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

Login with username, password and session length

WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 06, 2011, 04:56:17 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.

Or try attempting to connect with what I'm saying instead of avoiding it.

"Fundamentally, there is no way in which we can objectively discover the 'truth' of reality. Apologies.

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 06, 2011, 09:35:55 AM
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.

If you really wish to be pendantic enough to not simply take the existence of reality as an axiom, you could always define it as "those experiences that seem to be in common with all the specters in my head that I call 'other people', and those experience that, given an exactly identical set of conditions, are always the result of said conditions.", or something roughly along those lines. 

Quote from: freshblood
Why? I'm a nihilist, aren't I? Error and negativity are surely the base substance of existence to me
As are happiness and whatever you'd call the opposite of error (correctness? lack of error?). Why do you, as a nihilist, seem to have a bias towards one side of the spectrum?

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 06, 2011, 09:43:23 AM
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.

If you really wish to be pendantic enough to not simply take the existence of reality as an axiom, you could always define it as "those experiences that seem to be in common with all the specters in my head that I call 'other people', and those experience that, given an exactly identical set of conditions, are always the result of said conditions.", or something roughly along those lines. 

Quote from: freshblood
Why? I'm a nihilist, aren't I? Error and negativity are surely the base substance of existence to me
As are happiness and whatever you'd call the opposite of error (correctness? lack of error?). Why do you, as a nihilist, seem to have a bias towards one side of the spectrum?

Yeah, but those specters in my head are in my head, so who can trust anything they say?

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 06, 2011, 09:48:36 AM
Why would you bring up trust? Trust whether they'd speak the truth or lie? What exactly would a lie be if there's no such as reality?
You simply define everything all of them tell you they experience as reality.

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 06, 2011, 10:02:24 AM
Who else wants to have a wager that Fleshblood is Prozak trolling his own forum again because it is starting to get quiet? He's done it before.

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 06, 2011, 10:09:46 AM
I doubt it. Different writing style.

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 06, 2011, 12:21:16 PM
Who else wants to have a wager that Fleshblood is Prozak trolling his own forum again because it is starting to get quiet? He's done it before.
Too stupid.  This guy sucks dick.
"Just like your ancestors
you will fight today."

-Rob Darken

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 06, 2011, 12:53:26 PM
Who else wants to have a wager that Fleshblood is Prozak trolling his own forum again because it is starting to get quiet? He's done it before.

How do we know you're not Prozak?

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 06, 2011, 02:35:08 PM
Who else wants to have a wager that Fleshblood is Prozak trolling his own forum again because it is starting to get quiet? He's done it before.

How do we know you're not Prozak?

How do we know YOU'RE not Prozak?

Let the ANUS inquisition begin!
No.

Having reviewed the thread, baby Jesus is most definitely weeping at this point.

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 06, 2011, 04:31:52 PM
Who else wants to have a wager that Fleshblood is Prozak trolling his own forum again because it is starting to get quiet? He's done it before.

How do we know you're not Prozak?

How do we know YOU'RE not Prozak?

How do we know you're not Prozak? Or a prozak simulacrum?

Let the ANUS inquisition begin!

I'll heat up the coals and lube the iron maiden.

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 06, 2011, 04:58:48 PM
How do we know you're not Prozak? Or a prozak simulacrum?
I have a hard enough time remembering people's names in real life. I can't keep up with this shit of remembering which handle belongs to which pseudonym of which person. From now on everyone is Prozak unless told otherwise.

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 06, 2011, 06:49:36 PM
"Fundamentally, there is no way in which we can objectively discover the 'truth' of reality. Apologies.

How can one discover that, then?
Whatever you honor above all things, that which you so honor will have dominion over you.

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 06, 2011, 10:29:04 PM
ICBA right now:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/brain-vat/

I'm probably wrong but have fun (I thought you usually would study this theory in first year philosophy? (That's where I got it from)

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 07, 2011, 12:53:08 AM
As a protest thread, this thread isn't very potent. Freshblood, from what I can see you're letting anger control too much what you say.
www.TheMetalDiscourser.com
The universe is naked, attack its corpus, take a real stab at your life and let the blood flow RIP the sound of the very fabric tearing.

Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
April 07, 2011, 03:40:01 AM
freshblood is angry because he is fat.
Nobody has freedom. In fact, everybody has freedom.