The End of Firefox

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

Oohoho laugh! Heheheee It's so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ishfetheth noighol dnyal sognothet!

Laugh. Laugh until you cry.

You do amuse me, but professionaly

 

[LucyJr]

Don't you think this is a description of yourself?

Nope

 

[Matt3737]

Nope

This coming from Mr. Morality is objective and not subjective.

 

[LucyJr]

This coming from Mr. Morality is objective and not subjective.

Again you???

 

[LucyJr]

This coming from Mr. Morality is objective and not subjective.

This is comming from "Mr. posting from the air (usually bad bombs) and running!"

 

[Matt3737]

This is comming from "Mr. posting from the air (usually bad bombs) and running!"

There is no point in wasting my time and energy on someone who can't admit to errors of facts much less opinion, so I tend to pop in with factual information like so:

Splitting (also called all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism used by many people. The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual's actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground.)

 

[say what]

Nope

As [MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION] pointed out, you know that objective morality is a dichotomous construct. There is ONE truth, and everything else is wrong. Because you believe in objective morality, you are therefore saying you are this description:

...you have only two lenses, kind of like binary stuffs: conformity vs lack of conformity...

It's not wrong, but to put down others who have this thinking, is to put down your own line of thinking/reasoning.

If you want people to go beyond dyadic thinking, yet you, yourself, think subjective morality and various perspectives are wrong- you're just contradicting yourself. It's okay to have blatant "wrong/right" opinions on certain subjects, but the value of your conviction is stronger if you attend to a specific style of reasoning - that being objective or subjective.

 

[LucyJr]

There is no point in wasting my time and energy on someone who can't admit to errors of facts much less opinion, so I tend to pop in with factual information like so:

Really? I can admity my errors, but when I ask you to explain them, you have a interesting tendency to never answer back.
You say that the illogical affirmation that God is the author of evil by creating free will, is contradicted by Gode's theory.
And I asked you nicely to explain how it is so, because I think Godel's theory might reffer only in maths and abstract propositions.
But you never aswered me. And this is not the first time you're doing so.

Splitting (also called all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism used by many people. The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual's actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground.)

From where are you guys come up with things like this? What is this, some kind of psychological distress? Its so funny. Why would I believe in the concept of "splitting"?

Just so you know, I know some guys on forums who use all the time tricky stuffs like this. In my opinion, they don't ever know what they are saying!

Instead of inventing imaginary psychological or mental problems, you'll do alot more if you clearly eplain your point of view, and why it is correct.

 

[say what]

Really? I can admity my errors, but when I ask you to explain them, you have a interesting tendency to never answer back.
You say that the illogical affirmation that God is the author of evil by creating free will, is contradicted by Gode's theory.
And I asked you nicely to explain how it is so, because I think Godel's theory might reffer only in maths and abstract propositions.
But you never aswered me. And this is not the first time you're doing so.


From where are you guys come up with things like this? What is this, some kind of psychological distress? Its so funny. Why would I believe in the concept of "splitting"?

Just so you know, I know some guys on forums who use all the time tricky stuffs like this. In my opinion, they don't ever know what they are saying!

Instead of inventing imaginary psychological or mental problems, you'll do alot more if you clearly eplain your point of view, and why it is correct.

One's perspective is no more correct than another's.

Stop trying to prove other's are wrong, and support your own opinion.

 

[sprinkles]

One's perspective is no more correct than another's.

Stop trying to prove other's are wrong, and support your own opinion.

If it can't understand a basic statistical principle - such as rejecting one aspect of a given boundary making it more likely to reject connected 'children' of that boundary, in the same way that Qiu Jin was a feminist who not only fought to end oppression of Chinese women, she also in relation to that went as far as to dress like a man, play with swords, and ride horses because she simply didn't give a damn, that the more strident a view is the more likely one is to reject all the other things that could be related to it, then that thing is hopeless.

You should ignore it. It is already dead.

 

[LucyJr]

As [MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION] pointed out, you know that objective morality is a dichotomous construct. There is ONE truth, and everything else is wrong. Because you believe in objective morality, you are therefore saying you are this description:



It's not wrong, but to put down others who have this thinking, is to put down your own line of thinking/reasoning.

If you want people to go beyond dyadic thinking, yet you, yourself, think subjective morality and various perspectives are wrong- you're just contradicting yourself. It's okay to have blatant "wrong/right" opinions on certain subjects, but the value of your conviction is stronger if you attend to a specific style of reasoning - that being objective or subjective.

By saying that conformity vs lack of conformity, traditional vs new, tolerance vs intolerance thinkings are bad and very irrational, I didn't mean those are dichotomous constructs at all, in the sense that truth is.
Truth is by its very nature unitar, and anything that is dichotmoy is precluded. Truth is not a matter of black and white thinking.
Truth is not something you can put in the category of traditional vs non-traditional thinking. Truth is non of all these things.
Truth is truth.

you have only two lenses, kind of like binary stuffs: conformity vs lack of conformity..

This does not describe me at a single inch. Those that judges truth by means of traditional vs non-traditional don't know what is truth. They judge things by the same absurd pattern, wether that idea is actually true or not.

Let me make it clear.
The ones that judge homosexuality by the traditional vs non-traditional reasoning, are like judging things by their colour. Something being traditional does not make it right or good, and something being non-traditional or a new perspective does not make it right or good.
Matters of absolute truths are not matters of "dyadic thinking".
Dyadic thinking is dyadic thinking, not objective truths.
Truth is truth. When you are searching for truth, you are not making any dyadic thinking.

 

[LucyJr]

One's perspective is no more correct than another's.

Stop trying to prove other's are wrong, and support your own opinion.

And what you just said is a opinion or should I take it as something "trying to prove other's are wrong".???

 

[Matt3737]

You say that the illogical affirmation that God is the author of evil by creating free will, is contradicted by Gode's theory.

Can you quote me where I said that?

I specifically quoted that Gödel himself was a devout Christian. He is credited with his own ontological proof of God's existence.

You are incorrectly inferring assumptions about what I'm trying to get across to you.

I do not have any problem with your views, you are entitled to them and I think it's great you are a Christian.

What I do have a problem with is your blatant disregard for the views of others and your misuse of logic and philosophy in order to discredit, refute, or otherwise diminish other people's point of view in order to further your egotistical need to validate your own views.

What do you wish to accomplish in this discussion, if I may ask?

 

[say what]

By saying that conformity vs lack of conformity, traditional vs new, tolerance vs intolerance thinkings are bad and very irrational, I didn't mean those are dichotomous constructs at all, in the sense that truth is.
Truth is by its very nature unitar, and anything that is dichotmoy is precluded. Truth is not a matter of black and white thinking.
Truth is not something you can put in the category of traditional vs non-traditional thinking. Truth is non of all these things.
Truth is truth.
This does not describe me at a single inch. Those that judges truth by means of traditional vs non-traditional don't know what is truth. They judge things by the same absurd pattern, wether that idea is actually true or not.

Let me make it clear.
The ones that judge homosexuality by the traditional vs non-traditional reasoning, are like judging things by their colour. Something being traditional does not make it right or good, and something being non-traditional or a new perspective does not make it right or good.
Matters of absolute truths are not matters of "dyadic thinking".
Dyadic thinking is dyadic thinking, not objective truths.
Truth is truth. When you are searching for truth, you are not making any dyadic thinking.

what are you considering traditional? what is a 'traditional' reasoning? this makes no sense.

 

[say what]

And what you just said is a opinion or should I take it as something "trying to prove other's are wrong".???

It's my opinion.

If you actually read and reflected on the things I've said, you would know this.

But you don't take the time to read and reflect on other's opinions. You take a defensive stance automatically, and try to bulldoze them with "you're wrong. you're wrong."

I would be 10000 times more receptive to your comments and opinions if you approached the topic in a way that didn't imply I was wrong and you were right.

 

[LucyJr]

what are you considering traditional? what is a 'traditional' reasoning? this makes no sense.

Well come people say homosexuality is wrong because it has been considered traditionaly wrong.
Others say homosexuality is good by the very fact that is not traditionaly good. They go exactly in the opposite direction: they assume homosexuality is ok because we have to be open about new perspectives and not let ourselfs be tied by traditional perspectives which can be narrow.
Both kind of thinkings are wrong. Moreover, both kind of thinkings characterise the most mass of intellectual debates on such topics.

 

[say what]

Well come people say homosexuality is wrong because it has been considered traditionaly wrong.
Others say homosexuality is good by the very fact that is not traditionaly good. They go exactly in the opposite direction: they assume homosexuality is ok because we have to be open about new perspectives and not let ourselfs be tied by traditional perspectives which can be narrow.
Both kind of thinkings are wrong. Moreover, both kind of thinkings characterise the most mass of intellectual debates on such topics.

How is your perspective that homosexuality is wrong, different from a 'traditional' view?

If you are basing this perspective on Christianity, then is this not a 'traditional' view?

I'm not saying it's right or wrong...but how is Christianity not a traditional view?

Please give your answer/opinion to the question, and no dissect my own perspective or the wording of the question.

 

[sprinkles]

what are you considering traditional? what is a 'traditional' reasoning? this makes no sense.

It can't see that this has nothing to do with tradition or non-tradition. That's just relative hogwash.

When people start passing laws it does not matter whether they are based in tradition or not. It doesn't comprehend that when a large portion of society forbids gay marriage, and decrys how harmful it is, that this sets a normative precedent so that the people willing to have this behavior will have outcast tendencies in general.

It's not about tradition, it's about normative precedent and the fact that anyone who is anti-normative in one regard will be more likely to act anti-normative in other regards. Then people flip around these anti-normative statistics as some kind of proof of a bad behavior which reinforces the normative precedent so that the people who continue to do it are even more often the ones that don't give a fuck.

 

[LucyJr]

How is your perspective that homosexuality is wrong, different from a 'traditional' view?

If you are basing this perspective on Christianity, then is this not a 'traditional' view?

I'm not saying it's right or wrong...but how is Christianity not a traditional view?

Please give your answer/opinion to the question, and no dissect my own perspective or the wording of the question.

How is your perspective that homosexuality is wrong, different from a 'traditional' view?

Is not different. But my reasoning for adopting the position that homosexuality is wrong is not because homosexuality is traditionally wrong. Can you see the very important difference?

If you are basing this perspective on Christianity, then is this not a 'traditional' view?

Well yes, it is a traditional view. But its truthiness is not based on its traditionality. I don't believe in Christinaity because it is traditional. I don't think homosexuality is wrong based on traditionality, even if my conclusion would be identical to that which traditional position holds.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong...but how is Christianity not a traditional view?

It is. But that's not the point. The question is: It is true or not?

 

[the]

This thread is fuckin' fucked up man.