<< linuxboy = eakers
Nate = freaky boy at club (although he tries to avoid it)
Jero = fake boyfriend >>
Jero<--- Confused even more
<< linuxboy = eakers
Nate = freaky boy at club (although he tries to avoid it)
Jero = fake boyfriend >>
Jero<--- Confused even more
N8Magic
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2000
- 11,624
- 1
- 81
<< ITS NOT A BAD PLACE. >>
I assume this was at The Kingdom right? Burlington = bad place.
I'd have to agree with you, people who get all wasted and pick fights are very childish, and feel that they have to show off (by beating people up) to make up for their other inadequacies. I stopped going to big clubs because of this. (smaller clubs/bars I will visit every once in a while)
Hi DAPUNISHER, thanks for the reply
<< So I must respectfully disagree with your objection >>
then
<< Another good observation >>
Just attempting to affirm that both were observations, not objections
Your correct in pointing out that it is indeedmy logic that makes your query seem illogical, and after you provided a decidedly more comprehensive explaination of your rationale for such a query, I concur that fromyour philosophical veiwpoint which is as valid as mine or anyone else's, your query isn't illogical.
Ok, from a first blush, it seems that what you're trying to talk about here is a sort of equality between worldviews. I disagree. Worldviews that are maladaptive are inferior. This is not a darwinist position but it does have ties to evolutionary theory. I do tend to not judge, but if I see something as not working, then I call it as so. Maladaptation is typically measured by the ability to withstand stressors. The more flexible a sysytem, the more adaptive it is.
<< I appreciate the comments here but I don't think they are really accurate. At least they don't seem that way to me. >>
Precisely, it is merely a matter of difference in philosophies which do not agree on certain principles, and one does not invalidate the other, nor does an adherence to one make it more correct for anyone other than you or myself, agreed?
No, I think I disagree with this. The selection of arbitrary principles in the formulation of worldviews are that: arbitrary, however I'm not going to wave everything off as individual differences. There is a real core shared by humans that makes us human. That core is absolute. That core, from many sources of knowledge, is not a philosophy. I try to put it into words but a negative tests has seemed to work much better. That is, it, or a lack of it, or a disturbance in it, reveals itself in situations like these. I don't think this subjectivity works philosophically, practically, or experientially. If you mean the state one is in when one has nothing to afform, then yes it can work that way but this is not in the same sort of realm as validation or invalidation. Worldviews usually are expressed and when statements or beleifs contradict, they are contradictory. Not saying there's no way out of this, just saying what you seem to have responded with doesn't exactly work, from a matter of logical systems. Logic is universal, inferences work because they are shared. The arbitrary selection of basic metaphysical assumptions can nver be proven true or false, yes... So I don't know. Subjectivism is true in that sense, and if that's what you mean, I agree. Otherwise, please explain. I think my objection (not disagreement since words are couched in logic) has some weight here...
<< I do go out of my way, not really to pick, but to first understand, reflect, and attempt to discover by sharing. >>
That was the reason for my query to you as well.
<< I feel frustration being demonstrated here, by more than one person. I can be wrong since information is limited but I don't currently think so >>
This is the only other observation you've made that seems presumptuous from my perspective.
It is, I made a leap. I do not have the full picture. Do I have warrant in making this claim? Experiential warrant, yes. Is my assumption unjustified? Not really, I can back it up if you like. Is it a broad generalization? Eh... kinda. It's based on correlations from experiements so there is room for error. Perhaps I should have used the words "expression of emotion based on inability to directly control"? She said she doesn't want violence. Neither do I. But for some reason, I don't post a thread like this. I want to know why she does. I know why I don't... So maybe you are right, but I currently have not been shown this. It also seems presumptuous from my perspective, but I still make it because I need to communicate and experience, and I don't have a perfect medium for that so I use what is avaialble (my mind with thought/reason, language, and feeling)
It suggests to me that your relying upon your empathic sense(feel) while attempting to intellectualize that sense(think) which ,from my perspective, is presumptuous in the context defined as-impertinently forward or confident.
I agree with part of this. It's me coming in here thinking I know what I'm talking about. That's true. Did I use empathy? Yes. Did I intellectualize it? Maybe, but that's not how it seems to me. I still feel. And I think and use the knowledge I have to come up with the best available objective analysis. Do I stop feeling after that? No. That provides the motivation. But then I do stop thinking since I have no new input. Then the emotions inside myself are reflected upon, not justified or rationalized, just explored. So I don't know. Maybe what you say is true and is just another way of saying what I said. It just doesn't seem that way to me. Do I know what I'm talking about? Sometimes I think I do. Much of the time I don't. I do use past data to make judgments, but these are not really value judgments but judgments of fact. Am I confident? Eh... Empathy and intellect are separate in a time like this and you read my posts in the order I experience them. I query to discover data and feel. Then when I arrive at a dead end with words and reason, I stop using that and feel. Words and language may express something that is not really there. Like me. Feeling is there but is not really in words. You see what my problem is in agreeing with what you just said? It doesn't resound with me as being accurate, though I may be in error here.
As I've stated this is my perspective and by no means do I expect that yours will coincide with mine and is stated solely in the spirit of interchanging ideas/philosophies
I see then. I do not want to make this all nice and say we just exchange views, because good and evil are real. Things are bad and good. Or if you prefer, maladaptive and beneficial to survival. They have very close parallels. So I do disagree with your subjectivist approach (if I have intepreted your position correctly).
NateSLC and Jero.. You guys crack me up. HeHeHeHe.
Cheers !
<< So I must respectfully disagree with your objection >>
then
<< Another good observation >>
Just attempting to affirm that both were observations, not objections
Your correct in pointing out that it is indeedmy logic that makes your query seem illogical, and after you provided a decidedly more comprehensive explaination of your rationale for such a query, I concur that fromyour philosophical veiwpoint which is as valid as mine or anyone else's, your query isn't illogical.
Ok, from a first blush, it seems that what you're trying to talk about here is a sort of equality between worldviews. I disagree. Worldviews that are maladaptive are inferior. This is not a darwinist position but it does have ties to evolutionary theory. I do tend to not judge, but if I see something as not working, then I call it as so. Maladaptation is typically measured by the ability to withstand stressors. The more flexible a sysytem, the more adaptive it is.
<< I appreciate the comments here but I don't think they are really accurate. At least they don't seem that way to me. >>
Precisely, it is merely a matter of difference in philosophies which do not agree on certain principles, and one does not invalidate the other, nor does an adherence to one make it more correct for anyone other than you or myself, agreed?
No, I think I disagree with this. The selection of arbitrary principles in the formulation of worldviews are that: arbitrary, however I'm not going to wave everything off as individual differences. There is a real core shared by humans that makes us human. That core is absolute. That core, from many sources of knowledge, is not a philosophy. I try to put it into words but a negative tests has seemed to work much better. That is, it, or a lack of it, or a disturbance in it, reveals itself in situations like these. I don't think this subjectivity works philosophically, practically, or experientially. If you mean the state one is in when one has nothing to afform, then yes it can work that way but this is not in the same sort of realm as validation or invalidation. Worldviews usually are expressed and when statements or beleifs contradict, they are contradictory. Not saying there's no way out of this, just saying what you seem to have responded with doesn't exactly work, from a matter of logical systems. Logic is universal, inferences work because they are shared. The arbitrary selection of basic metaphysical assumptions can nver be proven true or false, yes... So I don't know. Subjectivism is true in that sense, and if that's what you mean, I agree. Otherwise, please explain. I think my objection (not disagreement since words are couched in logic) has some weight here...
<< I do go out of my way, not really to pick, but to first understand, reflect, and attempt to discover by sharing. >>
That was the reason for my query to you as well.
<< I feel frustration being demonstrated here, by more than one person. I can be wrong since information is limited but I don't currently think so >>
This is the only other observation you've made that seems presumptuous from my perspective.
It is, I made a leap. I do not have the full picture. Do I have warrant in making this claim? Experiential warrant, yes. Is my assumption unjustified? Not really, I can back it up if you like. Is it a broad generalization? Eh... kinda. It's based on correlations from experiements so there is room for error. Perhaps I should have used the words "expression of emotion based on inability to directly control"? She said she doesn't want violence. Neither do I. But for some reason, I don't post a thread like this. I want to know why she does. I know why I don't... So maybe you are right, but I currently have not been shown this. It also seems presumptuous from my perspective, but I still make it because I need to communicate and experience, and I don't have a perfect medium for that so I use what is avaialble (my mind with thought/reason, language, and feeling)
It suggests to me that your relying upon your empathic sense(feel) while attempting to intellectualize that sense(think) which ,from my perspective, is presumptuous in the context defined as-impertinently forward or confident.
I agree with part of this. It's me coming in here thinking I know what I'm talking about. That's true. Did I use empathy? Yes. Did I intellectualize it? Maybe, but that's not how it seems to me. I still feel. And I think and use the knowledge I have to come up with the best available objective analysis. Do I stop feeling after that? No. That provides the motivation. But then I do stop thinking since I have no new input. Then the emotions inside myself are reflected upon, not justified or rationalized, just explored. So I don't know. Maybe what you say is true and is just another way of saying what I said. It just doesn't seem that way to me. Do I know what I'm talking about? Sometimes I think I do. Much of the time I don't. I do use past data to make judgments, but these are not really value judgments but judgments of fact. Am I confident? Eh... Empathy and intellect are separate in a time like this and you read my posts in the order I experience them. I query to discover data and feel. Then when I arrive at a dead end with words and reason, I stop using that and feel. Words and language may express something that is not really there. Like me. Feeling is there but is not really in words. You see what my problem is in agreeing with what you just said? It doesn't resound with me as being accurate, though I may be in error here.
As I've stated this is my perspective and by no means do I expect that yours will coincide with mine and is stated solely in the spirit of interchanging ideas/philosophies
I see then. I do not want to make this all nice and say we just exchange views, because good and evil are real. Things are bad and good. Or if you prefer, maladaptive and beneficial to survival. They have very close parallels. So I do disagree with your subjectivist approach (if I have intepreted your position correctly).
NateSLC and Jero.
. You guys crack me up. HeHeHeHe.Cheers !
<<
<< ITS NOT A BAD PLACE. >>
I assume this was at The Kingdom right? Burlington = bad place.
I'd have to agree with you, people who get all wasted and pick fights are very childish, and feel that they have to show off (by beating people up) to make up for their other inadequacies. I stopped going to big clubs because of this. (smaller clubs/bars I will visit every once in a while) >>
no it was the rev! (revolution nightclub in waterloo)
and i knwo the kingdom is a bad place.
i just cant stop going
*kat. <-- all about edge 102 live to air on fridays at the kingdom.
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,105
- 32,660
- 146
Hey linuxboy,
I'll keep this post succinctI believe your assertions are subjective as well, and she doesn't appear to be having difficulty "surviving" because her personal philosophy is "maladaptive"
We'll just have to agree to disagree. Furthermore I support her's or anyone's right to post a thread such as this in an effort to understand the need some people(particularly men) have to use violence as an answer to anything, and the fact that you don't start threads like this provides little justification for your being so pious.Peace and I'm out
I'll keep this post succinct
I believe your assertions are subjective as well, and she doesn't appear to be having difficulty "surviving" because her personal philosophy is "maladaptive"
if you had the wherewithall to stand up to a guy and tell him to f*ck off and leave you alone you wouldn't be putting your guy friends at risk. it's your problem. you deal with it. stop having guys do your dirty work.
the drunk was probably right. anyone that would pretend to be your b/f must be whipped, much like all the little boys here who are desperate for your attention.
the drunk was probably right. anyone that would pretend to be your b/f must be whipped, much like all the little boys here who are desperate for your attention.
I believe your assertions are subjective as well, and she doesn't appear to be having difficulty "surviving" because her personal philosophy is "maladaptive"
Ah, you may be right. But is it flexible enough to anticipate stressors? Maybe. My claims were qualifiers and interpretations to see if I understood right. Have I said anything that can be taken as unalterable? I don't think so. I posted my interpretations, some of which are grounded in a system of diagnosis I adhere to and so do many others, which of course may be wrong. But they are not subjective. I do not think in a system unless I wish to avoid bias. Is using an external system and limited data to come up with a solution not the definition of objectivity? Objectivity is detachment and separation. It is logical and uses words. This is what I did. Though if you question the universality of the system itself and argue for the arbitrariness of original unprovable premises, then I suppose that is subjective, though it is universal in its application and necessity to human beings as a result of existence so if it's both absolute and arbitrary what do we have? Idle thoughts.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Why? I would rather avoid separation and understand things as they are. You claim a position I still don't quite get. I think it's true but that you're missing something or that you're making things too succinct. You need to get yourself plenty confused to get anywhere, I think, else things are black and white.
Furthermore I support her's or anyone's right to post a thread such as this in an effort to understand the need some people(particularly men) have to use violence as an answer to anything,
Well I do as well. I just don't quite understand where it's coming from.
and the fact that you don't start threads like this provides little justification for your being so pious.
How am I being pious? That is a subjective claim. HeHeHeHe. Unless you mean pious as laudable or praiseworthy in which case I question why you disagree with me.
Wait, what are we even talking about here?
Hi Kat
Cheers !
Ah, you may be right. But is it flexible enough to anticipate stressors? Maybe. My claims were qualifiers and interpretations to see if I understood right. Have I said anything that can be taken as unalterable? I don't think so. I posted my interpretations, some of which are grounded in a system of diagnosis I adhere to and so do many others, which of course may be wrong. But they are not subjective. I do not think in a system unless I wish to avoid bias. Is using an external system and limited data to come up with a solution not the definition of objectivity? Objectivity is detachment and separation. It is logical and uses words. This is what I did. Though if you question the universality of the system itself and argue for the arbitrariness of original unprovable premises, then I suppose that is subjective, though it is universal in its application and necessity to human beings as a result of existence so if it's both absolute and arbitrary what do we have? Idle thoughts.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Why? I would rather avoid separation and understand things as they are. You claim a position I still don't quite get. I think it's true but that you're missing something or that you're making things too succinct. You need to get yourself plenty confused to get anywhere, I think, else things are black and white.
Furthermore I support her's or anyone's right to post a thread such as this in an effort to understand the need some people(particularly men) have to use violence as an answer to anything,
Well I do as well. I just don't quite understand where it's coming from.
and the fact that you don't start threads like this provides little justification for your being so pious.
How am I being pious? That is a subjective claim
. HeHeHeHe. Unless you mean pious as laudable or praiseworthy in which case I question why you disagree with me. Wait, what are we even talking about here?
Hi Kat
Cheers !
Eakers,
The reason the guy said he could beat up your pretend boyfriend (in his absence, if you will notice) is that he was trying to say he is more of a man than the man you were with. Problem is, he had no idea of what a man is, nor did he know how to convey his manliness. Welcome to the Age of the Wimp.
You have some right to rant, even though there is validity to the truth that one can't play with pigs without getting muddy.
Your views on violence are perfectly acceptable, and even admirable in a girl. The dichotomy that is man/woman does not leave this as a valid option for men. The person who said that violence never solved anything is a poor student of history.
John
The reason the guy said he could beat up your pretend boyfriend (in his absence, if you will notice) is that he was trying to say he is more of a man than the man you were with. Problem is, he had no idea of what a man is, nor did he know how to convey his manliness. Welcome to the Age of the Wimp.
You have some right to rant, even though there is validity to the truth that one can't play with pigs without getting muddy.
Your views on violence are perfectly acceptable, and even admirable in a girl. The dichotomy that is man/woman does not leave this as a valid option for men. The person who said that violence never solved anything is a poor student of history.
John
<< FIGHTING IS NOT COOL! >>
agreed..and no matter what club you go to there are guys/girls who are gonna cause trouble
<< why do some guys think that beating up people or even threatening to do it is impressive ?
i find it primative and the biggest turn offf: EVER.
heres a little senario that occured tonight:
me: *dancing my cute little kathryn dance*
random drunk guy: *comes up behind me, grabs my hips and begins "dancing" with me from behind
me: *dirty look, walk over to one of my guy friends*
guy friend: "hehe, humpy mcHump giving you a hard time sweetie?"
me: "you should use that as your way to pick up girls, look how well it works..."*giggle*
so then this random drunk guy keeps coming back to me trying to dance with/fondle/grope/rub up against me so finally getting fed up i look at my guy friend and say "okay are you going to save me or what? pretend to by my boyfriend"
so hes like "oh fine, nag nag nag " so he puts his arm around me and we do things to make it apparent that we're together.
so random guy goes away and i continue my merry little kathryn dance then my friend goes to the bathroom and random guy comes back and says to me "yo, is that your boyfriend" and i smile and say "yesssssss" and hes like "f**k, that guys a pussy, i could kick his ass" and im like "why would you want to?" and hes like "a guy like that doesnt deserve a girl like you, i should kick his ass" at which point im like "okay, you think that the way to win my heart is to come over and threaten to beat up my boyfriend?!" and hes like "well, i just want you to see what a pussy he is" so then i said "yeah well its too bad that im against all forms of violence and thats the sort of the quality i look for in a man isnt it?"
then i ran away. >>
Next time, spray some pepper spray up his nose. Say he started touching you and threatening your friend.
by the way kathryn, how come you still don't have a steady boyfriend?
<< *kat. <-- all about edge 102 live to air on fridays at the kingdom >>
hmm... listening to that right now
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter