why the standards that Conservationist has set are incongruent with reality, then you have no valid criticism and should probably leave the discussion to those who do.

WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 05, 2011, 10:28:17 PM
Try not to worry about it too much.

I have not seen one reply by you to a point another member brought up on these boards that was not negative. Well, maybe this could be your first, but it's useless too: while you excel at pointing out the errors of others, you fail at acknowledging your own and thus, only error and negativity remain.

I suggest you change your attitude, quickly.

Why? I'm a nihilist, aren't I? Error and negativity are surely the base substance of existence to me. What else, should I be trying to construct a happy society where we can all develop equally?

FYI, I've made plenty of constructive criticism; and what errors of my own (aside from my punctuation mistake) were there in that post to acknowledge?

As for 'conservationist' - I do not support 'relativism' but the deconstructive technique (you seem to conflate the two), and as a nihilist of course believe that nothing can have any inherent value.

Your constructive criticism has amounted to little more than claiming that others are wrong for having standards. As I pointed out to you in another thread, standards and preferences are not completely the result of social conditioning. Anything that involves the transfer of information, including music, can either be congruent with reality or incongruent with it. Human beings have the ability to tell what values are most conducive to this on a basic level, but the truth is we haven't developed to the point to where we are able to, on a wide-scale, recognize this correspondence theory in other forms of information-transfer, such as music. This website has made a more convincing attempt at that than any other attempt I have come across heretofore, barring Arthur Schopenhauer.

If you are unable to explain why the standards that Conservationist has set are incongruent with reality, then you have no valid criticism and should probably leave the discussion to those who do.

Well fundamentally, there is no such thing as reality. There is no rational argument that can tell us that anything actually exists outside of an individuals (my own) mind; so your argument for inherent standards and preferences is already on unstable ground. Like I explained in the other thread there are obviously biological impulses, but these are so easily overturned by our minds. (Yes this is true, for example I have never intended to or managed to reproduce all my life, despite many times indulging in sex.)

The problem is that conservationist's standards could very easily be incongruent with anybodies reality; anyone can deconstruct them to reveal this.

I have to go now, but I will add some more to this later about how those standards can be easily used to mean different things to different people.

WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 05, 2011, 11:43:34 PM
We could rank metal according to part of the periodic table. Isolate the categories by group for 3 through 12 on the Y axis and for period to 4 through 7 on the X axis. Limit to terrestrial environmental metals, up to and except for the otherworldly Hessium at number 108 as highest or perhaps transcendentalist rank. The properties of the element given may serve as a metaphorical correlary for a review of the band ranked at that atomic number.

WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 06, 2011, 12:38:34 AM
Try not to worry about it too much.

I have not seen one reply by you to a point another member brought up on these boards that was not negative. Well, maybe this could be your first, but it's useless too: while you excel at pointing out the errors of others, you fail at acknowledging your own and thus, only error and negativity remain.

I suggest you change your attitude, quickly.

Why? I'm a nihilist, aren't I? Error and negativity are surely the base substance of existence to me. What else, should I be trying to construct a happy society where we can all develop equally?

FYI, I've made plenty of constructive criticism; and what errors of my own (aside from my punctuation mistake) were there in that post to acknowledge?

As for 'conservationist' - I do not support 'relativism' but the deconstructive technique (you seem to conflate the two), and as a nihilist of course believe that nothing can have any inherent value.

Your constructive criticism has amounted to little more than claiming that others are wrong for having standards. As I pointed out to you in another thread, standards and preferences are not completely the result of social conditioning. Anything that involves the transfer of information, including music, can either be congruent with reality or incongruent with it. Human beings have the ability to tell what values are most conducive to this on a basic level, but the truth is we haven't developed to the point to where we are able to, on a wide-scale, recognize this correspondence theory in other forms of information-transfer, such as music. This website has made a more convincing attempt at that than any other attempt I have come across heretofore, barring Arthur Schopenhauer.

If you are unable to explain why the standards that Conservationist has set are incongruent with reality, then you have no valid criticism and should probably leave the discussion to those who do.

Well fundamentally, there is no such thing as reality. There is no rational argument that can tell us that anything actually exists outside of an individuals (my own) mind; so your argument for inherent standards and preferences is already on unstable ground. Like I explained in the other thread there are obviously biological impulses, but these are so easily overturned by our minds. (Yes this is true, for example I have never intended to or managed to reproduce all my life, despite many times indulging in sex.)

The problem is that conservationist's standards could very easily be incongruent with anybodies reality; anyone can deconstruct them to reveal this.

I have to go now, but I will add some more to this later about how those standards can be easily used to mean different things to different people.

Using an objective statement to assert a lack of objectivity is defeating one's own argument. Try again.

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 06, 2011, 01:57:55 AM
Title of thread is win.

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 06, 2011, 02:05:04 AM
Why? I'm a nihilist, aren't I?

There is a difference, especially in motivation, between exhibitionist (motivated by extrinsic reactions toward a pattern of behaviour) and a nihilist. The difference in particular is between the practice of nullifying value and the understanding that value is not inherent until the moment we elect to assert value where we judge appropriate.