Originally posted by: Moonbeam
1. Black people have a different experience of racism than whites. They have experiences whites can't that give them these insights. Tell people they hate themselves and do it with bad spelling and see what happens, hehe. You will be amazed at just how much sudden new attention your bad spelling will get. It won't be long and the world will be convinced that if you can't spell it means you have bad feelings about yourself. Trust me, hehe.
2. I said that one can get to a place that is beyond vulnerability and invulnerability and that one gets their by exposing oneself. I was referring to exposing oneself to oneself opening oneself to one's own bad feelings. I am suggesting that self knowledge is the way to freedom. This kind of work is usually done in a small tight group that works together and with the knowledge that what triggers something in them is not the fault of the other but something hidden within. Most folk put others down not to find the source of the feeling within, but to bury it deeper by flattering their ego like Eskimo and his roommate did a few posts ago.
3. If you notice people react often times defensively to what I post. I maintain it's because I touch a nerve in them. People feel like the worst in the world and know it somewhere within. If I were to call somebody an idiot they might get mad but if I called them a maluba they might not. We react to put downs because we already feel bad, in this case like an idiot, but nobody really minds being maluba. There is no history of the past adhering to the term.
It is this defensiveness, I think, that keeps people blind to something perfectly obvious to me and something I am surprised nobody ever points out. I know exactly how people are because I know me. Everything I say about anybody that drives them mad I can see because I can see it in me.They may project on me, but I have to know who I am to see them in me. Not that I can't also project, mind you, but I aim not to put down but to reveal. I am the things I describe. If I know anything real, not the garbage created by the ego, it is because I have done some feeling what I really feel. I have been into what is dark for most people.
In other words, we are quick to examine and criticize the faults of others while ignoring the faults of ourselves?
Im not going to do your homework for you god boy. Center of our galaxy, known. Center of the universe really strong evidence. Now do some homework and show "the rest of the forum members" that you are not really a religious zealot adhering to outdated dogma. Im not even an astronomer and got this info from Nova for christs sake.
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
1. Black people have a different experience of racism than whites. They have experiences whites can't that give them these insights. Tell people they hate themselves and do it with bad spelling and see what happens, hehe. You will be amazed at just how much sudden new attention your bad spelling will get. It won't be long and the world will be convinced that if you can't spell it means you have bad feelings about yourself. Trust me, hehe.
2. I said that one can get to a place that is beyond vulnerability and invulnerability and that one gets their by exposing oneself. I was referring to exposing oneself to oneself opening oneself to one's own bad feelings. I am suggesting that self knowledge is the way to freedom. This kind of work is usually done in a small tight group that works together and with the knowledge that what triggers something in them is not the fault of the other but something hidden within. Most folk put others down not to find the source of the feeling within, but to bury it deeper by flattering their ego like Eskimo and his roommate did a few posts ago.
3. If you notice people react often times defensively to what I post. I maintain it's because I touch a nerve in them. People feel like the worst in the world and know it somewhere within. If I were to call somebody an idiot they might get mad but if I called them a maluba they might not. We react to put downs because we already feel bad, in this case like an idiot, but nobody really minds being maluba. There is no history of the past adhering to the term.
It is this defensiveness, I think, that keeps people blind to something perfectly obvious to me and something I am surprised nobody ever points out. I know exactly how people are because I know me. Everything I say about anybody that drives them mad I can see because I can see it in me.
In other words, we are quick to examine and criticize the faults of others while ignoring the faults of ourselves?
This is true, but I am trying to explain the psychological mechanism behind it. We criticize others for faults we were accused of having and have repressed all memories of. Then we project the hidden content of our own psyches out there on to others. We accuse them of being what we feel we are because of our own forgotten past accusations we believed lock stock and barrel.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,918
- 2,883
- 136
Blind ignorance? What are you talking about? I said that you should back up a claim if you make it, not rely on others to back it up for you, what about that is ignorant? Ignorance would be going around and calling anyone that you suspect might believe in god "god boy". Are you actively trying to make yourself look this dumb?
Since homercles337 feels put upon to find a link to support his claim, I will provide one for him:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
Youre a n00b and so is your buddy godismymeister. Who were the two of you before you were banned? I had the two of you pegged for god boys at post #1.
Not so fast there Homer:
The square root of the ratio of the vacuum magnetic permeability divided by the vacuum electric permittivity is supposed to equal the radiation impedance of free space, but there are suspicions that it does not. You can do a calculation of the Lorentz properties of the vacuum via a tensor that shows them to be still valid, changing only the formal factor related to the optical activity of the universe. This will yield a somewhat different ratio ratio between the observable electromagnetic effect and the Hall impedance of classical freespace. It may be that the defect which implies a lack of a center of symmetry of the universe is related to the charge of the electron.
The square root of the ratio of the vacuum magnetic permeability divided by the vacuum electric permittivity is supposed to equal the radiation impedance of free space, but there are suspicions that it does not. You can do a calculation of the Lorentz properties of the vacuum via a tensor that shows them to be still valid, changing only the formal factor related to the optical activity of the universe. This will yield a somewhat different ratio ratio between the observable electromagnetic effect and the Hall impedance of classical freespace. It may be that the defect which implies a lack of a center of symmetry of the universe is related to the charge of the electron.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,918
- 2,883
- 136
Haha, did you just call me a "n00b"? You are going to learn a lot in middle school, stick with it and you might make it to high school.
My first post was probably in one of the help forums when I was trying to build a computer, so I'm not sure how you pegged me as a "god boy". Keep replying, you just make yourself look dumber and dumber with every post.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,918
- 2,883
- 136
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not so fast there Homer:
The square root of the ratio of the vacuum magnetic permeability divided by the vacuum electric permittivity is supposed to equal the radiation impedance of free space, but there are suspicions that it does not. You can do a calculation of the Lorentz properties of the vacuum via a tensor that shows them to be still valid, changing only the formal factor related to the optical activity of the universe. This will yield a somewhat different ratio ratio between the observable electromagnetic effect and the Hall impedance of classical freespace. It may be that the defect which implies a lack of a center of symmetry of the universe is related to the charge of the electron.
I think you just "pwned" Homer.
Isn't it fun to be told all about who you are by somebody who knows nothing. But of course YOU would never do that. Hehehehehehe
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not so fast there Homer:
The square root of the ratio of the vacuum magnetic permeability divided by the vacuum electric permittivity is supposed to equal the radiation impedance of free space, but there are suspicions that it does not. You can do a calculation of the Lorentz properties of the vacuum via a tensor that shows them to be still valid, changing only the formal factor related to the optical activity of the universe. This will yield a somewhat different ratio ratio between the observable electromagnetic effect and the Hall impedance of classical freespace. It may be that the defect which implies a lack of a center of symmetry of the universe is related to the charge of the electron.
<----- Not an astronomer
Perfectly willing to concede to more knowledgeable folks about the center of the universe, but the center of our galaxy has a butt load of evidence. Im sure we both understand that there is no "free space," and there is not sufficient evidence to include dark matter in said equations.
Nice psychobabble version of "I know you are, but what am I!?!".
Again your ideas are nonsensical. To think that people can only call you an idiot if they are secretly worried that they are one themselves is obviously wrong, illogical, and one of the worst assertions you've made yet.
Sometimes people just call a spade a spade.
I really want you to know the degree of contempt I have for what you write. Your posts are like black holes that suck the intelligence out of all nearby conversation.
I feel like something that was at one time an interesting thread has simply turned into a worthless pile of $hit because of your insistance on clinging to a smug sense of superiority that is totally unwarranted.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Your post has given me the giggles.. thanks.. !!
Firstly, the presumption that anyone can know anything with certainty ... absolute certainty.. discounts the possibility that must exist that you don't...
Secondly, the presumption one makes when one states as if fact that when one utters 'devoid of any intellectual merit' it presumes a basis exists upon which that statement rests.. Now then.. I disagree to the extent of my current understanding with your statement. I know that I am right so you must be wrong (following your approach).. and therefore, your statement is not only without merit is it utterly a waste of so many nice words..
Actually, no. I would say psychology much more then philosophy. And it's not advanced. The idea that people are controlled by influences from their childhoods and project their self image onto the world around them is pretty much exactly psych 101.
I'm guessing you have some sort of connection to Moonbeam as he quotes you in his signature and your names are pretty similar. Don't tell me we're going to have two people spewing that stuff now.
I'm guessing you have some sort of connection to Moonbeam as he quotes you in his signature and your names are pretty similar. Don't tell me we're going to have two people spewing that stuff now.
Moonbeam implied that discussion was pointless without absolute knowledge. I said that was dumb. It seems that we agree!
Also, points can be wrong and still have intellectual merit. This is basic. It is the willful ignorance that he so enthusiastically embraces that sinks him.
Also, points can be wrong and still have intellectual merit. This is basic. It is the willful ignorance that he so enthusiastically embraces that sinks him.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I'd have to say that Psych 101 is broad.. classical conditioning and like that.. maybe even Skinner ... but not the indepth motivators (few) of Freud and conversely the Jungian many...
What Moonster propounds is Freudian.. whereas I'd defend Jung's more reasonable approach..
Maslow might have built a pyramid to self actualization but not in psych 101... the foundation of that creation is held together with the cement of truth... as best as one can get to it.. not universal truth.. but one's own truth...
Have you ever taken the Myers-Briggs personality 'test'... folks always answer how they wish to be seen... most often anyhow.. not how they actually are.. they don't like some aspects of themselves and even if for their own consumption they try to appear not as they are but how they wish they could be... a right and wrong in a no right or wrong evaluation... Why do you thing the EGO does this?
It would appear that the definition here, in this forum, of what the word logic means, is how effectively one person can insult another. That kind of activity is really out of place in this thread...but then again, maybe it's not, because an example of illogic makes it clear what logic is not.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter