100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: freshblood on April 04, 2011, 08:22:30 PM

Title: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: freshblood on April 04, 2011, 08:22:30 PM
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.
Title: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Humanicide on April 04, 2011, 08:47:44 PM
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.
Title: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: scourge on April 04, 2011, 09:04:58 PM
They should script filter all contractions. Band names like Pantyweara Pantera and ancient usual culprit type people like sandalwearers are filtered as it is.
Title: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: freshblood on April 04, 2011, 09:54:43 PM
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.
Title: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: nous on April 04, 2011, 11:39:59 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.
Title: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Chains on April 04, 2011, 11:50:39 PM
Who cares?

From my PM box:
Title: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Nimbostratus on April 05, 2011, 12:00:51 AM
-
Title: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Vesupria on April 05, 2011, 01:30:32 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.
Title: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: freshblood on April 05, 2011, 02:59:05 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.
Title: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Galvanized on April 05, 2011, 02:28:51 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.
Title: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: freshblood on April 05, 2011, 03:28:17 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.
Title: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: scourge on April 05, 2011, 04:43:34 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.
Title: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Galvanized on April 05, 2011, 05:38:34 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.

Using an objective statement to assert a lack of objectivity is defeating one's own argument. Try again.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Galvanized on April 05, 2011, 06:57:55 PM
Title of thread is win.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: scourge on April 05, 2011, 07:05:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: freshblood on April 05, 2011, 09:56:17 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.

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.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Chains on April 06, 2011, 02:35:55 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?
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: freshblood on April 06, 2011, 02:43:23 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?
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Chains on April 06, 2011, 02:48:36 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.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Vesupria on April 06, 2011, 03:02:24 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.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Chains on April 06, 2011, 03:09:46 AM
I doubt it. Different writing style.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Gefechtsgruppe10 on April 06, 2011, 05:21:16 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.
Too stupid.  This guy sucks dick.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Conservationist on April 06, 2011, 05:53:26 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.

How do we know you're not Prozak?
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Humanicide on April 06, 2011, 07:35:08 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.

How do we know you're not Prozak?

How do we know YOU'RE not Prozak?

Let the ANUS inquisition begin!
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Conservationist on April 06, 2011, 09:31:52 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.

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.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: JewishPhysics on April 06, 2011, 09:58:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: nous on April 06, 2011, 11:49:36 AM
"Fundamentally, there is no way in which we can objectively discover the 'truth' of reality. Apologies.

How can one discover that, then?
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: freshblood on April 06, 2011, 03:29:04 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)
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Transcix on April 06, 2011, 05:53:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Levy_Spearmen on April 06, 2011, 08:40:01 PM
freshblood is angry because he is fat.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Transcix on April 06, 2011, 08:41:11 PM
freshblood is angry because he is fat.

Unfortunately your comment is also a waste of time.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Levy_Spearmen on April 06, 2011, 09:01:06 PM
freshblood is angry because he is fat.

Unfortunately your comment is also a waste of time.

Gee, I just thought that freshblood needed a reminder.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: scourge on April 06, 2011, 09:25:44 PM
Everyone needs to just calm down. Eat some fruit.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: freshblood on April 06, 2011, 11:36:04 PM
I'm not fat (FYI, my BMI is 18.5).

I suppose the problem is that I signed up to a conservative/right wing forum (and I have a whole heapa other personal suspicions about the users... But I'll keep them to myself) and I did/doing my studies in post-modernist/structuralist literature theory (plus being in a 'colony' also have to consider a lot of postcolonial theory) so I'm fundamentally opposed to your theories. I mean, I like nihilism and I like romanticism; but I guess we just have different approaches.

Anyway, I'm off to consume some narcotics and check out some free noise.

Hail Satan etc!
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Vesupria on April 07, 2011, 12:49:36 AM
I'm not fat (FYI, my BMI is 18.5).

I suppose the problem is that I signed up troll my own conservative/right wing forum (and I have a boredom problem and a whole lot of things I cannot say to users as an admin... I can't keep them to myself forever) and I did my studies in post-modernist/structuralist literature theory (back when Apple Macs were first getting popular in the 80s) so I'm fundamentally opposed to your theories. I mean, I like Nietzsche and I like Beethoven; but I guess we just have different approaches so I signed up as a pretend person to wreak havoc and bring some much needed life into my dying forum.

Anyway, I'm off to consume to smoke a bong using a gutted out Apple Mac!

Hail Satan etc!
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: lord.aspie on April 07, 2011, 01:01:51 AM
I'm not fat (FYI, my BMI is 18.5).

I suppose the problem is that I signed up troll my own conservative/right wing forum (and I have a boredom problem and a whole lot of things I cannot say to users as an admin... I can't keep them to myself forever) and I did my studies in post-modernist/structuralist literature theory (back when Apple Macs were first getting popular in the 80s) so I'm fundamentally opposed to your theories. I mean, I like Nietzsche and I like Beethoven; but I guess we just have different approaches so I signed up as a pretend person to wreak havoc and bring some much needed life into my dying forum.

Anyway, I'm off to consume to smoke a bong using a gutted out Apple Mac!

Hail Satan etc!

I'm not fat (FYI, my BMI is 18.5).

I suppose the problem is that I signed up troll my own conservative/right wing forum (and I have a boredom problem and a whole lot of things I cannot say to users as an admin... I can't keep them to myself forever) and I did my studies in post-modernist/structuralist literature theory (back when Apple Macs were first getting popular in the 80s) so I'm fundamentally opposed to your theories. I mean, I like Nietzsche and I like Beethoven; but I guess we just have different approaches so I signed up as a pretend person to wreak havoc and bring some much needed life into my dying forum.

Anyway, I'm off to consume to smoke a bong using a gutted out Apple Mac!

Hail Satan etc!



You edi-quoted that to draw our attention away form the fact that YOU'RE prozak.!

And I don't know if you could call this forum "dying", sure things aren't as hot n' heavy as they were back in 08/09, but thats probably just because it had just tasted motherfucking ENGRAM.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: freshblood on April 07, 2011, 04:11:56 AM
Haha, no - I think Prozac is pretentious douche (that means shower) but all that I said in my post is true. I usually post on the FMP forum but its boring there now; I mostly support Solanas' SCUM Manifesto IRL.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: freshblood on April 07, 2011, 04:12:57 AM
Also you will see that I consistently use English spelling.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Cargést on April 07, 2011, 06:40:17 AM
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)

What a splendidly quaint idea!  Pray tell, how is this useful, in any practical sense?  I mean, if I am a brain in a vat, and there's nothing I can do about that, and I want to experience as much as I can from within the vat, how does my knowledge of the vat improve my appreciation of my existence as a brain in a vat experiencing things which, for all I know, are completely real?  I don't quite see the point of even considering something so pedantic.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: freshblood on April 07, 2011, 03:57:19 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)

What a splendidly quaint idea!  Pray tell, how is this useful, in any practical sense?  I mean, if I am a brain in a vat, and there's nothing I can do about that, and I want to experience as much as I can from within the vat, how does my knowledge of the vat improve my appreciation of my existence as a brain in a vat experiencing things which, for all I know, are completely real?  I don't quite see the point of even considering something so pedantic.

It isn't really, you are going completely off of the point - philosophy isn't meant to 'improve your appreciation' or be useful in a practical sense; it's about studying 'fundamental' problems of existence, knowledge, reason, language, etc. The point is understanding what we can understand. I think politics is what you are looking for.

The brain in a vat theory is mostly just a thinking tool to explain the impossibility of 'true' knowledge, it could be easily replaced by Descartes demon controlling your mind; or by dreaming; or any of those things - you could be on a hallucinogenic drug that doesn't wear off for example.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Cargést on April 07, 2011, 04:35:24 PM
The brain in a vat theory is mostly just a thinking tool to explain the impossibility of 'true' knowledge, it could be easily replaced by Descartes demon controlling your mind; or by dreaming; or any of those things - you could be on a hallucinogenic drug that doesn't wear off for example.

Yes, but how on Earth does that relate to my current existence in the slightest, apart from being an amusing aside?  My point is that we already know the limits of our understanding, and have, collectively, spent the past five to seven thousand years going as far as we can in terms of philosophical knowledge, be that moral, ontological, epistemological, or whatever other field you choose to examine.  We don't need pointless stories to elucidate something that is so bloody obvious and so fundamentally inhibiting in its circularity.

Quote
It isn't really, you are going completely off of the point - philosophy isn't meant to 'improve your appreciation' or be useful in a practical sense; it's about studying 'fundamental' problems of existence, knowledge, reason, language, etc. The point is understanding what we can understand. I think politics is what you are looking for.

I consider Politics to be the bastard son of Philosophy, but I consider "Philosophy" originating from the speculation of possibilities to be even more useless.  Philosophy must focus on what we can know there to be (thus, it is inherently "practical", in a broad sense), not on what we can't know there to be.  That path leads to Falsificationism, which is retarded.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: poopjokes on April 07, 2011, 09:51:18 PM
I like to poop. Sometimes I hold my poop for days so I can make a very big poop. And sometimes I like to spread my poops throughout the day and make lots of small poops. What is fascinating to me is that sometimes a small poop can feel like a big poop. Today for instance I made a normal poop but I was not satisfied with that so I immediately made two more small poops. After that I was happy. It is fascinating because those two small poops felt just as big as the normal poop I made.

I think small poops are the best. But big poops are good too if I can break them into small poops. Then it's even better.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Dinaric Leather on April 07, 2011, 10:47:33 PM
I like to poop. Sometimes I hold my poop for days so I can make a very big poop. And sometimes I like to spread my poops throughout the day and make lots of small poops. What is fascinating to me is that sometimes a small poop can feel like a big poop. Today for instance I made a normal poop but I was not satisfied with that so I immediately made two more small poops. After that I was happy. It is fascinating because those two small poops felt just as big as the normal poop I made.

I think small poops are the best. But big poops are good too if I can break them into small poops. Then it's even better.

If you "wake and bake", then take a handful of percocets before your morning shit, it will feel like a goddess is sucking your asshole.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Transcix on April 07, 2011, 11:06:22 PM
There's not much self-awareness in this thread! The pipi-kaka jokes just pushed it over the top for me... I'm all for troll bashing, but there's a right way to do it, and a wrong way to do it... Freshblood has managed to put this forum down a rung in my book...
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: freshblood on April 07, 2011, 11:54:24 PM
The brain in a vat theory is mostly just a thinking tool to explain the impossibility of 'true' knowledge, it could be easily replaced by Descartes demon controlling your mind; or by dreaming; or any of those things - you could be on a hallucinogenic drug that doesn't wear off for example.

Yes, but how on Earth does that relate to my current existence in the slightest, apart from being an amusing aside? 

I won't bother with the rest of your boring argument - it relates to your existence by telling you that potentially nothing is true (and everything is permitted, heh heh), it's up to you to decide what that means for yourself!
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Chains on April 08, 2011, 12:32:58 AM
I like to poop. Sometimes I hold my poop for days so I can make a very big poop. And sometimes I like to spread my poops throughout the day and make lots of small poops. What is fascinating to me is that sometimes a small poop can feel like a big poop. Today for instance I made a normal poop but I was not satisfied with that so I immediately made two more small poops. After that I was happy. It is fascinating because those two small poops felt just as big as the normal poop I made.

I think small poops are the best. But big poops are good too if I can break them into small poops. Then it's even better.


Go away, Prozak.

The brain in a vat theory is mostly just a thinking tool to explain the impossibility of 'true' knowledge, it could be easily replaced by Descartes demon controlling your mind; or by dreaming; or any of those things - you could be on a hallucinogenic drug that doesn't wear off for example.

Yes, but how on Earth does that relate to my current existence in the slightest, apart from being an amusing aside?

I won't bother with the rest of your boring argument - it relates to your existence by telling you that potentially nothing is true (and everything is permitted, heh heh), it's up to you to decide what that means for yourself!

I agree with Cargest though, that this is rather trite. We can't disprove the existence of pink flying invisible unicorns that don't interact with the rest of the universe either. This is not some great revelation, as a re-definition of the notion of 'reality' would render it's impact even on thoughts and ideas null, not just it's practical implications. But I'm starting to repeat myself here.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: JewishPhysics on April 08, 2011, 07:25:38 AM
There's not much self-awareness in this thread! The pipi-kaka jokes just pushed it over the top for me... I'm all for troll bashing, but there's a right way to do it, and a wrong way to do it... Freshblood has managed to put this forum down a rung in my book...
What the hell kind of book do you have that's got rungs in it?
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: we hope you die on April 08, 2011, 11:21:09 AM
The brain in a vat theory is mostly just a thinking tool to explain the impossibility of 'true' knowledge, it could be easily replaced by Descartes demon controlling your mind; or by dreaming; or any of those things - you could be on a hallucinogenic drug that doesn't wear off for example.

Yes, but how on Earth does that relate to my current existence in the slightest, apart from being an amusing aside? 

I won't bother with the rest of your boring argument - it relates to your existence by telling you that potentially nothing is true (and everything is permitted, heh heh), it's up to you to decide what that means for yourself!

I'd really like you to bother with the rest of Cargest's boring argument, because right now I don't think you understand philosophy, or any of the things that you claim to some level of specialist knowledge in.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Clisthert on April 08, 2011, 11:58:09 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.

So you are whining about people who whine? 

Nice blatant hypocrisy.

And what degree do you hold in philosophy and from what school?
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Dinaric Leather on April 08, 2011, 03:57:16 PM
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.

So you are whining about people who whine? 

Nice blatant hypocrisy.

And what degree do you hold in philosophy and from what school?
As far as I'm concerned, having a college degree in philosophy is more like a decertification. The vast majority of universities, if not all, just "interpret" (twist) all philosophy to whatever the most popular philosophy at the time.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Cargést on April 08, 2011, 05:37:04 PM
The "philosophy" I did (for one semester) at University was pansy liberal bullshit.  I severely decimated the tutorials I attended (using amazing tools such as REASON and FACTS), went to none of the lectures, and then got a 1st in the course by negating the concept of "objective morality".  What a waste of time - I learnt more from hanging out in random bars with thiry year old weirdos.  Studying philosophy =/= doing philosophy.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: freshblood on April 08, 2011, 08:01:21 PM
Jesus Christ, you guys are using philosophy to justify your own foregone conclusions, you truly are the scum of the earth and I for one am immensely thankful that this in itself ensures that you will never have a chance at breeding and will soon die of heart complications relating from too much junk food.

Anyway, I'm done here,  gonna go out for some lunch and then to the beach; don't imagine I'll be back for a while. Please suicide yourselves if you actually care about something other than your senses.

P.S, read some feminist theory - reason isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Galvanized on April 08, 2011, 08:14:46 PM
Jesus Christ, you guys are using philosophy to justify your own foregone conclusions, you truly are the scum of the earth and I for one am immensely thankful that this in itself ensures that you will never have a chance at breeding and will soon die of heart complications relating from too much junk food.

Anyway, I'm done here,  gonna go out for some lunch and then to the beach; don't imagine I'll be back for a while. Please suicide yourselves if you actually care about something other than your senses.

P.S, read some feminist theory - reason isn't all it's cracked up to be.

The fact that you resorted to a generalization reveals that you take the internet far too seriously. Going outside is probably a good idea.
Title: Re: WHIIIIIIIIIIIINE
Post by: Cargést on April 09, 2011, 04:57:31 AM
I think freshblood is quite young.  We should give him the benefit of the doubt.  True, most of us stopped being retarded at an even younger age, but there's still time for him to get his head out of his arse and smell the shit outside.