RE: another rant (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity



Message


SohCahToa -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 4:14:04 PM)

Intuition I don't think has even been tested or proven.

How could you test such a thing, has anyone ever admitted to having their intuition let them down?

However the facts are people make just a many poor character choices as good.




Jeffff -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 4:16:38 PM)

All in all it's a shitty rant.

Fail




SohCahToa -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 4:17:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
That is a straw man argument.
The Divine is always and everywhere aware of our wants and desires.

I think in your eagerness to be mystical you forgot to structure your sentence in a way that makes sense.




SohCahToa -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 4:23:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: frazzle
If you say so!!!!
Negate intuition etc at the same time[8|]
Just because you remembered the short cut to trig as your user name, dont make you a genius.

I'm not a genius you however seem to have supernatural abilities to see spiritual power.

I don't need to be a genius to know that's bunkum.




frazzle -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 4:27:28 PM)

Your lack of genius isnt in question, lack of common sense probably is.

And of course as a female i have supernatural abilities, did you miss that memo. [:D]

editted to slap someone for not updating the manual.




SohCahToa -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 4:29:20 PM)

You equate having common sense to believing someone on the internet has the ability to see spiritual power?

Strange world you live in.




Rule -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 4:30:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SohCahToa
I think in your eagerness to be mystical you forgot to structure your sentence in a way that makes sense.

I have no desire to be mystical.

I am not a native speaker, but according to me my sentence does make sense. Pray tell me how it does not make sense?




SohCahToa -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 4:40:05 PM)

You said something along the lines of: my argument was a straw man because the divine is all around us and knows what we want and desire.

This didn't make sense to me so you are going to have to elaborate slightly for me to understand what you were on about. I can't tell you what I thought you were on about.




Apocalypso -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 4:43:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SohCahToa

Intuition I don't think has even been tested or proven.

Category mistake. It's like arguing that it is impossible to prove or test what makes a good piece of art.

To put it another way, the scientific method is there to answer certain types of questions and it is very good at doing so. It's not there to answer questions of faith, philosophy etc. and most scientists wouldn't suggest otherwise.




SohCahToa -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 4:51:45 PM)

Some people say they know what makes a good piece of art based on proven principles such as symmetry, the inclusion of human like features and a narrative.

No it will never answer faith, there is no answer to that but I think we could easily test whether or not someone can detect a mass murderer by means of glancing at their spiritual wave patterns.




Apocalypso -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 4:57:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SohCahToa

Some people say they know what makes a good piece of art based on proven principles such as symmetry, the inclusion of human like features and a narrative.


Yes, but those people are wrong. They're the kind of people that think that "high" and "low" are genuinely meaningful artistic distinctions as opposed to being cultural signifiers. Sorry, I'm not even pretending to be objective on this question. [;)]

quote:

No it will never answer faith, there is no answer to that but I think we could easily test whether or not someone can detect as mass murderer by means of glancing at their spiritual wave patterns.

Sure. And when people make those kinds of claims (like the creationist crowd), that's when we can legitimately disprove said claims through the scientific method. If however someone is claiming that they can tell whether they should be wary of someone through intuition , I think we're outside the area where we can prove something either way. (And there's at least some evidence that people such as police detectives are generally better at telling when people are dishonest. Although, obviously, that's as likely to be unconsciously picking up things like subtle body language as anything else).




Rule -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 5:00:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SohCahToa
You said something along the lines of: my argument was a straw man because the divine is all around us and knows what we want and desire.

I never used the word 'because'. I made two statements without causal relation. They are not even in the same paragraphs.




willingtosuck -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 5:09:06 PM)

When I was going to the Abilene Public Library to get on a computer or the workforce center I was instructed to for get capatial letters and other punctuation when on a computer.My first attempt at a blog would not allow paragraphs
Now I see all of you perfect people so mistake free taking me apart so I guess since Jesus hates me and you wonderful folks do to I will just put the period on my life. Then you people on collar chat can continue in your perfect grammar and spelling without my mistakes. My old arthritic fingers that have been broken will not need your sympathy either cause you will have enlightened me to see it is time for the period and paragraph on my life.




Rule -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 5:11:49 PM)

That is okay. May the God of the Dead reward you according to your merits. Bye.




SohCahToa -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 5:11:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso
Yes, but those people are wrong. They're the kind of people that think that "high" and "low" are genuinely meaningful artistic distinctions as opposed to being cultural signifiers. Sorry, I'm not even pretending to be objective on this question. [;)]

Sure. And when people make those kinds of claims (like the creationist crowd), that's when we can legitimately disprove said claims through the scientific method. If however someone is claiming that they can tell whether they should be wary of someone through intuition , I think we're outside the area where we can prove something either way. (And there's at least some evidence that people such as police detectives are generally better at telling when people are dishonest. Although, obviously, that's as likely to be unconsciously picking up things like subtle body language as anything else).


Hard to separate being a good judge of character from having intuition, yes.

I think there is a scientific tool for determining what is art i.e. statistics of human opinion (perhaps separated out into culture groupings). Although everyone is obviously going to have their own opinion which may differ from the majority. In construction we say what concrete strength is and design based on that even though it has variability. To do this we use the normal distribution curve and it is taken as scientific fact that this concrete is this strength. We could do this for other areas of uncertain human preference such as art. I think we often don't because we don't want to take away the mysticism of it.

It's hard to say something is a hard proven fact these days, just take the climate debate.




Rule -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 5:15:50 PM)

As long as I do not hit the hide button, I will assume that you exist.




SohCahToa -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 5:20:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: SohCahToa
You said something along the lines of: my argument was a straw man because the divine is all around us and knows what we want and desire.

I never used the word 'because'. I made two statements without causal relation. They are not even in the same paragraphs.

The two statements were related by virtue of the fact both of them were directed at one person, me.

The first statement telling me I've created a straw man argument
The second statement telling me what you think about something

How can they not be related, do you often change emphasis without qualifying what you've previously stated?
This doesn't clear up your meaning for me.




Wolf2Bear -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 5:31:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SohCahToa

Well yeah spiritual energy is pure fantasy, if it existed people could see the murderers walking amongst them.


Pure and utter bullshit. Go check the records and all the data collected at the Rhine Institute that they amassed since 1927.




Rule -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 5:34:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SohCahToa
The two statements were related by virtue of the fact both of them were directed at one person, me.

The first statement telling me I've created a straw man argument
The second statement telling me what you think about something

My first statement was directed at the last part of your sentence.
My second statement was directed at the first part of your sentence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SohCahToa
How can they not be related, do you often change emphasis without qualifying what you've previously stated?

I regret to have no idea what this your sentence means. Emphasis? Qualifying? Previously? I know what the words mean, but I do not know what you are talking about.




Rule -> RE: another rant (4/25/2010 5:37:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolf2Bear
quote:

ORIGINAL: SohCahToa
Well yeah spiritual energy is pure fantasy, if it existed people could see the murderers walking amongst them.

Pure and utter bullshit. Go check the records and all the data collected at the Rhine Institute that they amassed since 1927.

I agree that what S said was nonsense. I wish, though, that you had not mentioned the Rhine Institute.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125