Forums → WEPR → A perfect world.
| 64 | 16537 |
What makes a perfect world? A question that has been asked many, many times. I believe that a perfect world is a world in equilibrium, perfect balance. I'm not saying 50% men to 50% women. The reality is much deeper.
You can't have happiness without sadness, you can't have anger without joy, you can't have good without evil, you can't have love without hate. If we had no violence, anger, hate, etc. We wouldn't have emotions. This goes beyond just people though. We can't have peace without war, we can't have sunny weather without rain, we can't have green grass and green trees without dead ones, and so on.
The reason for this is because without an opposite, it simply can't exist. For something to exist, it needs an opposite. I know this because of the above mentioned reasons.
So a perfect world is one of perfect balance.
That does it for me, does AG agree or disagree?
- 64 Replies
@31 Oh no, i know what im talking about. Why our world isnt perfect? lets see... Theres thousands of hungry, starving people, Warzones all over the Middle East, Homeless people freezing in the cold, Hundreds of Murders and other crimes commited on a daily basis. we're slowly killing our planet with how much pollution we're producing. You tell me how our world is "Perfect" with all this going on.
I meant when you said I am the problem. Did you just say I am responsible for thousands of starving people, causing war in the middle east, and every crime ever? No? Then how are people like me the problem?
you can do something perfect but the end result will always have a flaw or can be made beter in some way.
This falls back to the 'definition of perfect', now doesn't it?
you can draw a perfect circle. but a perfect circle inside a perfect circle would look beter.
. . . What.
The attitude is all fine and dandy until it starts detracting from the arguments, and that's something you see all over the place with 314.
The points he did raise were valid, for the most part. That, and how can you say that without the attitude 314d1 would provide anything better?
You're missing the point.
No, it was looking at your faulty presentation. You was berating him and in turn doing what he was doing in a worse manner. Oh -- that has completely detracted from the main subject.
Also keep in mind that you're the one who started this tangent and you're the one continuing it.
Yeah, for what I think is right (because given previous experience with thepyro, I'm not surprised he would act this way). That's valid, no? Not one of us have entirely detracted because both of us in each of our posts have concerned something pertaining to what the thread is made for, but in the end you're the one who's extended the argument against 314d1 for apparently not respecting others.
Here's a newsflash -- if someone illogically believes in a religion and preaches it on the forums, what respect have they earned? I'm someone who gives respect instantly -- but can easily have it lost. The saying that respect is earned stands true for a lot of people, and the being a total 'dickbag' element is nothing short of not giving what isn't deserved (of course, I don't advocate for 314d1 so I can't say this is the reason, it would however have been mine).
In the spirit of staying on topic, I won't dignify the rest of your incoherence with a response.
Yes, because I can do that and you can't? That's a pathetic excuse. If you're not going to continue supporting your point then you leave it as you're being tentative or say that you give up. Trying to say that it's not worth it only shows a painfully annoying and almost hypocritical way of trying to get out of the argument.
And this may be considered cheap -- but it's not incoherent, are you an idiot? You seem to be dressing it up from YOUR perspective (which also demonstrates narrow mindedness) in order to make it look like you still had something to put forward.
If you do, then do it. Because I don't think people could dignify your excuse if you just leave like that.
A justification is a reason or circumstance that explains why a belief is held. That's exactly what faith is. Is faith bad justification? By most metrics, yes. But it still is one.
A justification can also be an acceptable explanation - the term I was using.
Faith is an exceptionally poor justification -- hell, it's not even worth calling a reason or circumstance. People don't have the reason of having faith in order to believe in religion. They have faith in their religion. They also would not have a circumstance concerning faith and religion simultaneously unless they were already believers.
Semantics semantics. The bottom line is that you trying to say that faith was justified on this element is hardly valid, if at all due to the complete lack of reason supporting faith in the first place.
You're missing the point. Semantics aren't good things to argue.
I'm not "missing the point", I'm targeting to gain an understanding. It is your poor representation that is annoying me because it's misleading my views if at all you are a single person. And yes, it could easily make a difference.
If you want to stop arguing about semantics, then there needs to be an established meaning for each term for the two of us and furthermore you need to be consistent with what is actually the case, then.
The ultimate goal of a lot of people is happiness and self-confidence, so that would be a very important component of a perfect world.
By your definition, it would certainly suit.
I believe I made a statement about an 'inactive' state of bliss and pride, which would be "my version" I guess. The progress involved, as well.
The issue I find is that a lot of people, even finding a problem with something will still not try and progress towards resolving and / or enhancing the particular thing in question. As a result, I try not to base my ideals of a perfect world on what other people would want -- part of my perfect world includes having people with the same basic tenants as myself.
That's quite the assumption to make, no?
I find it quite logical.
For example -- people view freedom as something. What freedom is is actually what ISN'T there. Boundaries. Freedom is the 'lack' of boundaries, and thus automatically (even as humans you could say) freedom is stripped (or boundaries are in place) that prevent us from doing certain things (such as flying without technology).
Unless someone can show me clear cut proof that perfection in this sense is literally unattainable for humans, then it is reasonable to go without the idea that the boundary is there, because of the very small possibility.
Though of course, it would do good for us to know that we can indeed achieve that -- I don't know, but I'm quite sure people can.
It's just like partydevil's unbacked assertion that perfection is unattainable.
I believe my above reasoning is valid, although still sketchy at best.
Why exactly do you think it's absolutely possible?
Sadly, it's mostly that sketchy logic I had applied, along with mostly experience. Can I say I've met a perfect human being? No. Do I know of one? Probably not.
People have come close, I would imagine.
so you don't really HAVE to provide background reasoning,
I think it would be only fair to, I dislike asserting something without having a reason why. The reason makes sense, as far as I know.
A bit shortsighted to assume that I'm only talking about this specific example of impoliteness, no?
It would've been useful had you mentioned this earlier -- of course, I'm not trying to direct blame to you.
And I'm not being hypocritical at all . . . I'm usually very polite, if a bit cold, and I was using harsh language mostly for rhetorical purposes.
Then I'd be a hypocrite were I to try and call you out on that.
314d1's post, as I had said in my last post I believed to be tolerable / acceptable (and especially at AG's standards). Why call it out only now?
Or was it that you just wanted to see if the behaviour would continue before you tried to make a point -- because otherwise it could cause more drama than was necessary if the person 'flattened' out shortly afterwards?
but does the possibility of superior entities logically require that anything below them be flawed?
No. I would say a flaw is a drawback. I would consider the space to have "1+1=2" is a trait. Everything takes resources:
Walking:
Time spend for Energy conservation
Running:
Energy conservation spent for Time
That is a tragically parochial example but you wouldn't say the energy consumption is a bad aspect. The same for the space provided for 1+1=2, in this case (space spent for presentation, except this one could be considered better given how long the visual could last as opposed to the sound of someone speaking it).
That, and you also have the issue of "What would the space otherwise be used for?" If you can't find a more important alternative then it would be, by definition, flawless in that regard.
Would proving my point be worth it for the space on the monitor to have it considered flawless, for example?
- H
Then should I raise that for each person I love shall be a person I hate? Because that doesn't add up.
There need not be a balance -- however, it certainly helps to have negativity be more 'welcome', for some people.
For the world to be a perfect one, the negativity would need to stem from the idea of wanting progress -- and the negativity will serve as a motivation for the people to do what they can to approach that goal.
Where frivolous arguments will decay to a solid debate with base elements of the subject being apparently known, people using logic at their finest and morality at the apex of values for both parties.
Preferably, there wouldn't be much "active" negativity - people wouldn't take actions influenced by their anger, aside from trying to resolve the issue of what is angering them in the best way they can (i.e Punching a wall is not going to help you achieve that). It would be the views of the people that are negative, not the emotions that they're with, because I would hope this stands to truth in an ideal world:
"Honor virutis preamium" (Honour be the reward of virtue)
Yeah, except I'll only present it when appropriate -- this counts as appropriate.
If this is a diatribe, should I just stop reading? There are legitimate points to note on religion when trying to state a perfect world, no?
Oh, it's a horrendously ignorant statement instead. If you're going to point the issue towards us "irresponsible humans", then that's even worse.
Oh, you went there. /facedesk
You know that perfect idea of people using logic at their finest? Please try and do the same because -- for a fact -- you cannot prove that Heaven is even real, nevermind what it is centered on (that and Earth being human-centered? What?).
Yes, this is a religious thing, because religion has influenced countless people and a lot of it not even for the better.
Not all of it is the peoples' fault either -- it was indoctrination based on a firm set of beliefs based on absolute FAITH. Of course, some person came up with it because (likely explanation) it explained some things that they couldn't at the time (or, it was a book to provide a set of morals for people).
Does that mean they're right in believing it? No. It means that when they were not surrounded by the facts we know with the evidence supporting it they had nothing else to go to. It was illogical to deter from the path they chose because no one else did, either.
I'm quite sure that people can just do so naturally. It's not really a "thing-with-a-soul" or "human" characteristic -- emotions are like instincts, which is why strong emotions can make it more difficult to control one self. It's innate, and natural.
At least, that would make sense. Of course, neither of us have the proof to back this up and probably never will because all people have suffered to some degree (any we could find, probably).
Also, if you've already experienced anger and thus gained an idea of joy -- why would you ever need to be angry again? You wouldn't be, willingly.
So, 314d1's belief that someone is stupid for believing in something without logically thinking about it (because it's based on faith) is not allowed? It is MORE logical than the belief he is 'insulting' in the first place, so how about before this decays into a pit of verbal abuse and general idiocy, you take a step back and think about his justification (that I just shown you), because I'm not going to bother reciprocating by calling you an idiot.
Um.
How would everyone's lives be perfect? I base perfection based on what is idealistic but possible -- 'honor virutis preamium' -- the money, the wealth and the fame isn't what makes a life perfect. It would be the friendship, the dedication and the pride from what you are and do that does (and even then, 'friendship' is a bonus).
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.
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.
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.
Faith is a justification?
You REALLY need to explain this.
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?
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.
Who is 'we' and how do you know you can speak for them?
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.
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.
It's called debate. Your logic is dull and it seems like you're just trying to bait something.
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.
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.
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.
This falls back to the 'definition of perfect', now doesn't it?
. . . What.
The points he did raise were valid, for the most part. That, and how can you say that without the attitude 314d1 would provide anything better?
No, it was looking at your faulty presentation. You was berating him and in turn doing what he was doing in a worse manner. Oh -- that has completely detracted from the main subject.
Yeah, for what I think is right (because given previous experience with thepyro, I'm not surprised he would act this way). That's valid, no? Not one of us have entirely detracted because both of us in each of our posts have concerned something pertaining to what the thread is made for, but in the end you're the one who's extended the argument against 314d1 for apparently not respecting others.
Here's a newsflash -- if someone illogically believes in a religion and preaches it on the forums, what respect have they earned? I'm someone who gives respect instantly -- but can easily have it lost. The saying that respect is earned stands true for a lot of people, and the being a total 'dickbag' element is nothing short of not giving what isn't deserved (of course, I don't advocate for 314d1 so I can't say this is the reason, it would however have been mine).
Yes, because I can do that and you can't? That's a pathetic excuse. If you're not going to continue supporting your point then you leave it as you're being tentative or say that you give up. Trying to say that it's not worth it only shows a painfully annoying and almost hypocritical way of trying to get out of the argument.
And this may be considered cheap -- but it's not incoherent, are you an idiot? You seem to be dressing it up from YOUR perspective (which also demonstrates narrow mindedness) in order to make it look like you still had something to put forward.
If you do, then do it. Because I don't think people could dignify your excuse if you just leave like that.
A justification can also be an acceptable explanation - the term I was using.
Faith is an exceptionally poor justification -- hell, it's not even worth calling a reason or circumstance. People don't have the reason of having faith in order to believe in religion. They have faith in their religion. They also would not have a circumstance concerning faith and religion simultaneously unless they were already believers.
Semantics semantics. The bottom line is that you trying to say that faith was justified on this element is hardly valid, if at all due to the complete lack of reason supporting faith in the first place.
I'm not "missing the point", I'm targeting to gain an understanding. It is your poor representation that is annoying me because it's misleading my views if at all you are a single person. And yes, it could easily make a difference.
If you want to stop arguing about semantics, then there needs to be an established meaning for each term for the two of us and furthermore you need to be consistent with what is actually the case, then.
By your definition, it would certainly suit.
I believe I made a statement about an 'inactive' state of bliss and pride, which would be "my version" I guess. The progress involved, as well.
The issue I find is that a lot of people, even finding a problem with something will still not try and progress towards resolving and / or enhancing the particular thing in question. As a result, I try not to base my ideals of a perfect world on what other people would want -- part of my perfect world includes having people with the same basic tenants as myself.
I find it quite logical.
For example -- people view freedom as something. What freedom is is actually what ISN'T there. Boundaries. Freedom is the 'lack' of boundaries, and thus automatically (even as humans you could say) freedom is stripped (or boundaries are in place) that prevent us from doing certain things (such as flying without technology).
Unless someone can show me clear cut proof that perfection in this sense is literally unattainable for humans, then it is reasonable to go without the idea that the boundary is there, because of the very small possibility.
Though of course, it would do good for us to know that we can indeed achieve that -- I don't know, but I'm quite sure people can.
I believe my above reasoning is valid, although still sketchy at best.
Sadly, it's mostly that sketchy logic I had applied, along with mostly experience. Can I say I've met a perfect human being? No. Do I know of one? Probably not.
People have come close, I would imagine.
I think it would be only fair to, I dislike asserting something without having a reason why. The reason makes sense, as far as I know.
It would've been useful had you mentioned this earlier -- of course, I'm not trying to direct blame to you.
Then I'd be a hypocrite were I to try and call you out on that.
314d1's post, as I had said in my last post I believed to be tolerable / acceptable (and especially at AG's standards). Why call it out only now?
Or was it that you just wanted to see if the behaviour would continue before you tried to make a point -- because otherwise it could cause more drama than was necessary if the person 'flattened' out shortly afterwards?
No. I would say a flaw is a drawback. I would consider the space to have "1+1=2" is a trait. Everything takes resources:
Walking:
Time spend for Energy conservation
Running:
Energy conservation spent for Time
That is a tragically parochial example but you wouldn't say the energy consumption is a bad aspect. The same for the space provided for 1+1=2, in this case (space spent for presentation, except this one could be considered better given how long the visual could last as opposed to the sound of someone speaking it).
That, and you also have the issue of "What would the space otherwise be used for?" If you can't find a more important alternative then it would be, by definition, flawless in that regard.
Would proving my point be worth it for the space on the monitor to have it considered flawless, for example?
You're an idiot.
- H
Yep. Definitely an idiot.
It would've been useful had you mentioned this earlier -- of course, I'm not trying to direct blame to you.
Seemed pretty obvious to me, especially since I mentioned his existence on the forum. :P
Semantics semantics. The bottom line is that you trying to say that faith was justified on this element is hardly valid, if at all due to the complete lack of reason supporting faith in the first place.
That's not what I'm trying to say at all. That's not what I *said* at all. I said that at least religious beliefs have some form of justification. Faith is justification by the dictionary definition of justification, and that's exactly how I phrased it. I never said that faith was justified on this element, I said faith was a type of justification. This is a semantic problem you are creating for yourself, not one that I created through faulty wording.
I'm not "missing the point", I'm targeting to gain an understanding. It is your poor representation that is annoying me because it's misleading my views if at all you are a single person. And yes, it could easily make a difference.
I phrased myself very clearly. You're taking issue with me saying "as far as we're concerned". Seriously. Not only is that almost entirely irrelevant to the point I was making, you're assuming that I was referring to a specific "we" and seemed to think it was presumptuous of me to speak for this enigmatic group. It was really, really obvious what I was saying and yet you only responded by questioning a minor semantic "issue". I am not poorly representing my point and I would appreciate it if you would stop blaming the existence of these semantic problems you're creating on me.
The rest of you post is really good, though! Seems like I've provoked the type of thinking I was aiming for. I'd start replying to them, but I prefer jumping in after a discussion's been started. So, if you don't mind, I'll do that. Iff you do mind though, feel free to tell me and I'll start responding to stuff,
I really don't think I need to explain it, but okay. A justification is a reason or circumstance that explains why a belief is held. That's exactly what faith is. Is faith bad justification? By most metrics, yes. But it still is one.
by that logic 9/11 is instandly justified.
well done =)
=================================
btw why id don't reply to the quastions asked to me here is that i do not have time or can care enoufg lately the diciper the english to a sort i do understand. and to reply back on it.
You're an idiot.
If you're going to blot the entire thing with everything I've said and then call me an idiot without providing a reason (perhaps with the assumption that "it's visible in what I said myself" or something, which in itself would be arrogant and probably mislead) then I don't need to defend myself.
Definitely an idiot.
My apologies for adding a single sign at the end of what I say? It certainly shown itself to you.
I said that at least religious beliefs have some form of justification.
I used the word "justified" in your sense -- not mine. Trying to say that religion is justified based on the element of faith is "hardly valid".
Faith is justification by the dictionary definition of justification, and that's exactly how I phrased it.
But using that definition, how is it valid if it's just a bad reason in the first place? You can't really say "this is better because it has a bad reason", in this case.
This is a semantic problem you are creating for yourself, not one that I created through faulty wording.
I tried moving from semantics to something else. Even as a justification, "faith" is still hardly valid simply due to its lack of value in terms of logic and reason (which is pretty much directly contrary to) that means you can't present in even semi-reasonably ways.
Everything is presentable (however not always believable) if using logic, reason, evidence and / or proof. Experience raises more questions and relies on the person's word, however that is its own element that faith isn't based on for justification. Without any of these, how could you have justification? And I'm quite sure you'd need to apply correct logic and reason to evidence or proof in order to actually derive a fair statement. The lack of otherwise lets stupid ideas to be made.
I phrased myself very clearly.
We're?
You're taking issue with me saying "as far as we're concerned".
Yes, because it makes a difference. Who do you represent, how do you know this, and any other things that could arise from knowing these things.
Not only is that almost entirely irrelevant to the point I was making,
Which if I did have issue with I talked about. . . I'm not evading anything you're saying -- in fact it seems you dislike that I'm pinpointing even the small things about it.
you're assuming that I was referring to a specific "we" and seemed to think it was presumptuous of me to speak for this enigmatic group.
The definition of "erfect" to a great amount of people is incredibly subjective -- the assumption that there are others that think like you was unnecessary. It would've have been hard to simply answer with "those who think like me" or something of the like.
It was really, really obvious what I was saying and yet you only responded by questioning a minor semantic "issue".
Obvious? Possibly, but considering every angle where your could've-been "faction" was having an influence, an effect or an initiative towards the subject (etc etc) could've been important to know. You seem to take it as if I'm just nit picking, but I was actually just curious to know what you meant by "we're".
I am not poorly representing my point
"We're" where it is unnecessary could be involved where it was necessary which seems to stem more from my 'assumption' than your reasoning. The presumption was more valid than you're inclusion of the word as a result and the only point you DON'T seem to think "What was he thinking?" is right here where what I was thinking made more sense.
Seems like I've provoked the type of thinking I was aiming for.
Well, isn't that bombastic? You didn't provoke much aside from the actual response. The method in my response didn't change and if you can't take my word for that then there's little need to carry on this discussion (is there really any anyway?). You also call me presumptuous? *Sigh* Stop with the attempts on psychology, it's quite frankly pathetic to even consider that I need to decript what you're saying before hitting the keys, and yes, that includes your puerile declaration of "controlling" me in some way.
Sure, say I'm acting overly defensive in that I looked at it as a form of control. But why would you attribute it to yourself in yet another presumption and why would you mention it in the first place? Debates and mentorship require more honesty to actually be useful.
- H
I used the word "justified" in your sense -- not mine. Trying to say that religion is justified based on the element of faith is "hardly valid".
It's valid as a form of justification, in that the presence of faith means religious belief is not unjustified. Is the justification logically valid? Nope. Religion is justified because it has justification behind it. That's different from saying that religion is correct.
But using that definition, how is it valid if it's just a bad reason in the first place? You can't really say "this is better because it has a bad reason", in this case.
Faith isn't necessarily a bad reason. It all depends on what you personally value. So what I'm saying is that having a reason is better than not having a reason.
I tried moving from semantics to something else. Even as a justification, "faith" is still hardly valid simply due to its lack of value in terms of logic and reason (which is pretty much directly contrary to) that means you can't present in even semi-reasonably ways.
You're begging the question. Why is faith < logic? Establish that before you assume it's true.
Yes, because it makes a difference. Who do you represent, how do you know this, and any other things that could arise from knowing these things.
Look, I'm astounded that I'm this close to having to spell this out for you. It seems almost like you're trolling me or something. "As far as we're concerned" is commonly used to mean "as far as we as humans know or are concerned with". It's ****ing idiomatic. The fact that you didn't understand it before and still fail to grasp the simplicity if what I was saying is really, really annoying. I phrased myself very clearly and noone else has had any issue with my wording thus far. I shouldn't have to hold your hand the entire time, especially when I'm not using any fancy words or sciencey terminology.
Which if I did have issue with I talked about. . . I'm not evading anything you're saying -- in fact it seems you dislike that I'm pinpointing even the small things about it.
You're not necessarily evading anything I'm saying, no, but you've managed to utterly derail this entirely because of your own faulty reading. You're not pinpointing small problems, you're failing to understand basic wording.
The definition of "erfect" to a great amount of people is incredibly subjective -- the assumption that there are others that think like you was unnecessary. It would've have been hard to simply answer with "those who think like me" or something of the like.
. . . .
Moving on.
"We're" where it is unnecessary could be involved where it was necessary which seems to stem more from my 'assumption' than your reasoning. The presumption was more valid than you're inclusion of the word as a result and the only point you DON'T seem to think "What was he thinking?" is right here where what I was thinking made more sense.
what is this I don't even
Well, isn't that bombastic? You didn't provoke much aside from the actual response. The method in my response didn't change and if you can't take my word for that then there's little need to carry on this discussion (is there really any anyway?). You also call me presumptuous? *Sigh* Stop with the attempts on psychology, it's quite frankly pathetic to even consider that I need to decript what you're saying before hitting the keys, and yes, that includes your puerile declaration of "controlling" me in some way.
Wow you hugely misinterpreted what I was saying
I was saying that I provoked the type of response/discussion I was hoping for. I was not claiming to control you or take credit for what you were saying or anything. I'm not attempting psychology. I'm not asking you do decode what I'm saying as if I'm typing in some strange cypher or something--I'm speaking in plain, simple English and getting annoyed because you're failing spectacularly at understanding said simple English. I have a right to be a little annoyed right here.
What I was saying is that we had a good discussion started, and I would prefer to jump in after another person or two had come in and built upon what you were saying. That's just how I prefer participating in discussions. I ALSO said that if you didn't want me to do that and would rather have me jump right in, you could simply say so and I would do as you asked. I was being pretty open.
Religion is justified because it has justification behind it. That's different from saying that religion is correct.
Yes, but without arguing that religion is correct than the original point - 314d1's attitude remains tolerable, unless there's something else you want to bring up concerning it.
Faith isn't necessarily a bad reason.
Faith is belief without reason, by definition. How could that be good reasoning? The ends do not justify the means and so there goes what? Any possibility of faith being a good reason?
It all depends on what you personally value. So what I'm saying is that having a reason is better than not having a reason.
Not having values is better than having bad values, as is not having a reason better than having a bad reason. Because a bad reason implicates thought -- and if you still made the decision with the bad reason, then that's worse than not having thought about it as with no reason.
Even were that not the case, there could easily be a reason, although of course I do not speak for 314d1.
You're begging the question. Why is faith < logic? Establish that before you assume it's true.
How could I even establish that without using logic? Logic, used correctly, provides a clear explanation for things involved that allow people to extrapolate from evidence in a way that can be indubitably understood and also understand how the points being made are derived. Faith is belief in the point with nothing more, which means that there is no understanding but blind acceptance -- a dangerous and futile trait to hold and why (if I've shown that logic > faith) should religion be exception? If I need to go into why it's dangerous and futile, then fine. I doubt I'd need to at this point, however.
Hell, establishing it before assuming it's true is a form of logic (that is valid).
"As far as we're concerned" is commonly used to mean "as far as we as humans know or are concerned with"
So what you're saying is that no one knows?
The fact that you didn't understand it before and still fail to grasp the simplicity if what I was saying is really, really annoying.
You just said "as far as we as humans know or are concerned with". How could I miss the shot that you were talking about people who agreed with you, because otherwise you're just referencing humanity in general on a point that I and probably others didn't completely agree with (nor did you represent).
I phrased myself very clearly and noone else has had any issue with my wording thus far.
To those who've even been involved. Who's to say they found what I thought may have been pertinent at all relevent?
especially when I'm not using any fancy words or sciencey terminology.
An incredibly ambiguous phrase unnecessarily, on the other hand.
It seems almost like you're trolling me or something.
I don't care if it looks like I'm trolling. You just state your bafflement thanks to my apparent stupidity and then proceed YET AGAIN to 'spell it out'. Congratulations -- what you said was at first ambiguous and if you made your point clear now, then it's stupid for pretty much the reason I mentioned previously -- how do you know you represent them?
but you've managed to utterly derail this entirely because of your own faulty reading.
Faulty to derive a fairly valid (hypothetical) point and assume that was the one you was using it in? Hell - not even an assumption because if you look at the first reference to "we're" I ask:
Who is 'we' and how do you know you can speak for them?
You want an apology or me to admit I was wrong, or had faulty reading when all I did was ask for clarification?
You're not pinpointing small problems, you're failing to understand basic wording.
And evidently, it's ambiguity (being a small problem) has led to the big problem that directs to your inability to have just given a straight answer. You figure you can just consistently 'spell this out' and yet your first response to my request for clarification was about SEMANTICS.
Are you kidding me?
Your trolling is pathetic. If it's anything else then I have massive fears for humanity. This leads back to your pathetically bombastic posture that you still seem to retain with apparently holding my hand and etc.
what is this I don't even
And is this where I walk you through it?
"We're" where it is unnecessary could be involved where it was necessary which seems to stem more from my 'assumption' than your reasoning.
It was UNNECESSARY of you to say "we're" as opposed to "I" given your stance and reasoning. The reasoning I ASSUMED you had was that you represented a pertinent faction of which could be part of the discussion and thus said "we're".
My presumption was under the idea that you had a reason to say "we're" and thus was one of the reasons why I asked for a simple clarification.
Wow you hugely misinterpreted what I was saying
Hello, ambiguity. What else could I derive from "Seems like I've provoked the type of thinking I was aiming for."?
I was saying that I provoked the type of response/discussion I was hoping for.
Yes, and I recognised that.
I was not claiming to control you or take credit for what you were saying or anything.
If you provoke the type of response from me that you was looking for, that is included as control. Really, that's obvious if anything.
I'm not attempting psychology.
And yet, you were planning to lead the entire points or thought patterns into something. Right.
The type of 'thinking' you was looking for. I'm pretty sure that counts as psychology.
You said you was aiming for it, so is this another extraneous use of words ("aiming" concerns the intention to get this, the direct intention usually, or at least possibly) on your end that enlargened the margin of interpretation (and thus I realized that it must've been for a reason) or what was your point? If no real reason but that you simply wanted the discussion to get to that point then why have the primary points be the the type of thinking (and in particularly why even consider you in it at all?).
I have a right to be a little annoyed right here.
Congratulations. Explain its relevence.
What I was saying is that we had a good discussion started, and I would prefer to jump in after another person or two had come in and built upon what you were saying.
Oh, how presumptuous that that was what I was talking about - considering I didn't even quote it. I understood that part.
- H
A justification is a reason or circumstance that explains why a belief is held. That's exactly what faith is. Is faith bad justification? By most metrics, yes. But it still is one.
So in short you're saying the justification for holding such a belief is that they just believe it?
So in short you're saying the justification for holding such a belief is that they just believe it?
That they believe on authority, yes. Religious belief is not completely unjustified because it is backed by confidence that the belief is correct even in the absence of logical proof or inductive evidence. Faith is more of a confidencey hopey trusty beliefy thing than just the act of believing in something, I guess.`
Nothing can be perfect. even the streigtest lines have a curve. everything has a flaw but those flaws make the world a place that is habitible. In order for a perfect world we would need a perfect enviroment. that hasnt been and never will be possible. Humans need to be perfect but that is impossible. Some of the things that make our bodys function are bactierias that are far from perfect. There is also the biggest thing about it. If the world was perfect to me, It may not be perfect to you.
Nothing will ever be perfect. The word perfect shouldn't exist for us humans.
Faith is belief without reason, by definition. How could that be good reasoning? The ends do not justify the means and so there goes what? Any possibility of faith being a good reason?
It is belief without logic. But what about that is bad? You're begging the question if you say that it's inferior to logic because it is illogical.
So what you're saying is that no one knows?
I'm saying that it could be possible in a general sense.
You just said "as far as we as humans know or are concerned with". How could I miss the shot that you were talking about people who agreed with you, because otherwise you're just referencing humanity in general on a point that I and probably others didn't completely agree with (nor did you represent).
I want to speak with authority and certainty, so I'll use rhetorical devices like saying "as far as we're concerned" to characterize what I'm saying as applying to all people. I wasn't speaking for anyone in particular, I was saying that "as far as the human race is concerned, blah blah blah". It doesn't matter if specific people agree or not. It's a rhetorical device. It's qualitative in nature. Makes for better argument.
An incredibly ambiguous phrase unnecessarily, on the other hand.
The phrase I used wasn't ambiguous at all, it just wasn't as quantitative in focus as a math problem or a computer program. Get used to people using rhetorical speech like that without interpreting it entirely literally. Will it seem ambiguous and dubious if you assume it's entirely literal and I'm representing a specific group? Yes! Because that's not how speech or writing in that vein is intended to be used and it's all on you if you didn't realize that. It was pretty plainly presented, and rhetorical speech like that is often found in arguments because it makes them stronger and better to read.
how do you know you represent them?
Hopefully I've adequately explained myself by now. Once again, stop assuming everything I say is entirely mathematical in its precision and based purely on denotation. I'm not Data from Star Trek and you shouldn't read what anyone says through that lens because it leads to frustrating misunderstandings like this.
You want an apology or me to admit I was wrong, or had faulty reading when all I did was ask for clarification?
You didn't ask for clarification, you assumed I was speaking for a specific group and asked me who it was. I told you you were missing the point and not to argue semantics, and obviously that wasn't enough to get across to you that you weren't reading it right.
And evidently, it's ambiguity (being a small problem) has led to the big problem that directs to your inability to have just given a straight answer. You figure you can just consistently 'spell this out' and yet your first response to my request for clarification was about SEMANTICS.
There was no ambiguity. My first response was about semantics because I thought you were trying to argue semantics because you were asking about wording that was painfully simplistic and made perfect sense but that you still seemed to be misinterpreting.
And is this where I walk you through it?
No. I was just a bit unduly rude about my vexation there. I'm sorry for that.
If you provoke the type of response from me that you was looking for, that is included as control. Really, that's obvious if anything.
I said a specific thing hoping to create a certain line of discussion. That happened. I expressed my satisfaction. You took issue with it and here I am again, explaining something that is neither rude nor controlling nor crackpot psychology. It is not psychology to say something in hopes of starting a certain line of discussion, for Celestia's sake.
You said you was aiming for it, so is this another extraneous use of words ("aiming" concerns the intention to get this, the direct intention usually, or at least possibly) on your end that enlargened the margin of interpretation (and thus I realized that it must've been for a reason) or what was your point? If no real reason but that you simply wanted the discussion to get to that point then why have the primary points be the the type of thinking (and in particularly why even consider you in it at all?).
First of all, please stop using "was" wrong. I know it seems juvenile to mention this but it's annoying.
By "I've provoked the type of thinking I was aiming for," I meant "this is the type of discussion I was hoping to provoke". I intended to provoke a line of thinking on an aspect of this topic and it happened. There's nothing psychological about that. I'm not trying to be some cheesy discussion leader or something. I just wanted what I said to lead to a certain type of thought and it happened. I did not psychologically engineer anything, I was trying to start a type of discussion. What I did was no more psychology than any conversation starter.
Oh, how presumptuous that that was what I was talking about - considering I didn't even quote it. I understood that part.
I wasn't being presumptuous, I just wanted to explain that further. I felt as though I should elucidate on that a bit more. Why exactly? Dunno. But I still felt as though I should, so I did. Not trying to be condescending there.
Nothing will ever be perfect. The word perfect shouldn't exist for us humans.
How can you know that? Logically impossible things are incapable of existing, so would the existence of perfection in any environment not be enough proof that perfection is possible? There are many different "sizes" of infinity, so would it not follow that there are many different "sizes" of perfection? Perfect scores in games are perfect, as are perfect games of tic-tac-toe. Are these sizes of perfection not "erfect enough" to prove that perfection can exist in some context?
a perfect world can not exist as long as there are many different individuals who have different fews of what is perfect. if someone says aples are the perfect fruit for all pies then what would happen to people who hate apples?
a perfect world can not exist as long as there are many different individuals who have different fews of what is perfect. if someone says aples are the perfect fruit for all pies then what would happen to people who hate apples?
How does the subjectivity of perfection preclude its attainment? That person's fetishization of apples is an imperfection because of its intensity and xenofruitophobic nature; in a perfect world, there is nothing that is not perfect. There are no challenges to perfection. Since this fetishization of apples can only exist in an imperfect world, how does it preclude the existence of a perfect world?
You must be logged in to post a reply!