Looking four lost Turd

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby MagsJ » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:12 am

phyllo wrote:
Mithus wrote:I once asked James how he differentiates "affect" from "effect", and he wrote:
Affect ≡ n. Action upon, v. to Act upon
Effect ≡ n. End result, v. to produce an End result.

Also here.

He made up his own meaning for the noun 'affect'.
Affect as a noun means feeling, emotion, or specific emotional response.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/affect-vs-effect/

Some words have multi meanings that are closely related, and in this case 'affect' does.. to have an impact on, and to elicit a response, ergo to affect.

Do excuse my pedantry.. I couldn't help it.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17725
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:56 pm

Serendipper wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Indeed, the brains of aliens on other planets may be considerably more advanced than our own. What's their take on it?

Their take would be subject to their understanding.


Okay, but like us what they understand to be true in their brain/mind is one thing, demonstrating why all other brains/minds are obligated to believe it in turn another thing altogether.

I would assume that to be the case for all conscious entities.

In the interim there appear to be things that are true for all of us. Those things and those relationships that encompass the either/or world. Taking into account Hume's distinction between correlation and cause and effect. And taking into account all of those "metaphysical" contraptions like sim worlds, dreams, solipsism and matrixes.


Serendipper wrote: What's true for all of us is coincidentally true for all of us; not that things that are true for all of us has more meaning or importance than things that are only true for some of us. The fact that something is true for all of us means nothing.


What is the technology that we use to exchange these posts but an example of something -- physical relationships -- that is true for all of us? The laws of matter, mathematical proofs, phenomenal interactions.

Sure, in a No God world, "I" would appear to exist in an essentially meaningless universe that ends in oblivion. But, existentially, meaning abounds. At least in particular contexts understood from particular points of view.

But we have no way in which to demonstrate that this is in fact true objectively for all of us. You merely assert it to be so --- as though the assertion itself is all that is necessary.

Serendipper wrote: The speaker gives sound to anyone who can hear it. The speaker does not decide to give sound to only some people while not others. If people can hear the sound, then they hear the sound. All things are issued to all, but not all can perceive. So whether something is true for all of us is just pure coincidence and means nothing. Popular subjectivity doesn't make it less subjective.


What speaker in what set of circumstances regarding what sounds relating to what human interactions?

We think about the distinction between objective and subjective here in different ways. I need an actual context.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 28680
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:10 pm

phyllo wrote:
If Serendipper believes that his own moral and political values reflect the optimal or the only rational manner in which to resolve conflicting goods [as the Turds of the world do], then, yes, "I" construe him to be an objectivist.
You give it.


"I", "you" give meaning to things like this as existential contraptions in the is/ought world.

I don't have an exact definition.


phyllo wrote:And then you take it away.

Why?

Why not just stick with it?


Note to others...

What on earth am I giving and taking away here? Ask him. Maybe he can explain it better to you. With me he seems to be entangled in one or another measure of hostility.

I think that [increasingly] he knows what is at stake here regarding his own sense of identity.

After all, I've been there myself. Unfortunately, I still am.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 28680
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:15 pm

phyllo wrote:
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect" Mark Twain
Whenever you find yourself alone or on the side of a small minority, it's also time to pause and reflect.


This is typical of the sort of "witty", "pithy" thing that folks will say to impart some general wisdom about the human condition.

But: the majority or minority point of view regarding what human interactions in what set of circumstances?

That's the part where [in my view] "I" comes in.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 28680
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby phyllo » Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:48 pm

What on earth am I giving and taking away here? Ask him. Maybe he can explain it better to you.
You gave a defintion of 'objectivist' ... it's right here : "If Serendipper believes that his own moral and political values reflect the optimal or the only rational manner in which to resolve conflicting goods [as the Turds of the world do], then, yes, "I" construe him to be an objectivist."

Then, literally 3 sentences later, you change your mind ... here : "I don't have an exact definition."

It's not like I'm asking for a set of stone tablets from God. I'm not asking for the one optimum, perfect definition which all rational men and women are obligated to accept ... forever and always.

All I'm asking for is your definition which can be used during the discussion in this thread. Use another definition on another thread if you want.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11011
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:18 pm

phyllo wrote:
What on earth am I giving and taking away here? Ask him. Maybe he can explain it better to you.
You gave a defintion of 'objectivist' ... it's right here : "If Serendipper believes that his own moral and political values reflect the optimal or the only rational manner in which to resolve conflicting goods [as the Turds of the world do], then, yes, "I" construe him to be an objectivist."

Then, literally 3 sentences later, you change your mind ... here : "I don't have an exact definition."


It's not for nothing that lots of folks construe a definition as that which tells us what something is --- what it is definitely.

But I'm not saying that he is by definition an objectivist. I'm noting instead that given the manner in which existentially "I" have come to understand the meaning of this word, "I" believe "in my head" "here and now" that he is one.

Does that distinction register at all with you?

What about others here? Am I making, say, one or another "category mistake"? :wink:

phyllo wrote: It's not like I'm asking for a set of stone tablets from God. I'm not asking for the one optimum, perfect definition which all rational men and women are obligated to accept ... forever and always.

All I'm asking for is your definition which can be used during the discussion in this thread. Use another definition on another thread if you want.


But I don't have a one-size-fits-all-of-us definition of an objectivist. And James S. Saint is no longer around here to give you one.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 28680
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby phyllo » Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:31 pm

It's not for nothing that lots of folks construe a definition as that which tells us what something is --- what it is definitely.

But I'm not saying that he is by definition an objectivist. I'm noting instead that given the manner in which existentially "I" have come to understand the meaning of this word, "I" believe "in my head" "here and now" that he is one.

Does that distinction register at all with you?
I just wrote that I don't expect a "carved in stone", "perfect" or "optimum" definition. I wrote that I just want your definition to be used in this thread.

And you ask me if I "register" the distinction? #-o
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11011
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:59 pm

phyllo wrote:
It's not for nothing that lots of folks construe a definition as that which tells us what something is --- what it is definitely.

But I'm not saying that he is by definition an objectivist. I'm noting instead that given the manner in which existentially "I" have come to understand the meaning of this word, "I" believe "in my head" "here and now" that he is one.

Does that distinction register at all with you?


I just wrote that I don't expect a "carved in stone", "perfect" or "optimum" definition. I wrote that I just want your definition to be used in this thread.

And you ask me if I "register" the distinction? #-o


To paraphrase Mr. Lucas Jackson, "what we have here is an inherent failure to communicate".

I make that distinction between what many construe a definition to be and how I ascribe [existentially] a particular meaning to a particular word in a particular context, and this is the best you can come up with?

My advice: Consult with KT [or have maia consult with turd] and get back to me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 28680
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby phyllo » Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:54 pm

I try to give you plenty of leeway while still making some progress. To no avail.

What do you want to get out of these discussions?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11011
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby Serendipper » Tue Jan 29, 2019 3:21 am

phyllo wrote:
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect" Mark Twain
Whenever you find yourself alone or on the side of a small minority, it's also time to pause and reflect.

The pause and reflection causes one to be in the minority in the first place. That's why reflection is necessary to flee the center of the herd because "what most people know, ain't worth knowing." I think Twain said that too.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby Serendipper » Tue Jan 29, 2019 3:29 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect" Mark Twain

And in that situation it would be good if there was easy access to what the majority does not believe and their arguments for that minority position. And then should you want to change anything, it will help if this information was not so marginalized that the people you discuss this with think it must be utterly mad.

Idk but I read the most downvoted comments first, depending on the topic. New ideas are rarely popular and usually remain so until the composition of the population changes. Who said "all truths start as blasphemies"? GB Shaw?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby Serendipper » Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:34 am

iambiguous wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Indeed, the brains of aliens on other planets may be considerably more advanced than our own. What's their take on it?

Their take would be subject to their understanding.


Okay, but like us what they understand to be true in their brain/mind is one thing, demonstrating why all other brains/minds are obligated to believe it in turn another thing altogether.

You're overcomplicating it. What's true for everyone is a subjective interpretation of everyone that just coincidentally happens to coincide. What applies to everyone or if everyone happens to perceive the same thing, the fact that everyone is implicated has no significance. The number of people who see it does not define objectivity; it's not a variable in the equation.

I would assume that to be the case for all conscious entities.

Yes. If god can take an objective view because he is outside the universe, then how can he take a view without connecting with the universe in some way? And whatever view he can take would be subject to that connection. Will it be in terms of EM radiation? Or some special spiritual continuum? Anyway, the objectivity is the same as omnipresence and omniscience which we disproved in other threads. The only way to take an objective view is to be everywhere and know everything.

In the interim there appear to be things that are true for all of us. Those things and those relationships that encompass the either/or world. Taking into account Hume's distinction between correlation and cause and effect. And taking into account all of those "metaphysical" contraptions like sim worlds, dreams, solipsism and matrixes.


Serendipper wrote: What's true for all of us is coincidentally true for all of us; not that things that are true for all of us has more meaning or importance than things that are only true for some of us. The fact that something is true for all of us means nothing.


What is the technology that we use to exchange these posts but an example of something -- physical relationships -- that is true for all of us? The laws of matter, mathematical proofs, phenomenal interactions.

Sure, in a No God world, "I" would appear to exist in an essentially meaningless universe that ends in oblivion. But, existentially, meaning abounds. At least in particular contexts understood from particular points of view.

But we have no way in which to demonstrate that this is in fact true objectively for all of us. You merely assert it to be so --- as though the assertion itself is all that is necessary.

Sure, I assert it and if you're a subject adherent to logic then you will see it exists, and if you're not, then I'm asserting nonsense. Every assertion has conditions it is subject to.

Serendipper wrote: The speaker gives sound to anyone who can hear it. The speaker does not decide to give sound to only some people while not others. If people can hear the sound, then they hear the sound. All things are issued to all, but not all can perceive. So whether something is true for all of us is just pure coincidence and means nothing. Popular subjectivity doesn't make it less subjective.


What speaker in what set of circumstances regarding what sounds relating to what human interactions?

Idk, why does that matter? The idea is the sound travels in all directions. No need to get technical and account for standing waves and cancellation. The point is sound is issued to everyone, but does not exist to everyone.

We think about the distinction between objective and subjective here in different ways. I need an actual context.

Well, what is subjectivity a statement of? Observation, right? So what is objectivity except it also be a statement about observation, right? So what is doing the observation? It can't be the object because that would make the object just another subject, so there is something different about the object in this juxtaposition: there is no subject and there is no observer, so objectivity is a statement about what is observed without observers.

"Application to everyone" is not a statement about observation, unless it be the assertion that observation from all possible viewpoints would have the same view, which would require omnipresence and omniscience to verify.

"What everyone sees" is a statement about observation, but what everyone sees is just a collection of subjective interpretations that may or may not coincide, and if they do, it means nothing.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:06 am

Serendipper wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect" Mark Twain

And in that situation it would be good if there was easy access to what the majority does not believe and their arguments for that minority position. And then should you want to change anything, it will help if this information was not so marginalized that the people you discuss this with think it must be utterly mad.

Idk but I read the most downvoted comments first, depending on the topic. New ideas are rarely popular and usually remain so until the composition of the population changes. Who said "all truths start as blasphemies"? GB Shaw?
That's great, you do. One guy. And you have arrived, also, at a conclusion about global warming that would make the vast majority of the educated classes look down on you for. They'd likely suspect you of being sexist, right wing, racist and more just on the basis of it. You personally don't care, because you think it will work out anyway with good consequences. But what you are saying in general is that marginalized ideas being marginalized doesn't matter. But it does in those instances or long term patterns where people believing the wrong thing in general leads to problems. And that will often be the case with believing the wrong things. Automatic marginalizing reduces feedback on problems. Things that have little merit still have to run the gauntlet of the educated classes. But at least there is a chance that those with merit will get seen by a core.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby Serendipper » Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:36 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:That's great, you do. One guy.

Yep, the one you're talking to :) I concede you make good points. I stubbornly refuse to appear stubborn ;)

And you have arrived, also, at a conclusion about global warming that would make the vast majority of the educated classes look down on you for.

I honestly don't think they would. I think they would see my objections as valid, but not consistent with popular opinion, so their hands are tied. It's a mutual respect kinda thing. That's my impression from arguing with some bright guys at the liberalforums. Nobody called me stupid, but they couldn't get their head around how I could reject so much consensus.

The co2 concentration is 0.04%. If we double it, it's still insignificant. Is co2 a better insulator than wool? Do you think an extra 0.04% wool is going to keep you perceptibly warmer? How about a few strands of fiber glass between you and a fire? Nevermind the fact that plants will gobble up any excess, and if excess prevails, it's because animals are thriving beyond the capacity of plants to keep up. CO2 always lags temperature because heat causes animal activity. All the greatest achievements of man happened in warm periods. CO2 is the effect of heat and not the cause, even though it's a frequency dependent EM radiation filter, like a capacitor is to electricity, which defines it as an insulator, but not the best one and extremely dilute. I think stronger arguments can be made for the existence of god.

Next they'll propose the snowball effect. Then it's no longer an argument about 0.04% being significant, but that once a line is crossed, co2 goes to infinity and the world ends.... apparently. Obviously this isn't true since co2 is lower today than in the past at various points, so the level can come down all by itself.

From here they resort to appealing to authority and popularity and it's a stalemate.

But the only reason co2 is correlated to heat is because heat is correlated to animal activity. It's an effect and not a cause. Like a gas gauge is an effect of the fuel level and not the cause. Also, cholesterol is an effect of atherosclerosis and not the cause. Correlations cannot determine which correlated things causes the other.

You personally don't care, because you think it will work out anyway with good consequences.

Yes and sometimes I wonder if it is a conspiracy to hurry the transition to solar energy for the ultimate benefit of mankind, but I haven't decided if such a thing could be orchestrated or even if they're smart enough to see it. But whatever, I like electric cars and wish my atvs could be electric, but battery technology has not kept up with everything else because there was no profit in it. Well, thanks to the government, now there is.

So it's bullshit propagated for the greater good like telling a kid santa claus is watching... or god is. Whether or not "they" know it's bullshit is beyond me.

But what you are saying in general is that marginalized ideas being marginalized doesn't matter. But it does in those instances or long term patterns where people believing the wrong thing in general leads to problems. And that will often be the case with believing the wrong things. Automatic marginalizing reduces feedback on problems.

What bad can result from marginalizing climate change skepticism?

Things that have little merit still have to run the gauntlet of the educated classes. But at least there is a chance that those with merit will get seen by a core.

If not for Max Planck, Einstein may not have ever been noticed. Whew, that was a close one lol
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:47 am

Serendipper wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:That's great, you do. One guy.

Yep, the one you're talking to :) I concede you make good points.
In a certain sense, that's all I ask for. I mean, I respond to people because by responding I find out what I believe OR what I might believe. I see what happens. I think I tend to make decent points - iow not idiotic ones, sometimes unique - but I am hardly expecting to change people's minds (much anyway).
I stubbornly refuse to appear stubborn ;)
Good luck controlling how you appear. I find I am much poorer at appearing how I want than I'd prefer.

I honestly don't think they would.
But they do.
I think they would see my objections as valid,
But they don't see your objections. And if they did, they might not be able to counter your points, but good luck getting anyone to notice that, let alone admit it.

but not consistent with popular opinion, so their hands are tied. It's a mutual respect kinda thing. That's my impression from arguing with some bright guys at the liberalforums. Nobody called me stupid, but they couldn't get their head around how I could reject so much consensus.
Right. They can't get their heads around it. I am not worried about you. I am not saying they will look down on you, so it's poor you. You obviously have tremendous patience with poeple not getting what you are saying and not admitting things. More than I do. Well, I might be selling myself short. I used to have more patience, so there are long term effects.

I am more concerned, in this particular discussion, with the inability of the meme to travel. So it's not Serendipper's unpleasant reception by the educated classes, it's their imperviousness. Because the idea is so marginalized. Because so few others who might, on their own, investigate some marginal idea, will now have to dig deeper - and will also have more cognitive dissonence to plough through.

The co2 concentration is 0.04%. If we double it, it's still insignificant. Is co2 a better insulator than wool? Do you think an extra 0.04% wool is going to keep you perceptibly warmer? How about a few strands of fiber glass between you and a fire? Nevermind the fact that plants will gobble up any excess, and if excess prevails, it's because animals are thriving beyond the capacity of plants to keep up. CO2 always lags temperature because heat causes animal activity. All the greatest achievements of man happened in warm periods. CO2 is the effect of heat and not the cause, even though it's a frequency dependent EM radiation filter, like a capacitor is to electricity, which defines it as an insulator, but not the best one and extremely dilute. I think stronger arguments can be made for the existence of god.

Next they'll propose the snowball effect. Then it's no longer an argument about 0.04% being significant, but that once a line is crossed, co2 goes to infinity and the world ends.... apparently. Obviously this isn't true since co2 is lower today than in the past at various points, so the level can come down all by itself.

From here they resort to appealing to authority and popularity and it's a stalemate.

But the only reason co2 is correlated to heat is because heat is correlated to animal activity. It's an effect and not a cause. Like a gas gauge is an effect of the fuel level and not the cause. Also, cholesterol is an effect of atherosclerosis and not the cause. Correlations cannot determine which correlated things causes the other.
I won't get into the climate thing with you. I think I have not dug down in it because I am less worried about the outcome of the mainstream consensus.


But what you are saying in general is that marginalized ideas being marginalized doesn't matter. But it does in those instances or long term patterns where people believing the wrong thing in general leads to problems. And that will often be the case with believing the wrong things. Automatic marginalizing reduces feedback on problems.

What bad can result from marginalizing climate change skepticism?
Again, my not clearly presented point was: in this case you are calm because you think the lie is either noble or will lead to good things anyway. Other dominant lies are unlikely to have positive consquences. And then there's the indirect effects of the habit of marginalizing valid criticism, even with global warmed where in the specific it may lead to good things, but in generaly we are creating more rage, more distrust, more habits of obfuscation, etc.

If not for Max Planck, Einstein may not have ever been noticed. Whew, that was a close one lol
Right. There are close ones. Once you challenge paradigmatic habits, you are in for a battle. I don't want corporations -expecially ones with close ties to the military-industrial complex - making decisions about what ideas should be marginalized, per se.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby phyllo » Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:40 pm

:confusion-questionmarks: :confusion-scratchheadblue:
Climate change? Are you two in the wrong thread??
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11011
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:32 pm

phyllo wrote::confusion-questionmarks: :confusion-scratchheadblue:
Climate change? Are you two in the wrong thread??
The thread is about looking for Turd. He's a pretty wide ranging poster. I'd say we're as close as most people to the topic. Though I will say, I was a more general level then Serendipper.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:25 pm

phyllo wrote: I try to give you plenty of leeway while still making some progress. To no avail.



Cite a few example of this. Such that we can all agree on that which constitutes "leeway" and "progress".

phyllo wrote:What do you want to get out of these discussions?


Haven't I made that abundantly clear time and again?

Generally, I am interested in exploring the philosophical parameters embedded in posing and then in answering the question, "how ought one to live?"

More specifically, I am interested in the manner in which others confront their own sense of self -- "I" -- at the intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. In a particular context involving particular value judgments in dispute.

And of late I have become increasingly more interested in determinism. And that profoundly problematic gap between "I" "here and now" and all that can possibly be known about existence itself.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 28680
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby Serendipper » Wed Jan 30, 2019 1:06 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
What bad can result from marginalizing climate change skepticism?
Again, my not clearly presented point was: in this case you are calm because you think the lie is either noble or will lead to good things anyway. Other dominant lies are unlikely to have positive consquences. And then there's the indirect effects of the habit of marginalizing valid criticism, even with global warmed where in the specific it may lead to good things, but in generaly we are creating more rage, more distrust, more habits of obfuscation, etc.

Perhaps the cholesterol myth is a better example of a dominant lie with negative consequences, but uneducated masses aren't fighting that one because when a liberal doctor tells them they need a pill to reduce cholesterol, suddenly they're not so arrogant in protest anymore. Funny how "common sense" only applies when other people's lives are at stake.

Climatology is common sense.
Physics is common sense.
Economics is common sense.

But medicine? Oh no, that's not common sense, we have to listen to the government on that.

Climate change has valid criticism that is marginalized, but with positive consequences, yet the uneducated masses protest.
Cholesterol myth has valid criticism that is marginalized, but with negative consequences, yet the uneducated masses do not protest.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:46 am

Serendipper wrote:Perhaps the cholesterol myth is a better example of a dominant lie with negative consequences, but uneducated masses aren't fighting that one because when a liberal doctor tells them they need a pill to reduce cholesterol, suddenly they're not so arrogant in protest anymore. Funny how "common sense" only applies when other people's lives are at stake.
Actually I would think many conservatives do go against their doctors - sometimes rationalizing their habits which they cannot change, but also sometimes with arguments like 'everyday they tell us in the newspapers that X is bad for our health. They keep changing their minds. I am going to eat what I love.' A few adding things like 'my grandparents lived to be 93 and they ate....' I also see gut conservative reactions to hospitals as dangerous places - which is true, though what heuristic to guide one when to avoid and when to go there is a tough one to produce, I think.

Climatology is common sense.
Physics is common sense.
Economics is common sense.

But medicine? Oh no, that's not common sense, we have to listen to the government on that.
Honestly, we must run up against different groups of conservatives. If we are comparing liberals and conservatives, I would say conservatives are more likely to go against consensus medical advice. This gets even stronger as we get to the margins, but then at the margins of liberals, you also get the lefy alt. medicince crowd.

Climate change has valid criticism that is marginalized, but with positive consequences, yet the uneducated masses protest.
Cholesterol myth has valid criticism that is marginalized, but with negative consequences, yet the uneducated masses do not protest.
They have more control of the latter. They can avoid this or that doctor. They can go to mcdonalds or even eat better cholesteral foods. It is individualized advice aimed at individual end users. The former will lead to policies. But people do focus on things in inconsistant ways.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby Serendipper » Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:06 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:If we are comparing liberals and conservatives, I would say conservatives are more likely to go against consensus medical advice. This gets even stronger as we get to the margins, but then at the margins of liberals, you also get the lefy alt. medicince crowd.

Idk,,, conservative states get the most prescriptions.

Here's antibiotics https://www.physiciansweekly.com/antibi ... fographic/

Pain killers https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... tion-rates

Of course, they're sicklier states too, but anyway they don't seem to be going against their doctors.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby Mr Reasonable » Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:06 am

Look at how cold it is outside. Global warming is a Chinese hoax intended to stifle US manufacturing.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25848
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:23 am

Serendipper wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:If we are comparing liberals and conservatives, I would say conservatives are more likely to go against consensus medical advice. This gets even stronger as we get to the margins, but then at the margins of liberals, you also get the lefy alt. medicince crowd.

Idk,,, conservative states get the most prescriptions.

Here's antibiotics https://www.physiciansweekly.com/antibi ... fographic/

Pain killers https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... tion-rates

Of course, they're sicklier states too, but anyway they don't seem to be going against their doctors.
Glad you brought up the obvious correlation. Most people listen to doctors. Most people want magic bullets. They don't wait to change their habits. Alternative medicine takes to long and they're brainwashed to think only patented chemicals are effective. And, yes, they are sicker, so if most of any group uses medications from doctors, then they will have take more prescriptions.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby iambiguous » Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:17 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Okay, but like us what [the aliens] understand to be true in their brain/mind is one thing, demonstrating why all other brains/minds are obligated to believe it in turn another thing altogether.


Serendipper wrote:You're overcomplicating it. What's true for everyone is a subjective interpretation of everyone that just coincidentally happens to coincide. What applies to everyone or if everyone happens to perceive the same thing, the fact that everyone is implicated has no significance. The number of people who see it does not define objectivity; it's not a variable in the equation.


When science and philosophy finally pin down the precise relationship between mind and body, then we will know when something any of us might propose here is overcomplicated or oversimplified.

And, unitl then, an assessment such as this is just one more "general description"/"intellectual contraption" to me.

What on earth are you telling us here in regard to actual human interactions?

What is the technology that we use to exchange these posts but an example of something -- physical relationships -- that is true for all of us? The laws of matter, mathematical proofs, phenomenal interactions.

Sure, in a No God world, "I" would appear to exist in an essentially meaningless universe that ends in oblivion. But, existentially, meaning abounds. At least in particular contexts understood from particular points of view.

But we have no way in which to demonstrate that this is in fact true objectively for all of us. You merely assert it to be so --- as though the assertion itself is all that is necessary.


Serendipper wrote:Sure, I assert it and if you're a subject adherent to logic then you will see it exists, and if you're not, then I'm asserting nonsense. Every assertion has conditions it is subject to.


That's my point too. Every assertion is embedded in a context. What can logic, a sound epistemology, and rational thought tell us about this context? I merely make that distinction between factual [and seeming objective] interactions in the either/or world and personal [and seeming subjective/subjunctive] judgments in the is/ought world.

Serendipper wrote: The speaker gives sound to anyone who can hear it. The speaker does not decide to give sound to only some people while not others. If people can hear the sound, then they hear the sound. All things are issued to all, but not all can perceive. So whether something is true for all of us is just pure coincidence and means nothing. Popular subjectivity doesn't make it less subjective.


What speaker in what set of circumstances regarding what sounds relating to what human interactions?


Serendipper wrote:Idk, why does that matter? The idea is the sound travels in all directions. No need to get technical and account for standing waves and cancellation. The point is sound is issued to everyone, but does not exist to everyone.


Again, it's not sound per se that intrigues me, but sounds that are heard by everyone/anyone in any particular context and reacted to in very different ways. Sounds that revolve around human speech for example. We can all listen in on Trump sounding off about the need for a wall on the Mexican border.

Is there a way that these sounds/words ought to be understood by all rational men and women?

When the turdman was here, he certainly seemed to think so.

We think about the distinction between objective and subjective here in different ways. I need an actual context.


Serendipper wrote:Well, what is subjectivity a statement of? Observation, right? So what is objectivity except it also be a statement about observation, right? So what is doing the observation? It can't be the object because that would make the object just another subject, so there is something different about the object in this juxtaposition: there is no subject and there is no observer, so objectivity is a statement about what is observed without observers.

"Application to everyone" is not a statement about observation, unless it be the assertion that observation from all possible viewpoints would have the same view, which would require omnipresence and omniscience to verify.

"What everyone sees" is a statement about observation, but what everyone sees is just a collection of subjective interpretations that may or may not coincide, and if they do, it means nothing.


Actually, this is not at all what I meant by a context. This is just another intellectual contraption.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 28680
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Looking four lost Turd

Postby barbarianhorde » Sat Feb 02, 2019 12:31 am

Maia wrote:[I've received this from "Turd" dated 15 January.]

I’m not dead, and even sent surreptitious75 a email over at the other forum warning him that I was being stalked. I thought it had to do with the hostages I found in Afghanistan at first from this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=192071&hilit=Boyle+Kurram.

I’ve since come to the conclusion it was only just a very dedicated local stalker who saw me on Instagram and did a absurd amount of background research on me. I never been to Africa, but did advise some technical issues involving a liquid tilt telescope to some boers in Angola, but they messed it up when they mixed Gallium (reflective liquid used as a mirror) with aluminum piping, which caused their telescope to literally melt. I thought they would use copper or plastic piping like everyone else, but live and learn. I have known several women over the years from China, be it Dalian, Hong Kong and Inner Mongolia. Never ever wanted to move to Shen Zhen. That place borders Hong Kong and is extremely corrupt, and to be honest, I just seriously doubt I could make it there, and the motivation just isn’t there. The Hong Kong girl is a rich socialite who offered me a job, but I’d be a white monkey, and seriously considered she posted that to fuck with me, but she just isn’t the type to research it that far. Some of that stuff in that post is just absolutely made up, other like my hand being bite by a hyena is true, but that was a small incident that happened back in my army days and I never mentioned it online and can’t find it mentioned online. So was crossed between thinking it was a spy for someone till I met the stalker and eventually convinced her I was really quite unimpressive. Took a lot of effort too, cause she still followed my first then second Instagram account, but eventually she left me alone. Just was creepy as hell with her figuring out my schedule and bumping into me. I no longer have a active account, and am back to clipping my toe nails, and am silently stalking terrorists online again. Didn’t for the longest time, and not just cause of stalker girl, that thread where I found Joshua Boyle causes a massive political meltdown with the right in Canada. Sucks being the guy who started something for good reasons and then see public opinion morph into absurdities on both sides. I’ve largely just been silently working otherwise on my projects. I’m almost done building a solar bicycle camper, hope to turn it into a plastic and welding station here soon, already have my 3-D printer for it, will add a Zinc melter to it in the spring. I’ve also been doing thermography, as well as Infared photography. Worked on a few ancient texts, found a Pre-Platonic Socratic dialogue that Plato plagerized from, as well as slow readings into Assyrian science and my never ending task of piecing together the Persian Royal Archives from histories preserved in the west. Also made a handful of psychological breakthroughs.

I’m really not needed on ILovePhilosophy because a very strange phenomena has occurred. For the damnest of reasons Fixed Cross started increasingly adopting many of my ideas and even outright wording I’ve used central to his own. I did some searches and it keeps popping up. Only explanation I can come up with is he thinks the nobility and upper classes bend over and adopt the beliefs and cultures of others, and I told him it wasn’t the duty of a noble to bend over and take it for the changing vagaries of culture and sentiment (the essence of what I said, not my words). I find it bizarre how he as a Egoist, Nihilist, Nietzschean Non-Dualist who uses crypto-Nazi ideologies will go out of his way to harvest my ideas when I am not a Egoist, don’t think Nigilism is even a real thing, not a nietzschean, and have been very much opposed to Non-Duality longer than he or Sauwelios even knew it existed. Non-Duality and Egoism are inherently contradictory belief systems, they simply put can’t be made to work together without systemic contradictions popping up. Of course, heavy drug use help blocks this logical realization. To them it is all sign and signal, the persona is the self and instincts come from Freudian realms that Freud really just took from Nietzsche. It is the emphasis first on language, from language you can ask silly Cartesian questions like “Who Am I” and stare at your hand when high as a kite wiggling it in front of you, and live largely divorced from the reality of the world. Why they are obsessed with drug use, you don’t have to go in-depth accurately studying yourself in your surroundings, forming synergistic strategies for survival. You just use drugs that increase the magnitude of a mental state devoid of the underlining purposes inherent in that state. Fear without cause doesn’t make one superior at avoiding and adapting to danger, elation from a pill doesn’t reward the hard learned task or effort involved in advantageous discovery, in knowing a real thing really is good for you or your community. They just pop a few pills, get high, and think they conquered the mind and philosophy. Never occurred to them that most of the mind involved in observational analysis and abstract synthesis doesn’t use ego or language. Why I so often mocked the professor Satre, why I mocked Zoots, it was largely meaningless word games. Word games don’t free the hostage. Word games don’t create the invention. They don’t carry the trial and tribulation. The senses of self we have come and go in these states, as well as our appreciation for ourselves emotionally and that of others. I largely look at Nietzscheans as idiot retards fast seeking a dead end, all too often intentionally. In the case of Fixed Cross, he seems he’ll bent on adopting a closeted Nazi ideology so he can make it safe for his Jewish idenity he insists on having. He only does this because he must really hate himself, he seeks out those who obviously must want him dead as his fellows.... that deSade libertine desire to be fatalistically betrayed by your compatriot in evil, a maschosism that exists between insisting on a sense of self largely ideologically and at best loosely historically constructed, and logical syllogisms that seek to balance out and avoid paradox, but they never really do if you are honest and assert truth. So I really don’t get Fixed Cross’s fascination with adopting my ideas. I am a classic INTJ who much like Nietzsche wouldn’t hesitate to destroy any sense of self I might have in order to survive a inevitable traumatic defeat or tragic end, I would and have become someone else in character. It is part survival and part growth, and is a trial of clashing psychology with a inner sense of being, of saying I can’t be this personality thinking in this way anymore. But I still survive and carry on. I hate or love aspects but the whole of my being continued on. My sense of threat and continuation, unity of soul- however transfixed and traumatized it is carried on, causality and history does. I only smash constructs and the mind and associations attached to them. In Fixed Cross’s Egoist Non-Duality he can’t. He is make believe, the only thing holding him just above the abyss of nihilism, he is the self, that is all that is, and it acts like a little homoculmus- a little man inside the head, controlling the brain, synchronizing it with reality reactively as well as assertively, in some silly Will To Power paradox. It of course doesn’t match up remotely with the psychology and neurology of mind as we know it, but whatever. That is his thing. Non-Duality is his world, mine is a mind made up of divided feedback loops in the mind that when cascaded together make consciousness, reactive to reality, and I don’t resort to some infernal 19th century Prussian grasp of physics to explain it. I can live quite well as a skeptic not really knowing what a atom really is, or the universe, or the precise nature of god or self. I’ve accepted unknowns must exist by the nature of our mental constructs, and revel in it. What is odd is even Nietzsche graspedat times Non-Dualism wasn’t possible, he would mock Immanuel Kant for his naturalist idealism in seeing wonderous beauty in the stars, contemplating the insides of stars. Nietzsche chose the route of a dick in describing the opposite. Nietzsche likewise widely abandoned his WTP theory, wasn’t ever going to overcome the Stoic Criticisms of Aristotle’s categories and suspect he knew this. He even developed a theory of anatomical egoism that absolutely constraints Non Duality, and you can’t really be both a Dualist (anatomy) and Non-Dualist (perception is all that is, the whole of reality). Heck, dumb dumb Fixed Cross even insisted he asserted morality based on physics of a whole solar system, galaxy far away from the here and now. I myself coming from a Romano-Christian world view scratches my head, we see god as separated from the universe but our needs and morality built up from the universe (it is always a corrupted morality and ethics) and we either go off what we know revealed from God or we go off senses and reasoning within a limited grasping understanding of the immediate world. For example, being strategic in my focus of things, I don’t begin to presume god approves of my saying “person X must die or war Y is just and must be fought” cause God isn’t within our system, but I am. I’m advocating it for the best of a messy situation, hoping for historical progress that allows for better tactics, principles and strategic insights over time. Building a kingdom of heaven on earth, one inherently flawed and doomed. Space and Time for this earthly kingdom is bound purely by nature. God and Devil can play havoc on it, more and no less than others, but I don’t insist my morality comes from the solar system or galaxy. It is a construct built up over thousands of years that is concepts flung against pure psychological reaction to stimuli of a scared populace trying to survive. I can care less what the stars say to my fate, as I’m uncertain of the web of forces that link us. I’m no lover of astrology, far too immature and inaccurate of a science. I just know causality exists, and historically enough situations when applied under certain complex circumstances results in this or that scenario unfolding, and try to max the advantage while slowing or eliminating the threatening or dangerous aspects away. It isn’t that I am not curious how the universe works- wouldn’t work on experimental telescopes and microscopes if I didn’t have curiosity, but I would never base my morality on it, I go off results and try to feel out Gods reaction, if he has any, or past intentions.

Other than being perplexed why Fixed Cross would go so far and adopt so much of my ideas, without understanding on his part, I see little on the forum. People debating about debt, blah. I am astounded by how little awareness this site has of economics or geopolitics. Mostly the same people saying the same things, and I mostly can care less about rereading them. Half of them are Nazis and could really care less for them as a result, they have miserable lives because of their own choices, not that of others they scapegoat. If you can tell that Jared guy from subway, what is his name.... Mr Reasonable I was backing The Prohibition Party not Republicans or Democrats. I’ve been thinking about joining them, outside of banning drinking and drugs they have some policies well left of center but I am also in general opposed to parties. Worst, they will likely insist I run for office including someday president since they have so few active members despite a massive trust endowed for that from the 19th century and I just don’t want to do that. What I am doing now is far more than I can handle, so don’t need that silliness added on. I’m also tracking down some others to break the Haqanni Network. This goes back to the point with regards to Fixed Cross- I did a search for my name and he was attacking me for being boisterous and without pride, so not a real person. Nobody from my old unit is even aware I’ve been waging this war on the level of presidents and prime ministers, even though it has to do with what culturally people would say is kyunits honor for losing Bergdahl to them (a guy from my old unit 1-501st). Honor only works when you have social recognition for it, and nobody who would want to know from them is even aware it is happening. Closest historical phenomena is a Roman finding his legions lost eagle, and in his eyes that he paganism or done crap, but I don’t do it because of the eagle complex (let’s call it that) or extroverted sense of honor effecting self, but rather the impersonal need to abrogate the negative effects of a bad executive (Obama) has on this unit, which coincidentally I was a member of. I act for them cause I have a intimate depth of knowledge of them, a familiarity, but it isn’t to the point of being a sense of self association, but rather a delicate realization of the need to keep future armies and enemies from pinpointing this demoralizing and nasty psychological effect on future units morale in taking and displaying hostages. Had I much higher rank and greater awareness of other units would of been the same calculation and motivation on my part. No honor, no triumph, but I am the more real for it, for I actually functionally succeeded in figuring it out and bringing home the positive result. In Fixed Crosses case, he has pride in himself and his ego, but is utterly and absolutely divorced from reality and says stuff like he had a plan to liberate Venezuela but failed. Of what fucking use is this pride and ego? Men like me don’t get the triumphs, the generals do, but it is we who ensure the sun will rise tomorrow. It is thankless and yet absolutely essential, utterly Machiavellian yet definitely not Nietzschean. Most of my life’s deeds will go unnoticed, hopefully most are for the better. Some of my worst enemies have derived benifit. That isn’t possible through just egoism. Other aspects of mind must assert themselves in a way a Nietzschean neve could accept. Guilt and Shame are necessary for creativity when we speak of “Necessity is the mother of all invention” but never in a million years would they contemplate how this is. Satre came the closest in accepting the blame for the world war, but he never organized his consciousness enough to stop it, or change it or later wars. Marcuse tried but failed in guilt seeing Vietnam erupt from his WW2 influence in America in designing our defense intelligence network and future CIA, but he never could solve it. It constitutionally is beyond them as a people to examine and change in this area, they try desperately to kill this crucial aspect of mind. Fixed Cross quotes me without realizing the ideology of contradictions.

Anyway, I gotta sleep, long day tomorrow. I can’t post on that site, can you post this in that thread and emphasize I warned S57 that the thread wasn’t true? I rarely check this email anymore. Oh, tell Trixie good job on not chopping his balls off.

[I wrote back to ask if he meant me to post the whole thing, and he replied as follows.]

Well, I counter empiricism with unknowing. The concept of unknowing has a long history, and is both Christian and Pagan, even a Middle English text/translation exists called “The Cloud of Unknowing”. I’m not too perturbed by the Telelogical and Ontological divide, if you remember that’s exactly why I took lock picking up. When you start with a locked lock, you presume it can be opened and don’t accept the idea that the quality of it’s outer form is the entirety of it’s being, you know a larger function exists and that it can be unlocked, but the how is a complex mathematical puzzle. I required me to lose my primary sense in forming a reality of things, sight and instead use haptic sensing and build presumptions from that. Now.... imagine any object is a lock in the sense of a puzzle to be solved, but not to any one end alone that you insist on defining it— a lock is a definite category and presumption, but any object can be many things at once. It isn’t infinitely possible what anything can be even under the best science, but things can be quite a many things if used or transfigured into a new use or form. I just don’t pretend to know this, but I can accept the mysticism of not knowing and presuming with the combination of other mental functions that sorta do know some things, like my sight can be clueless but haptic and tactile ability can know, experience and mathematical and mechanical presumptions can know. I might not know how exactly to pick a lock before it is unpicked, but know it likely can, but never certain it can be. Some locks are so degraded or paradoxically created they can’t be opened, and lock pickers can spend years fiddling with something that looks like a lock but isn’t. That’s why I support Sun Tzu’s concept of mixing empirical and sensory information with formlessness, the ability to conceive where the mind can’t really know, but algorithmically you can get a educated guess on the edges of facts. You gain a gut instinct and a theory of mind and conduct of the other. But Niether I or Sun Tzu would blantantly put morality in the hands of god (god can’t command morality, that’s a human mental function navigating behaviors within the friction of life, don’t know why the nietzscheans insist this is the case, the ten commandants were laws to follow but not the administration of the rules, morality is the mental state, ethics is the system of application) or claim it comes from the soil or deterministic conditions. Determinism does exist, but it isn’t always knowable on a sentient level of awareness, and our systems of ethics and warfare often times already have the ability to adjust for these frictions without us knowing, whereas other times is doesn’t. That’s why it takes a combination of genius and constant examination to implement, as well as to continue or know when to discontinue methods of living and government. It does nothing to point at the solar system or galaxy and say that is what I worship, or that is what I derive my morality from, because we know very little of it. That requires effort and thinking, and not just popping drugs and quoting Nietzsche or more annoyingly as Fixed Cross is doing, me. Trying to assert you are a artistic creator and what you imagine or limit the sensory world to us all that there is, That’s in essence is non-duality, taking the visual whole for all that is, is idiotic in the extreme. I think in time guys like Zizek will adopt Non-Duality as the paradigm used in the rhetoric of modern non dualists take from the media like movies, the whole of psychology can be for them expressed in a scene specific selected anthology of rather perverted movies- and that gives them a world view. They are slowly leaning that direction, and don’t realize how traumatic their philosophy will collapse once that is achieved. Zizek still is a Dualist, given his Freudian and lacanian insistance on the divisions of the brain, but I suspect in time he Nietzscheans who support the Non-Dualist thought in Nietzsche will win out in their arguments and that will end it for them. Not many outside of psychology and the other medical sciences will bother to defend Nietzsche’s dualist insights. I don’t think Nietzsche knew how to mix the two philosophies, he knew at least two indologists who randomly explained concepts from India to him and don’t think he grasped the actual divide so was all over the place. ILP is dominated now by the non-dualists, so see very little hope for a new insight into how fuck up they become to arise amongst them, when all they do is preach to the choir.

Yeah, post that but also post this. I lost a pound and a half today and a pound yesterday, my fat inhibitor seems to be working, took me forever to figure it out. Have a good day, sorry about May staying your prime minister.



This is totally amazing. The philosophy of Fixed Cross really did a number on this dude. That is power. But FC loves girls and squirrels.

I hope Turd is safe and sound in Shenzeng living the life of four men.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users