No, what 314's problem is is that he's acting like a total dickbag who has no respect for others and it makes his arguments sloppy as all hell.
So, you're complaining about his attitude as opposed to his arguments?
How about that we've already had experience with thepyro -- have any of you read Christianity FTW? No darn wonder.
His very existence on this forum is as a walking strawman and a walking ad hominem all rolled into one disgusting glop of useless fallacy.
How is he even an ad hominem? Unless he can actually be used as such -- and if you think targeting 314d1 as a person is valid then get out now (not directed towards you) because that is NOTHING to what you should be doing, which is debating the points.
There's nothing logical or cool about vitriol and hatred
If you can even call it that. You people are complaining about a minor lack of general politeness at BEST. Your exaggeration only makes me think you're all the more stupid in trying to get your point across.
What he done was CERTAINLY acceptable, especially by most AG posters' standards -- granted, I'd rather a bit of an elaboration, but if you were to be complaining about that then shall I reference you to any future posters I find who say their point without any explanation? There's a great, great many.
I am not doing the "Everyone else does it so he's justified" argument -- I'm saying that you wouldn't be on his case, as it were, if you weren't overly sensitive to his frank attitude.
it has NO justification, unlike religion which at the very least has faith.
Faith is a justification?
You REALLY need to explain this.
The opposition are not idiots for not basing their worldviews off of the cold beauty of reason.
Their worldviews if not based on reason and logic are idiotic, at the very least. How else to label someone who HAS those views? Indoctrinated? Frivolous? Idiots?
Your "justification" is BS.
No, I'm afraid. In fact, even as a third party observer until you joined in you disregarded the "avoid verbal abuse" area. So, how about YOU stop acting like a complete ******* and sit the **** down until you realize that you're defending a dumbfounded belief and the believers of it because someone didn't try and utterly control what he was saying in terms of its sensitivity?
I DON'T CARE if you're just taking an offensive to 314d1's tone, if you're willing to call him a walking ad hominem then clearly you understand that you're fueling the opposition's reasoning even if it is logically fallacious -- so really now, if you're not going to debate about the actual subject which is a perfect world, then get lost.
Anyway--as far as we're concerned, a perfect world could certainly be possible.
Who is 'we' and how do you know you can speak for them?
Perfection goes beyond flawlessness--there has to be euphoria and brilliance along with the precision for it to be "erfect" as is commonly defined.
Why would euphoria be such a necessity? There's arguments that go against it -- yours is the absolute end-game in idealistic values. Progression and pride is something that allows perfection to be obtained whilst flaws are still present. The perfect world is based on the people and the management of resources - not the hypothetical resource galore that people view perfection as, otherwise it would bare no meaning.
If everyone were to be in euphoria then there are issues -- because each person needs the honest time to develop their own moral values and that is simply -- at least -- to ensure that they do not wrong another. It wouldn't always be an active emotion, but I'd imagine pride and bliss would be what people think when they look at their lives.
Like I do. I'm actually progressing in academia, physical form and artistic forms right now. I'm discovering issues I have myself that concern me being the problem and I am working to resolve them. Of course, you may not agree, but I follow some of my own definition of "
erfection" simply on the basis of my progress and values.
Which reminds me, morality pretty much MUST be the highest value to a person, in my opinion.
It's kind of a mathy thing, really--we can -approach- perfection but it is unknown as to whether we can get there.
Perfection can be achieved. No doubt. By 'can' I mean it is actually physically possible for the 'requirements' to be attained by the human race and thus the progress in a perfect manner to follow. Will it happen?
That is an entirely different story.
but your perfect world would probably not be my perfect world. wich makes your perfect world not perfect anymore.
It's called debate. Your logic is dull and it seems like you're just trying to bait something.
perfect is impossible.
If you're going to say that, back it up. You'll first need to define what perfection is before you logically assert that it cannot be obtained -- you don't have proof, and you almost certainly don't have sufficient logical support.
nothing, literaly nothing on this world is perfect.
My response to the above quote is indeed perfect English. The previous sentence in itself is a solid debunk of partydevil's purport.
Thisisnotanalt -- 314d1's behaviour -- whilst not exceptional, was certainly acceptable and your response to it only demonstrates a strong form of hypocricy which I don't appreciate one bit. My extraneously negative attitude was a reciprocation because you did not seem to get it -- this is NOT a flame war and the involvement, or instigation of one doesn't get you nor I anywhere, which is especially why I disapproved of your point.
Are we going to get on with the main point, or not?
If no, then don't bother replying to me. If yes, then feel free and I'm alright with starting on a new slate, if that's what you want.
- H
P.S Apologies for the poor use of language in the earlier parts of this post. Justification I feel comes from the expression that follows from it -- otherwise I'd have deleted said words, but I'm just making that clear for those who feel I may just be unnecessarily unleashing a diatribe.
