First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
which of these philosophical sayings do you agree with the most
1704 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / California
Offline
Posted 10/9/08

dmitsuki wrote:
Wait, how is human society any different again?

"Hey I think I should have rights to!"
*slaps* "BITCH, shut up and get into the kitchen."

"Hey I want to be free!"
*wips* "Shut up n***er and get back to picking!"

"Hey were a country too!"
*attacks* "Shut up and stay in your place!"

If a person wants something, they are bitch slapped by the person in power, in other words, the "alpha male".
The only way I wouldn't get bitch slapped was if I was stronger, or more intelligent then whomever I'm challenging, including the government, which is like saying I just challenged the alpha male, and I proved myself superior. All society's are based off power, whoever has the most, controls how shit works.


I'm literally somewhat at a loss here. I'm hard pressed to believe you're being serious -- I don't even think you know what you're trying to argue against; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. So, let me take you at face value and explain why your argument is incredibly ill-conceived.

Do you understand the purpose of law? It's implications? Wife-beaters are jailed for domestic violence, slavery has since been abolished in the United States, and there'd be a chain of negative reactions from the rest of the world if a country were ever attacked as a show of dominance.

Quite simply, humans operate on a different system of values than animals. We have the capacity to feel abstract emotions and utilize a moral compass. This alone makes us incredibly different than any animal community.

So back to your fabricated examples. What's your explanation for the cops showing up? For human rights activists fighting the system to have slavery abolished? Countries condemning the unprovoked attack of another? Are they simply trying to assert dominance? It could be argued for, but more likely they're operating off of an abstract ideal known as human rights, something animals don't have. Unless you're going to try and argue that animals have laws and morality too, you haven't even touched my initial point.

Now we get to yours; society is run by those with power. Sure, this is a fact. But how do you go from there to, "thus we're just like animals"?

Let me explain. A lion literally gets physically attacked and made to stand down if it chooses to fight for better treatment (e.g. more food, a mate, etc). If they continue to resist, a fight to the death ensues. There are no alliances being made for the greater good; they don't pay another lion in meat to back them up; there is no banding together to rebel against a tyrant lion to ensure equality in the pride; etc. Sure, humans can choose to engage in a fight to the death; but it's just that, a choice. In human society, alternate methods of dealing with basic conflict are freely available (e.g. calling authorities, reasoning it out, etc) -- it doesn't really matter if they're utilized or not, but the simple fact that they can be, pretty much negates what you're trying to argue. These alternate methods are available as a matter of fact because of human morality, which is a direct product of human intelligence.

So to sum up, my basic point was that this is why human life is more complicated than that of an animal. Animals are content with a food and a warm place to sleep. Humans need more to achieve happiness. Because we are intelligent, we naturally are able to comprehend and worry about more things (like fairness, honor, etc). This also allows us to do things no animal could ever achieve.

You then came along and said, "But hey, there are people with more power than me that could dictate what I can or cannot have. Or I could have more power than someone and dictate what they can or cannot have. That makes us no different than any other animal." The interplay of "power" is something that holds constant across nature as a whole, whether animal or plant. Using the bitch slap analogy for a plant, if two trees were growing in relatively close proximity and had to compete for water, one would "bitch slap" the other and leech all or most of the water from the soil, resulting in the other tree's death. One was more "powerful". So are we the same as a plant, too?

Your argument is retarded.
Posted 10/9/08

DKangN3 wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:
Wait, how is human society any different again?

"Hey I think I should have rights to!"
*slaps* "BITCH, shut up and get into the kitchen."

"Hey I want to be free!"
*wips* "Shut up n***er and get back to picking!"

"Hey were a country too!"
*attacks* "Shut up and stay in your place!"

If a person wants something, they are bitch slapped by the person in power, in other words, the "alpha male".
The only way I wouldn't get bitch slapped was if I was stronger, or more intelligent then whomever I'm challenging, including the government, which is like saying I just challenged the alpha male, and I proved myself superior. All society's are based off power, whoever has the most, controls how shit works.


I'm literally somewhat at a loss here. I'm hard pressed to believe you're being serious -- I don't even think you know what you're trying to argue against; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. So, let me take you at face value and explain why your argument is incredibly ill-conceived.

Do you understand the purpose of law? It's implications? Wife-beaters are jailed for domestic violence, slavery has since been abolished in the United States, and there'd be a chain of negative reactions from the rest of the world if a country were ever attacked as a show of dominance.

Quite simply, humans operate on a different system of values than animals. We have the capacity to feel abstract emotions and utilize a moral compass. This alone makes us incredibly different than any animal community.

So back to your fabricated examples. What's your explanation for the cops showing up? For human rights activists fighting the system to have slavery abolished? Countries condemning the unprovoked attack of another? Are they simply trying to assert dominance? It could be argued for, but more likely they're operating off of an abstract ideal known as human rights, something animals don't have. Unless you're going to try and argue that animals have laws and morality too, you haven't even touched my initial point.

Now we get to yours; society is run by those with power. Sure, this is a fact. But how do you go from there to, "thus we're just like animals"?

Let me explain. A lion literally gets physically attacked and made to stand down if it chooses to fight for better treatment (e.g. more food, a mate, etc). If they continue to resist, a fight to the death ensues. There are no alliances being made for the greater good; they don't pay another lion in meat to back them up; there is no banding together to rebel against a tyrant lion to ensure equality in the pride; etc. Sure, humans can choose to engage in a fight to the death; but it's just that, a choice. In human society, alternate methods of dealing with basic conflict are freely available (e.g. calling authorities, reasoning it out, etc) -- it doesn't really matter if they're utilized or not, but the simple fact that they can be, pretty much negates what you're trying to argue. These alternate methods are available as a matter of fact because of human morality, which is a direct product of human intelligence.

So to sum up, my basic point was that this is why human life is more complicated than that of an animal. Animals are content with a food and a warm place to sleep. Humans need more to achieve happiness. Because we are intelligent, we naturally are able to comprehend and worry about more things (like fairness, honor, etc). This also allows us to do things no animal could ever achieve.

You then came along and said, "But hey, there are people with more power than me that could dictate what I can or cannot have. Or I could have more power than someone and dictate what they can or cannot have. That makes us no different than any other animal." The interplay of "power" is something that holds constant across nature as a whole, whether animal or plant. Using the bitch slap analogy for a plant, if two trees were growing in relatively close proximity and had to compete for water, one would "bitch slap" the other and leech all or most of the water from the soil, resulting in the other tree's death. One was more "powerful". So are we the same as a plant, too?

Your argument is retarded.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
Also, thanks for proving my point
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 10/9/08

mauz15 wrote:

Pointless, these vague sayings like

you must let the person you love be free if the love is true they will return.

Can't be applied to every instance.

Plus, there is almost no substance to them.


They make sense in a subjective context. Of course, they're not concrete objective facts but rather general expressions aimed at showing one feature of existence.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/9/08

leviathan343 wrote:


mauz15 wrote:

Pointless, these vague sayings like

you must let the person you love be free if the love is true they will return.

Can't be applied to every instance.

Plus, there is almost no substance to them.


They make sense in a subjective context. Of course, they're not concrete objective facts but rather general expressions aimed at showing one feature of existence.


They are way too diluted to make them worth a discussion let alone an extended one.
1704 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / California
Offline
Posted 10/9/08

dmitsuki wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
Also, thanks for proving my point :)


My entire post was an explanation of why your metaphor was weak and irrelevant. I think you've pretty much shown me that there's no point in me taking you seriously.
Posted 10/9/08

DKangN3 wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
Also, thanks for proving my point :)


My entire post was an explanation of why your metaphor was weak and irrelevant. I think you've pretty much shown me that there's no point in me taking you seriously.


In trying to show that you showed that I was right. Good job!
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 10/10/08 , edited 10/10/08

mauz15 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


mauz15 wrote:

Pointless, these vague sayings like

you must let the person you love be free if the love is true they will return.

Can't be applied to every instance.

Plus, there is almost no substance to them.


They make sense in a subjective context. Of course, they're not concrete objective facts but rather general expressions aimed at showing one feature of existence.


They are way too diluted to make them worth a discussion let alone an extended one.


That's why they're "universal". They're just general phrases, not philosophies or philosophical systems. That's why the question is "Which one's your favorite" and not "what is the legitimacy of these following phrases in some sort of context".

And judging by the other threads, this doesn't look so out of place.
2693 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / guess where
Offline
Posted 10/10/08 , edited 10/10/08

dmitsuki wrote:


DKangN3 wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
Also, thanks for proving my point :)


My entire post was an explanation of why your metaphor was weak and irrelevant. I think you've pretty much shown me that there's no point in me taking you seriously.


In trying to show that you showed that I was right. Good job!


to dmitsuki: i cant help but feel infuriated by your posts...sorry for sticking my nose into this but dude you're arguments are so fallacious >.< (u're making a category mistake, a faulty analogy)....and despite the obvious weakness in your argument, u're still insisting it! "In trying to show that you showed that I was right. Good job!"??? sarcasm i cant bear....*facepalm*....so infuriating...grrr...

46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/10/08 , edited 10/10/08

leviathan343 wrote:


mauz15 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


mauz15 wrote:

Pointless, these vague sayings like

you must let the person you love be free if the love is true they will return.

Can't be applied to every instance.

Plus, there is almost no substance to them.


They make sense in a subjective context. Of course, they're not concrete objective facts but rather general expressions aimed at showing one feature of existence.


They are way too diluted to make them worth a discussion let alone an extended one.


That's why they're "universal". They're just general phrases, not philosophies or philosophical systems. That's why the question is "Which one's your favorite" and not "what is the legitimacy of these following phrases in some sort of context".

And judging by the other threads, this doesn't look so out of place.


Read out loud what you just wrote me.
They are not universal, that's the thing. People assume these sayings are universals but they are not. They are simply statements that only show a part of reality and inconrreclty so. They are all full of hasty induction.

just because the other threads suck does not justify the lack of substance on this one.

I dont see anywhere in the title or opening post that we had to choose our favorite. Agreeing with and to pick a favorite are not necessarily the same thing. I can agree with something and not necesarrily favorite it. And 'Agree' implies to find compatible or to correspond, etc so yes, legitimacy is being considered.

The question is: which of these "philosophical"

philosiphical implies it relates to a philosophical field or system, right there the thread just falls apart.

then it says which of these phrases do you agree with the most?

well what's the point of agreeing with something that applies to a tiny aspect of your experiences and then 'discuss it? what is there to discuss?

this vague sentence is sort of like what happened to me the other day, so therefore "i agree with it" in comparison to the others, now let's talk about this extendely? No thanks.

Just look at what generalities have lead on the argument above our posts.

If anything the only one that could be expanded is number 5.

Life is simple? what makes it so? and what is meant by simple? secondly, why is it made complicated by us and what could be the causes of this?

As for the rest, bleh. I see no point.



Posted 10/10/08 , edited 10/10/08

brogits wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:


DKangN3 wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
Also, thanks for proving my point :)


My entire post was an explanation of why your metaphor was weak and irrelevant. I think you've pretty much shown me that there's no point in me taking you seriously.


In trying to show that you showed that I was right. Good job!


to dmitsuki: i cant help but feel infuriated by your posts...sorry for sticking my nose into this but dude you're arguments are so fallacious >.< (u're making a category mistake, a faulty analogy)....and despite the obvious weakness in your argument, u're still insisting it! "In trying to show that you showed that I was right. Good job!"??? sarcasm i cant bear....*facepalm*....so infuriating...grrr...



I said, just like animals, we live in a system driven by power. He then responded to me saying I was wrong, the then described how humans constantly put in place infrastructures based on power to give power to the weak. Nothing has changed, the society is still driven by power. He then says that all the that I have talked about have been changed. Well, yes, they have. Slavery was Abolished by a Civil War, in other words, a bitch slap by the alpha male (North won the war, things went there way). Women were treated equal through fight and struggle, not by sitting waiting for it to happen. Country's are founded on war and fighting, people's ideals are protected through fighting, while not always physically, it is still fighting. Right now, if you walked outside and killed a man, wouldn't the government come to stop you IE police? So, if you were more powerful then the government, what would stop you from doing whatever you wanted? Moral obligation? Well, if you think it would, then, there would be no reason for laws.

Essentially, he just described that the way our power is distributed is complex, but, multiplication is more complex then addition, but at it's root, it's still addition.

"The only thing standing between me and the world, are all those scary men with guns."

Oh wait I'm sorry, we live in a shiny world full of rainbows and pony's crapping out magical shit balls We are so far ahead of animals that we don't exhibit any of there behavioral patterns or bare any resemblance to them whatsoever, we are Gods. Now, back in the real world....
Posted 10/10/08
2 and 5. but I still like 2 better
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 10/10/08 , edited 10/10/08

mauz15 wrote:

Read out loud what you just wrote me.
They are not universal, that's the thing. People assume these sayings are universals but they are not. They are simply statements that only show a part of reality and inconrreclty so. They are all full of hasty induction.

just because the other threads suck does not justify the lack of substance on this one.

I dont see anywhere in the title or opening post that we had to choose our favorite. Agreeing with and to pick a favorite are not necessarily the same thing. I can agree with something and not necesarrily favorite it. And 'Agree' implies to find compatible or to correspond, etc so yes, legitimacy is being considered.

The question is: which of these "philosophical"

philosiphical implies it relates to a philosophical field or system, right there the thread just falls apart.

then it says which of these phrases do you agree with the most?

well what's the point of agreeing with something that applies to a tiny aspect of your experiences and then 'discuss it? what is there to discuss?

this vague sentence is sort of like what happened to me the other day, so therefore "i agree with it" in comparison to the others, now let's talk about this extendely? No thanks.

Just look at what generalities have lead on the argument above our posts.

If anything the only one that could be expanded is number 5.

Life is simple? what makes it so? and what is meant by simple? secondly, why is it made complicated by us and what could be the causes of this?

As for the rest, bleh. I see no point.


Honestly, this isn't the worst thing in the world. It's a bad thread, get over it.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/10/08

leviathan343 wrote:


mauz15 wrote:

Read out loud what you just wrote me.
They are not universal, that's the thing. People assume these sayings are universals but they are not. They are simply statements that only show a part of reality and inconrreclty so. They are all full of hasty induction.

just because the other threads suck does not justify the lack of substance on this one.

I dont see anywhere in the title or opening post that we had to choose our favorite. Agreeing with and to pick a favorite are not necessarily the same thing. I can agree with something and not necesarrily favorite it. And 'Agree' implies to find compatible or to correspond, etc so yes, legitimacy is being considered.

The question is: which of these "philosophical"

philosiphical implies it relates to a philosophical field or system, right there the thread just falls apart.

then it says which of these phrases do you agree with the most?

well what's the point of agreeing with something that applies to a tiny aspect of your experiences and then 'discuss it? what is there to discuss?

this vague sentence is sort of like what happened to me the other day, so therefore "i agree with it" in comparison to the others, now let's talk about this extendely? No thanks.

Just look at what generalities have lead on the argument above our posts.

If anything the only one that could be expanded is number 5.

Life is simple? what makes it so? and what is meant by simple? secondly, why is it made complicated by us and what could be the causes of this?

As for the rest, bleh. I see no point.


Honestly, this isn't the worst thing in the world. It's a bad thread, get over it.


no kidding. Thanks for the enlightenment.

I was replying to your post, as simple as that. Next time dont quote me then.
2693 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / guess where
Offline
Posted 10/11/08 , edited 10/11/08

dmitsuki wrote:


brogits wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:


DKangN3 wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
Also, thanks for proving my point :)


My entire post was an explanation of why your metaphor was weak and irrelevant. I think you've pretty much shown me that there's no point in me taking you seriously.


In trying to show that you showed that I was right. Good job!


to dmitsuki: i cant help but feel infuriated by your posts...sorry for sticking my nose into this but dude you're arguments are so fallacious >.< (u're making a category mistake, a faulty analogy)....and despite the obvious weakness in your argument, u're still insisting it! "In trying to show that you showed that I was right. Good job!"??? sarcasm i cant bear....*facepalm*....so infuriating...grrr...



I said, just like animals, we live in a system driven by power. He then responded to me saying I was wrong, the then described how humans constantly put in place infrastructures based on power to give power to the weak. Nothing has changed, the society is still driven by power. He then says that all the that I have talked about have been changed. Well, yes, they have. Slavery was Abolished by a Civil War, in other words, a bitch slap by the alpha male (North won the war, things went there way). Women were treated equal through fight and struggle, not by sitting waiting for it to happen. Country's are founded on war and fighting, people's ideals are protected through fighting, while not always physically, it is still fighting. Right now, if you walked outside and killed a man, wouldn't the government come to stop you IE police? So, if you were more powerful then the government, what would stop you from doing whatever you wanted? Moral obligation? Well, if you think it would, then, there would be no reason for laws.

Essentially, he just described that the way our power is distributed is complex, but, multiplication is more complex then addition, but at it's root, it's still addition.

"The only thing standing between me and the world, are all those scary men with guns."

Oh wait I'm sorry, we live in a shiny world full of rainbows and pony's crapping out magical shit balls We are so far ahead of animals that we don't exhibit any of there behavioral patterns or bare any resemblance to them whatsoever, we are Gods. Now, back in the real world....


*BIG SIGH*....u really dont get it do you? ....i sed, that's faulty analogy...


I said, just like animals, we live in a system driven by power. He then responded to me saying I was wrong, the then described how humans constantly put in place infrastructures based on power to give power to the weak. Nothing has changed, the society is still driven by power.


the argument is structured the same, but the conclusion is obviously incorrect...u're incorrectly extending the similarity between the two into a totally different level...but you cant cuz a similarity in one area doesn't imply a similarity in another...you can never compare the the situation of humans to that of the animals because they don't fall under the same category...no matter what you say, animals and humans are under different standards of behavior, they have different ways of life (ever heard of cultural relativism? animals and humans have different social contexts)....oh, and don't use that stupid metaphor, it's very misleading...
Posted 10/11/08

brogits wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:


brogits wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:


DKangN3 wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
Also, thanks for proving my point :)


My entire post was an explanation of why your metaphor was weak and irrelevant. I think you've pretty much shown me that there's no point in me taking you seriously.


In trying to show that you showed that I was right. Good job!


to dmitsuki: i cant help but feel infuriated by your posts...sorry for sticking my nose into this but dude you're arguments are so fallacious >.< (u're making a category mistake, a faulty analogy)....and despite the obvious weakness in your argument, u're still insisting it! "In trying to show that you showed that I was right. Good job!"??? sarcasm i cant bear....*facepalm*....so infuriating...grrr...



I said, just like animals, we live in a system driven by power. He then responded to me saying I was wrong, the then described how humans constantly put in place infrastructures based on power to give power to the weak. Nothing has changed, the society is still driven by power. He then says that all the that I have talked about have been changed. Well, yes, they have. Slavery was Abolished by a Civil War, in other words, a bitch slap by the alpha male (North won the war, things went there way). Women were treated equal through fight and struggle, not by sitting waiting for it to happen. Country's are founded on war and fighting, people's ideals are protected through fighting, while not always physically, it is still fighting. Right now, if you walked outside and killed a man, wouldn't the government come to stop you IE police? So, if you were more powerful then the government, what would stop you from doing whatever you wanted? Moral obligation? Well, if you think it would, then, there would be no reason for laws.

Essentially, he just described that the way our power is distributed is complex, but, multiplication is more complex then addition, but at it's root, it's still addition.

"The only thing standing between me and the world, are all those scary men with guns."

Oh wait I'm sorry, we live in a shiny world full of rainbows and pony's crapping out magical shit balls We are so far ahead of animals that we don't exhibit any of there behavioral patterns or bare any resemblance to them whatsoever, we are Gods. Now, back in the real world....


*BIG SIGH*....u really dont get it do you? ....i sed, that's faulty analogy...


I said, just like animals, we live in a system driven by power. He then responded to me saying I was wrong, the then described how humans constantly put in place infrastructures based on power to give power to the weak. Nothing has changed, the society is still driven by power.


the argument is structured the same, but the conclusion is obviously incorrect...u're incorrectly extending the similarity between the two into a totally different level...but you cant cuz a similarity in one area doesn't imply a similarity in another...you can never compare the the situation of humans to that of the animals because they don't fall under the same category...no matter what you say, animals and humans are under different standards of behavior, they have different ways of life (ever heard of cultural relativism? animals and humans have different social contexts)....oh, and don't use that stupid metaphor, it's very misleading...


Learn yourself something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal

All animals are similar, no two animals are the same.

Of course if you can't understand that if two things are exactly the same they can still be compared with there similarity's then I give up and am going back to programing my game.

P.S. Penis.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.