WEEKEND TICKETS GOING FAST!

PRICES GO UP AT THE GATE

PURCHASE TICKET
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Truth for Hate...!
Posted 4/13/10 , edited 4/13/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Glock45 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Glock45 wrote:

One truth I am sure of is that many people see what they want to see. To have anyone object to that causes this unforgivable disturbance in their blissful illusion.
I play the "blissful ignorance" and finish my turn. Your move.

When they can neither fight it nor run away from it, denial seems to be their next rational choice in order for them to make themselves feel good.


We see people denying the denials of their gods and continually insist on the presence of their only sole influence as being a transparent authority. I, for one, bend to nothing intangible. While my hate is aimed at ideas focused on denigrating human reasoning, the truth is, I can tolerate these ideas since at least some good can come of them.


If you say some good come from the continual ignorance from insisting on the intangible to be an tangible influence upon society. I say Nay! For the little good that comes from the programed masses with such design can easily be duplicated with more proactive and logical means. Hence the need for such illogical outlets is nil as we can logically construct more proficient means to develop said goals.


Absolutely. The values of the faithful are derived from simple, everyday common sense. Impressive language gets pasted over wisdom and soon confusion follows. People rely too much on a place to throw off the burden of their "sins" and all to often throw their so-called Word around for others to have sunk into their heads, and they become just as misled. If people took up more philosophy, they might see where the lies end and the truth begins. Justified hatred of The Fold's insane doctrine is an absolute truth for me, for demystifying and defaming it would work wonders for the human race.
6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 4/13/10 , edited 4/13/10

DomFortress wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


If you can't see why would people do something, then how did you manage to make an assumption on how it happened?

So once again, why would there be those who react negatively towards objective truth or empirical knowledge? And be realistic about it. You described what and how it happened, but you said nothing about why. That's like you only repeated the topic, without you furthering the debate by you contributing anything of real relevancy.

BTW, reporting your original post was irrelevant to the topic? My idea. And you're welcome.


As a note, that is only an assumption based on probability based on my most recent experience in the forum. My assumption may be wrong, however, the possibility of it to happen is not 0.

I don't know about you. But I'm not here to follow your standards. I'm here to answer the OP's question. And at least provide the insight that telling someone may produce hate is not impossible and has been happening long time ago. I did not come here to provide some processes the brain does when a person is understanding a truth, feeling hate, or even understanding the brain process of someone with high neuroticism value and differentiating it from someone with low neuroticism value. I want to at least keep it simple for people to understand.

So, did my edited post contribute enough to the discussion to not be reported?
At the cost of misleading your audiences with your illogical "assumption", not simplifying nor clarifying a topic with your "insight"? When you managed to use more words that the original topic thread did, and worst of all presented a bias opinion as an amateur without any formal discipline on the subject matter.

Furthermore, your initial cognitive stance of "I can't see why would people confuse truth with hate" doesn't authorize you to entitle your assumptions of "denial or acceptance of truth may be related to hate but truth can never be related to hate" nor "someone may produce hate is not impossible and has been happening long time ago" as anything but your bias opinion based on only your experience. Without you confirming your experience with your logic, thus creating a workable model of your reality with your mind. And without that invert process of you figure out "why" using "if, then, else" computation by yourself, you're but a replicator without a will of its own. And no free will, no insight. When there's no free lunches with only entitlement.

So once again, how would you attempt to reply the topic, without you just repeating the topic as an replicator. And be realistic about it.


Yeah right. And arguing with you any further would be off topic when all you are arguing with is my assumption and my opinion. Besides, I answered the OP's question and that's all that matters. So this is my last reply to you.

I never attempted to mislead anyone. I said that the situation that I provided is just an "assumption" blatantly so if someone still thought that what I am saying is objective truth, then that person must be dumb because I blatantly said (I repeat it again) that it is just an "assumption".

I don't see why are you saying that I am basing my "biased" opinion on my experience that is not confirmed with logic. My experience is true and I am basing my claim on my experience that is true. Therefore, I assure that my claim possesses truth in it. As such, it is my experience to see that "telling someone the truth may produce hate" is not entirely impossible. Unless you argue that my experience is false, my opinion stands. However, I do not claim my opinion as an objective truth. Keep note, this is just a probability based on my experience that is confirmed through logic!

Next is that you are trying to commit contextomy by making a claim based on distorting on of my statement's meaning by highlighting an incomplete statement. I never implied that "someone may produce hate is not impossible and has been happening long time ago" is one of my insight. I am saying that "telling someone may produce hate is not impossible and has been happening long time ago" is my insight. Both of the statements have different meanings. Furthermore, it is true that I can't see why would people confuse hate with truth. That is because they are both different entities in different categories so they are never related. However, the action of telling the truth and hate may be related because the action of telling the truth is not an entity, but a process; and an entity can be related to a process. Therefore, the action of telling the truth and hate may be related. Note that I used "may be".

In addition, I can attest your opinion that I am someone without a will of its own. That is because it is a simple fact that I posted here on my own free will. Therefore, I have my own will.

Moving on, I can also attest your opinion that I am a replicator. That is because you provided the statement that my opinion is a biased one. If my opinion is a biased one, then why did you not bother telling the OP that he is biased when in fact you claimed that my opinion is the same as his? In addition, you argued with the validity of my point however, you never argued the validity of his post. You then reached a contradiction. Not only that, you may be accused of being biased.

In addition, you missed the point sir. I am never obliged to explain "why". Explaining "why" here in this thread is completely different from knowing "why". Not only that, your explanation never answered "why" as well because it only answers "how" in the sense of Psychology.


While we're at it, I think it's important that we should establish some English vocabularies for clarity sake, thanks to those who can't hold their own arguments without a dictionary drilled into their brains.


That being said. I will quote one of your post that is directed as an insult of me. That is because you deliberately used that quote with your own free will even knowing that it is a form of "flaming" that is unethical and that is common knowledge for someone who is an "inspired" sociologist; unless that person lacks verstehen which is essential in understanding social science. I attest that you are wrong in your stupid accusation because vocabulary is not my problem in your locked thread. My problem with your thread is how you lacked rhetorical ability to explain your points and I know that dictionaries can't help me with that. That's why the best person I could ask is you, who initiated the discussion. Of course, I can say that the situation may be related to this topic because in that situation. I can assess that you have the thought of me having a negative emotion towards you. Your thought that I have a negative emotion towards you drive you to the "assumption" that I am trolling even if I am asking for questions to you. That may also explain why no matter how long I argue with you, you will deny the truth that "I can not understand you because of your rhetorical skills". That is also the reason why I said this will be my last reply to you in this thread.


I think when individuals with a high neuroticism value came across with an objective truth or an empirical knowledge that identifies themselves with an negative annotation, such examples would be smokers being a turnoff because their smoking habit makes their breath smells bad and their teeth look yellowish, fat people being more likely to die due to diabetes and heart failure, physically inactive people being more likely to suffer from depression, people-pleasing is a sign of low self-confidence. They overreacted to the negativity by them prompting themselves with fear and panic, which resulted with them either fighting or fleeting as a self-preserving respond. Instead of them rationalize the information and then come up with a solution.


I can say that your claim (quoted above) is true provided that neuroticism value has something to do with it. Using our situation in that old thread, I can say that your negative annotation towards me in the older threads drove you to feel that you should pick with me a fight (or an argument) even if I don't have the intention of doing something malicious.

However, the two paragraphs above this one may be wrong in itself. Note that this is just an opinion based on an assumption. The assumption there is that "you had the negative annotation of me which prompts you to call me a troll". The claims may be provided false if you really can't explain what your talking about due to laziness or whatnot, if you can not understand what I am trying to get at, or any other unsaid reasons. Note that this is just a simple scenario that states that "telling someone the truth and hate (or any negative emotion) is related". I never used the entity "truth" because truth is sensitive. And if we were to think of objective truth, human emotion is affected through learning the truth. Learning the truth that someone dear to you died will make you sad. Learning the truth that you won the lottery will make you happy. Learning the truth that you were scammed will make you hateful. However, the truth is just an entity and it can never create the emotion of sadness, hate, or joy if there is no communication. Therefore, without communication which is telling the truth, you can never trigger emotion and hate is included. That's why truth and hate are not related when hate can never be triggered with truth alone. Hate can only be triggered when there is a delivery (or telling) of truth to the individual.

Moving on, my claim that "I can't see why would people confuse truth with hate" allows me to make the opinion that "denial or acceptance of truth may be related to hate but truth can never be related to hate". Note that I said opinion, and not assumption. That is because it is clearly an opinion. What bothers me is why should I be required to have an "if-then-else" when in fact, my opinion does not present a dilemma.

Now, I'm done. And I repeat, I won't reply to you here again. So good day. All I've done know is provide details regarding this topic. You are not the reason I posted in this thread so I will not reply to you here again. Good day. Oh and if you think that I'm still trolling, don't feed me.


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

Except for the fact that gravity effects everything equally. It is a constant. Horizontal force is independent of vertical. The gun has ways to adjust to compensate for the force of gravity. All matter falls at the same rate.
The fact that the bullet is moving has no affect on anything. Since it is symmetrical and rotating perpendicular to the line of flight, it cannot generate lift and if it could, how would it know which direction to generate it in?

The velocity of the bullet only determines how far it will be from the gun barrel to where it hits, not when it hits.

Finally, the REAL answer. The bullet dropped will hit first but not for the reasons you are probably thinking. It will hit first because the bullet fired, will have to fall farther due to the curvature of the earth. But we're talking 1/2" a mile so they will be pretty close.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9wQVIEdKh8

What physics principle does this demo show? Well, it shows two things. First, it shows that the horizontal and vertical motion in projectile motion are independent. That is, what happens in the y-direction, stays in the y-direction. Really, you can treat projectile motion as two separate problems that just happen to take the same amount of time. The second thing it shows is that the velocity in one direction does not effect the velocity in the other direction (which really is the same as the first thing).




Can I say sorry? I misunderstood your post about the gun. That is actually my fault. Sorry. And say, did I provide you enough information for your thread? Dom does not think that way, I think.
Posted 4/14/10 , edited 4/14/10

BrylleNoGotoku wrote:



Yeah right. And arguing with you any further would be off topic when all you are arguing with is my assumption and my opinion. Besides, I answered the OP's question and that's all that matters. So this is my last reply to you.

I never attempted to mislead anyone. I said that the situation that I provided is just an "assumption" blatantly so if someone still thought that what I am saying is objective truth, then that person must be dumb because I blatantly said (I repeat it again) that it is just an "assumption".

I don't see why are you saying that I am basing my "biased" opinion on my experience that is not confirmed with logic. My experience is true and I am basing my claim on my experience that is true. Therefore, I assure that my claim possesses truth in it. As such, it is my experience to see that "telling someone the truth may produce hate" is not entirely impossible. Unless you argue that my experience is false, my opinion stands. However, I do not claim my opinion as an objective truth. Keep note, this is just a probability based on my experience that is confirmed through logic!

Next is that you are trying to commit contextomy by making a claim based on distorting on of my statement's meaning by highlighting an incomplete statement. I never implied that "someone may produce hate is not impossible and has been happening long time ago" is one of my insight. I am saying that "telling someone may produce hate is not impossible and has been happening long time ago" is my insight. Both of the statements have different meanings. Furthermore, it is true that I can't see why would people confuse hate with truth. That is because they are both different entities in different categories so they are never related. However, the action of telling the truth and hate may be related because the action of telling the truth is not an entity, but a process; and an entity can be related to a process. Therefore, the action of telling the truth and hate may be related. Note that I used "may be".

In addition, I can attest your opinion that I am someone without a will of its own. That is because it is a simple fact that I posted here on my own free will. Therefore, I have my own will.

Moving on, I can also attest your opinion that I am a replicator. That is because you provided the statement that my opinion is a biased one. If my opinion is a biased one, then why did you not bother telling the OP that he is biased when in fact you claimed that my opinion is the same as his? In addition, you argued with the validity of my point however, you never argued the validity of his post. You then reached a contradiction. Not only that, you may be accused of being biased.

In addition, you missed the point sir. I am never obliged to explain "why". Explaining "why" here in this thread is completely different from knowing "why". Not only that, your explanation never answered "why" as well because it only answers "how" in the sense of Psychology.


While we're at it, I think it's important that we should establish some English vocabularies for clarity sake, thanks to those who can't hold their own arguments without a dictionary drilled into their brains.


That being said. I will quote one of your post that is directed as an insult of me. That is because you deliberately used that quote with your own free will even knowing that it is a form of "flaming" that is unethical and that is common knowledge for someone who is an "inspired" sociologist; unless that person lacks verstehen which is essential in understanding social science. I attest that you are wrong in your stupid accusation because vocabulary is not my problem in your locked thread. My problem with your thread is how you lacked rhetorical ability to explain your points and I know that dictionaries can't help me with that. That's why the best person I could ask is you, who initiated the discussion. Of course, I can say that the situation may be related to this topic because in that situation. I can assess that you have the thought of me having a negative emotion towards you. Your thought that I have a negative emotion towards you drive you to the "assumption" that I am trolling even if I am asking for questions to you. That may also explain why no matter how long I argue with you, you will deny the truth that "I can not understand you because of your rhetorical skills". That is also the reason why I said this will be my last reply to you in this thread.


I think when individuals with a high neuroticism value came across with an objective truth or an empirical knowledge that identifies themselves with an negative annotation, such examples would be smokers being a turnoff because their smoking habit makes their breath smells bad and their teeth look yellowish, fat people being more likely to die due to diabetes and heart failure, physically inactive people being more likely to suffer from depression, people-pleasing is a sign of low self-confidence. They overreacted to the negativity by them prompting themselves with fear and panic, which resulted with them either fighting or fleeting as a self-preserving respond. Instead of them rationalize the information and then come up with a solution.


I can say that your claim (quoted above) is true provided that neuroticism value has something to do with it. Using our situation in that old thread, I can say that your negative annotation towards me in the older threads drove you to feel that you should pick with me a fight (or an argument) even if I don't have the intention of doing something malicious.

However, the two paragraphs above this one may be wrong in itself. Note that this is just an opinion based on an assumption. The assumption there is that "you had the negative annotation of me which prompts you to call me a troll". The claims may be provided false if you really can't explain what your talking about due to laziness or whatnot, if you can not understand what I am trying to get at, or any other unsaid reasons. Note that this is just a simple scenario that states that "telling someone the truth and hate (or any negative emotion) is related". I never used the entity "truth" because truth is sensitive. And if we were to think of objective truth, human emotion is affected through learning the truth. Learning the truth that someone dear to you died will make you sad. Learning the truth that you won the lottery will make you happy. Learning the truth that you were scammed will make you hateful. However, the truth is just an entity and it can never create the emotion of sadness, hate, or joy if there is no communication. Therefore, without communication which is telling the truth, you can never trigger emotion and hate is included. That's why truth and hate are not related when hate can never be triggered with truth alone. Hate can only be triggered when there is a delivery (or telling) of truth to the individual.

Moving on, my claim that "I can't see why would people confuse truth with hate" allows me to make the opinion that "denial or acceptance of truth may be related to hate but truth can never be related to hate". Note that I said opinion, and not assumption. That is because it is clearly an opinion. What bothers me is why should I be required to have an "if-then-else" when in fact, my opinion does not present a dilemma.

Now, I'm done. And I repeat, I won't reply to you here again. So good day. All I've done know is provide details regarding this topic. You are not the reason I posted in this thread so I will not reply to you here again. Good day. Oh and if you think that I'm still trolling, don't feed me.
If you're not trolling, then you're an illogical individual who thinks that a digital multimedia encyclopedia, aka Encarta, is a simple and clear style of presenting philosophical and evolutionary psychological concept. When the truth about it is anything but. I mean WTF! Didn't you just asked for more of the same thing?

And as an illogical individual, your claim about the truth being sensitive without proof is thereby illogical. When truth is just an information based on factual data with no feelings. I mean WTF? Do you think that a computer is sensitive of your feelings?

Moreover, I have a negative annotation of your mentality being illogical. However since you insisted that you're not a fool, then my other logical assumption is that you are a troll. Because you were arguing that my first person narrative of my abstract thinking style isn't simple nor clear. While you were asking a complex and concrete, step-by-step instruction manual. I mean WTF! Do I look like a Drill Sergeant to you?

Furthermore, when I answered the OP's question of "Since when is sharing facts become a sign of protruding hate onto others", I not only did so with how psychologically "people hang onto their self-pitying habit for too long, the end result will be them overreacting towards anything that's remotely negative", but I also proved why evolutionary that "self-pity as an important self-defense mechanism that's deeply rooted within our lumbic system, aka the lizard brain". But you OTOH just replicated the same information with your "insight" of "telling someone may produce hate is not impossible and has been happening long time ago." I mean WTF! Didn't you just rephrased what the OP's question by making it into a sentence?

Therefore you decided to post here without you answering the topic isn't a sign of you exercising your free will, but rather it's you desire of expressing yourself. And what's worst you ended up expressing the exact same information as the topic, but called your expression as some sort of "insight". I mean WTF! Are you some sort of pseudo-intellectual?

So I messed up my highlighting during my last reply, well beyond your assumption is the fact that I was in a hurry because my girlfriend's birthday was yesterday. Therefore your rationale just got blindsided by reality, due to you overgeneralizing with your assumption about my person. I mean WTF! I have a life to live besides correcting your works for free, now how's that me hating you?

Finally, at one point of your post you claimed that "My assumption may be wrong", thereby you claimed that "if someone still thought that what I am saying is objective truth, then that person must be dumb because I blatantly said (I repeat it again) that it is just an "assumption"." However when you claimed that you answered the OP's question with your "Note that I said opinion, and not assumption", while you claimed that "my assumption and my opinion" where based on your experience being true. You just created a dilemma of you assuming your experience being true maybe wrong with your claims, thus anyone who trusts that you were telling the truth is therefore a fool. I mean OMGWTFBBQ! Are you just plain nuts?

Therefore it's I who should be ending this debate with a final ultimatum; you're illogical, indecisive, repetitive, and down right nuts. So don't bother reply to me again, ever. For I seriously think that you need professional help, and honestly that's not what I'm here for.
55941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
59 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 4/14/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

"Simple debate this time.' Topic being confusing truth for hate."

It seems to a running gag here on this forum plus in the world at large, that people mistake the truth as hate.

'Wen someone points out a proven fact and the next person yells at them calling that person hateful it is mind-numbing how often this really happens in the forums, and in the real world.'

Like wen your friend tells you that your favorite show had been canceled, and you reply with anger why are you hating on me, as if he pointing out or letting you know of a fact is a sign of hate toward you. For another example a doctor points out you have appendicitis, and you yell at his telling him to quit hating on you. As if someone pointing out a fact, in-order for you to correct it before it is to late is a form of hate or flaming/trolling.

Sense wen is sharing facts become a sign of protruding hate onto others?



This calls to mind- 'The Four agreements' A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom, A Toltec Wisdom Guide, by Miguel Ruiz

The second of these: " Don't take anything personally--- Nothing others do is because of you. What others say & do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions & actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless suffering. "

This awareness is something we should all practice.
Why would anyone willingly take on 'persecution' ? Just playing the guilt card is so absurd. It's just reacting to a truth or fact irrationally.

The whole book is most enlightening, this particular bit ( in blue ) is actually quoted from the book's dust cover.
Posted 4/15/10

farmbird wrote:



This calls to mind- 'The Four agreements' A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom, A Toltec Wisdom Guide, by Miguel Ruiz

The second of these: " Don't take anything personally--- Nothing others do is because of you. What others say & do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions & actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless suffering. "

This awareness is something we should all practice.
Why would anyone willingly take on 'persecution' ? Just playing the guilt card is so absurd. It's just reacting to a truth or fact irrationally.

The whole book is most enlightening, this particular bit ( in blue ) is actually quoted from the book's dust cover.
明鏡止水: tranquility naturally cast itself over calm water, by reflecting everything around it but not becoming a part of it. That's the mentality of Taoism. -by me.

This was from my reply in my now locked thread called "The Dual Paradox of Assumption ". I think it somehow relates to that mentality.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.