Author Topic: Park Your Amusements Here  (Read 98691 times)

Licawolf

  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 639
  • tempus edax rerum
    • View Profile
    • DA account
Re: Park Your Amusements Here
« Reply #705 on: June 21, 2011, 01:33:29 am »
[youtube]aP3gzee1cps[/youtube]

This cat is a canine in disguise!

[youtube]LxDjuZY1oC0[/youtube]

This actually reminded me a little of the bremen march from zelda xD

tushantin

  • CC:DBT Dream Team
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5645
  • Under Your Moonlight, Stealing Your Stars
    • View Profile
    • My Website
Re: Park Your Amusements Here
« Reply #706 on: June 23, 2011, 04:44:35 pm »
@Licawolf: XDD You've no idea how many times I've re-watched those.  

Since Slumdog Millionaire, Bollywood has created another crazy English film that is bound to appeal to western audience. This time, though, it's directed by the legendary Aamir Khan. So yeah. Shit happens.

Warning! NSFW, especially with all the slangs and people blowing... er... private parts up with dynamite. Perhaps as intense (or more) than Clockwork Orange.

Here's the intro preview.

Here's the actual trailer.

Mr Bekkler

  • Bounty Hunter
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2736
  • So it goes.
    • View Profile
Re: Park Your Amusements Here
« Reply #707 on: June 24, 2011, 01:47:39 am »
@Licawolf: XDD You've no idea how many times I've re-watched those. 

Since Slumdog Millionaire, Bollywood has created another crazy English film that is bound to appeal to western audience. This time, though, it's directed by the legendary Aamir Khan. So yeah. Shit happens.

Warning! NSFW, especially with all the slangs and people blowing... er... private parts up with dynamite. Perhaps as intense (or more) than Clockwork Orange.

Here's the intro preview.

Here's the actual trailer.

Looks like "Hangover Meets Snatch In India". Neat.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Park Your Amusements Here
« Reply #708 on: June 24, 2011, 06:15:51 am »
For years I engaged in debates with people over the existence of a Christian-style deity; it invigorated me to sharpen my own ideas so that they could withstand and even defeat opposing points of view. But the world did not learn along with me. The arguments for their god's existence never improved, and they themselves never grew wiser to see their own folly. Eventually the arguments stopped being invigorating and started to become a chore. So I left them behind. Now, I only bother when I perceive that my opponent is open-minded.

That's where I've been for years. It's seldom worth it, so I seldom do it. And as I become farther and farther removed from those cultural fault lines, I've come to appreciate the absurdity of it all...of these elaborate, deeply passionate, incessant conflicts over an utterly ludicrous concept--one so riddled with logical errors that the only reason the people supporting it aren't ridiculed wherever they go is because they outnumber the rest of us by far. I must say...I've found the amusement in it.

Christianity is a hateful, neurotic religion that glorifies violence and delights in subjugating everybody, all wrapped in the glowing white veneer of a message of false love. From the lowest of the low, the message of suffering and austerity in this life for a prize in the next, all the way up to the pinnacle, the message of a god of love who created humans who, depending on how you look at it, either explicitly desire or are too flawed to avoid being condemned to an eternity of torture, Christianity delights in conceiving of new and ever more gruesome brutalities of nature and then brainwashing people into believing that that's just how things are and everything else should be feared or loathed. And people believe it. Lots of people believe it. There are even people who try and live virtuously within the religion's incredibly corrosive framework of morality, and most of them have to try really hard to do it, because they themselves are as flawed as most of us and Christianity itself abhors their attempts at real virtue.

Most simply have not had the opportunity or the wits to see this for what it is. That part isn't so amusing as tragic. But the endless arguments over this preposterous theological fairytale...that's just plain eye-rollingly silly.

Kodokami

  • Entity
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1110
  • Enjoy the moment!
    • View Profile
Re: Park Your Amusements Here
« Reply #709 on: June 24, 2011, 02:51:15 pm »
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-16/local/29681695_1_teacher-math-classes-pokemon-cards

I do not have a handful of children's playing cards in front of me as I type this.
 :roll:

Boo the Gentleman Caller

  • Guru of Life Emeritus
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5262
    • View Profile
Re: Park Your Amusements Here
« Reply #710 on: June 24, 2011, 02:58:01 pm »
Quote
"For years I engaged in debates with people over the existence of a Christian-style deity; it invigorated me to sharpen my own ideas so that they could withstand and even defeat opposing points of view. But the world did not learn along with me."

"Eventually the arguments stopped being invigorating and started to become a chore. So I left them behind."

"And as I become farther and farther removed from those cultural fault lines, I've come to appreciate the absurdity of it all"

"Most simply have not had the opportunity or the wits to see this [Christianity] for what it is. That part isn't so amusing as tragic. But the endless arguments over this preposterous theological fairytale...that's just plain eye-rollingly silly."

You ever heard of Shit My Dad Says? I think I could have a social media outlet (Twitter perhaps? Naw, trying to cram Lord J's thoughts into 140 characters is impossible) called "Shit Lord J Says". Not calling your ramblings shit or anything. And all that's just from one post!

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Park Your Amusements Here
« Reply #711 on: June 24, 2011, 02:59:45 pm »
Most of my individual sentences would not fit into Twitter, let alone my complete thoughts. Yer outta luck!

Licawolf

  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 639
  • tempus edax rerum
    • View Profile
    • DA account
Re: Park Your Amusements Here
« Reply #712 on: June 24, 2011, 03:03:19 pm »
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-16/local/29681695_1_teacher-math-classes-pokemon-cards

I do not have a handful of children's playing cards in front of me as I type this.
 :roll:

What I find amusing is that they keep calling the game "Pokmon" throughout the body of the article, in the footnote of the photo it's called "Pokeman" and only in the title it's correctly called Pokemon  :P

Bard_of_Time

  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Music changes history, you know.
    • View Profile
Re: Park Your Amusements Here
« Reply #713 on: June 24, 2011, 03:22:12 pm »
http://www.mariomarathon.com/
I'm watching now. It looks like one of the guys is holding the jumpyspinny part of the Galaxy 2 controller while the other has the RUN part. It's pretty intense.

tushantin

  • CC:DBT Dream Team
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5645
  • Under Your Moonlight, Stealing Your Stars
    • View Profile
    • My Website
Re: Park Your Amusements Here
« Reply #714 on: June 24, 2011, 04:08:32 pm »
Before even beginning an argument I am aware of where I stand in levels of intelligence and capabilities of properly explaining myself (I constantly suffer from Paralysis-by-Analyses, and aftershocks of receding Dyslexia), but none the less, I choose to try. For the sake of the argument, I shall emphasize the most conflicting points in your statements.

For years I engaged in debates with people over the existence of a Christian-style deity; it invigorated me to sharpen my own ideas so that they could withstand and even defeat opposing points of view. But the world did not learn along with me. The arguments for their god's existence never improved, and they themselves never grew wiser to see their own folly. Eventually the arguments stopped being invigorating and started to become a chore. So I left them behind. Now, I only bother when I perceive that my opponent is open-minded.
Completely disregarding religion, I take interest in your mindset, and the philosophy of debate and open-mindedness:

You know, I've always considered debates and arguments as a learning experience. With each logical problem put forth by oppositions, with every bit of data placed on the table, both parties benefit with new information, either deduced or shared. It also challenges the debater to clash their processing capabilities, ironing out flaws in their reasoning and come to a better understanding. The most open minded of the debaters is not one who is intelligent, but one who is open to sound reasoning and not only molding data on the table, but also his/her own thoughts in the right direction.

But open-mindedness depends on these questions: Do you accept new or different knowledge than your own? Do you imagine yourself faithfully in someone else's shoes (first person)? Does your prejudice/bias stop you from leaving your sentimental bounds of your world? Are your beliefs strong, and yet flexible, or are they everything to you? Can you stand hypothetical questions, no matter how insane and inaccurate they may sound?

You think yourself to be on the right side of the affair, so kudos to you. Then kudos to everyone, because everyone thinks they're right. But you're confusing intelligence with open-mindedness, because seriously, even an idiot can be open-minded if they choose to be so. What's even more baffling is how narrow-minded most so-called intelligent people can be, drowning so much in their arrogance that they fail to see the bigger picture. Thing is, although a correct answer can be found via strings of valid reasoning, mere abilities to reasonably argue does not guarantee that a person is right (Lawyers; 'nuff said). See, there's this concept called Argument Abuser, which defines an intelligent (and sufficiently arrogant) person who uses sensible reasoning to back up his ideas, even if the ideas are inherently flawed, thus disposing the opposing view for victory. One of the most frequent abusers of these argumentative powers is Richard Dawkins: When he believes he is right at something, at the cost of an argument's intellectual benefits, he will ignore considering the opposing ideas, simply backing up his own, and try to win and enforce his suggestions. Some others like him even go so far as covering flaws in their ideas with figurative veils and directly attacking the audience's sentiments, thus claiming majority. Of course, some resolve to much more sophisticated tricks, sometimes subtle, such as wordsmithing, etc. For these people, argumentative powers simply serves as a tool, akin to weapons defending your own castle and attacking others'. Even Osama Bin Laden can make sound arguments and win favors (and he already has in many places).

And when it really comes down to this, it is hardly an intelligent debate. It turns into a war of beliefs, where people with opposing beliefs narrowmindedly give their all just to win arguments, and because here belief matters more to a person each argument becomes a personal offense. In this case, you telling the religious they're wrong, and they saying you're wrong. Who's right? Your guess is as good as mine.

You accuse others of not being open-minded enough to debate with you, but ask yourself this: do you even require someone to be so? You assume to have an open-mind but your statement contradicts you. No, you don't argue for the sake of its vivid benefits and new ideas, except for the only ones you seek: sharpen my own ideas so that they could withstand and even defeat opposing points of view. You don't argue for the sheer learning experience. You argue for victory, regardless of whether you're right or wrong, satisfied with delusions that you actually are.

But if that's really what you're after then I implore you to come to India where most Theological (Christian) experts are not only open-minded philanthropists, but also majors in Science (at least the ones I know). With the way you seek to argue, I guarantee you'll be weeping with your self-esteem shattered. It's sad, really.

That's where I've been for years. It's seldom worth it, so I seldom do it. And as I become farther and farther removed from those cultural fault lines, I've come to appreciate the absurdity of it all...of these elaborate, deeply passionate, incessant conflicts over an utterly ludicrous concept--one so riddled with logical errors that the only reason the people supporting it aren't ridiculed wherever they go is because they outnumber the rest of us by far. I must say...I've found the amusement in it.
I... somewhat agree with that. That again depends whom you imply.

Most simply have not had the opportunity or the wits to see this for what it is. That part isn't so amusing as tragic. But the endless arguments over this preposterous theological fairytale...that's just plain eye-rollingly silly.
I was actually going to ask you to describe the context of hateful from religion and historical perspective, and some more questions, but seeing your frame of mind (gulp) err... forget about it. The entire point you made was superficial as it didn't really describe how it's violence contradicts the roots of the religion, what was that created it, for what intention and moral grounds and how relevant a person's a certain action is to religion.

Still, I do sort of agree. What's even worse is the pointless Religion-vs-Atheism quarrel, which seems like a war between dedicated fanclubs to me (like Apple-vs-Android, Boston-vs-Vancouver, Twilight Fans-vs-Twilight Haters, etc.) I'm fortunate to be naturally left out but I still don't understand why I take interest in this shit.

Like, for instance a religious person criticizes Atheism, I defend Atheism. When an Atheist criticizes religion, I defend that religion.  Even if I know that the moment I stepped into the battlefield I've already lost.

Mr Bekkler

  • Bounty Hunter
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2736
  • So it goes.
    • View Profile
Re: Park Your Amusements Here
« Reply #715 on: June 24, 2011, 04:16:12 pm »
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-16/local/29681695_1_teacher-math-classes-pokemon-cards

I do not have a handful of children's playing cards in front of me as I type this.
 :roll:

What I find amusing is that they keep calling the game "Pokmon" throughout the body of the article, in the footnote of the photo it's called "Pokeman" and only in the title it's correctly called Pokemon  :P

Probably written in Microsoft Word(which probably recognized the word and formatted it with the e with the accent mark over it), copied and pasted into email, and copied and pasted into a webpage template on the back end without careful editing. The formatting on the letter probably got lost between copies and whatever character showed up in its place was probably deleted by an editor or, more likely, a minimally-educated web tech or IT person.

Phew, that was a drawn out thought, and it started with a joke that even the title wasn't spelled right, technically. But reporters don't write their own headlines, so that takes care of that.

Sajainta

  • Survivor of the Darkness
  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2004
  • Reporting live from Purgatory.
    • View Profile
Re: Park Your Amusements Here
« Reply #716 on: June 25, 2011, 02:46:45 am »
Amusement:: watching a friend's reaction watching the Star Wars Holiday Special for the first time.

Licawolf

  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 639
  • tempus edax rerum
    • View Profile
    • DA account
Re: Park Your Amusements Here
« Reply #717 on: June 25, 2011, 06:12:16 am »
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 06:14:39 am by Licawolf »

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Park Your Amusements Here
« Reply #718 on: June 25, 2011, 06:17:51 am »
Completely disregarding religion, I take interest in your mindset, and the philosophy of debate and open-mindedness...

Well I applaud that, tush. Let's see if I can give a satisfactory reply.

You know, I've always considered debates and arguments as a learning experience.

You are not alone. People learn in different ways, and argument is one of them. Argument as a mode of learning has never suited my own preferences, but I have known people who thrive this way, and their reality is significant enough in my philosophy that I have used this exact quality as a core personality trait for more than one character in my fiction, to better explore the idea.

I would be remiss not to mention that I look down upon this mode of learning. Argument is in the domain of ego, and unchecked ego is usually a sign of pettiness. A true dialectic requires no confrontational aspect, an "argument" in this sense of the word is simply the logical framework surrounding one's concepts. But when people say "argument" they almost always refer to the confrontational kind, the kind that says "Let's disagree with one another and see what happens." Implicit in this is that all parties involved usually have a preexisting bias in their own favor, and are in it to defend themselves more so than to broaden their horizons--curiously, a charge you will level against me later in your post.

Whatever my personal views, the results speak for themselves and I cannot gainsay knowledge gained through argument. It is not an invalid mode of learning. It is simply a flawed one, perhaps ideal, therefore, for comparably flawed people. Thus I think your statement is fair, but worth keeping in mind as we continue.

I, myself, do not like to argue. I don't like that kind of confrontation in general. What you see me do a lot of on the Compendium is "one-sided" argument. I don't argue with people when I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't argue with people on subjects where I do not have an important point to make. I don't argue--especially here on the Compendium--unless I already know I am right. I will excuse your arrogant perception of this as closed-minded, as I can see how it would appear to be so and will return to address the point shortly in any case, and for now I will simply grant you that when I argue I do so to win a case--not to be argued against by others, or to learn (about the subject matter being argued). Indeed, it should not properly be called "argument"; it is more a style of pronouncement, which becomes aggressive when other people engage with it because it is not meant to be gainsaid.

I, myself, learn best by asking people questions directly. I am honestly surprised that this is not the principal style of learning for almost everybody, and even more surprised that it seems to be downright uncommon. Many have told me that they learn through argument, but few have said their mode of learning is interrogative. To me, questioning seems the ideal way to learn; no emotional heat need ever accrue, and nothing is lost for nothing needs to be defended in the first place. If you look carefully you will see examples of my curious nature on the Compendium, and you will note they take a completely different form and tone than my more conspicuous "arguments."

This too is worth keeping in mind as we continue.

It also challenges the debater to clash their processing capabilities, ironing out flaws in their reasoning and come to a better understanding.

That is well-put and quite true. However, the only learning to be done here is to learn how to present a more robust argument--in the logical sense of the word. The "clash," as you eloquently put it, will not teach about the subject matter. It will teach about presenting the subject matter. That's fair, and, as I have mentioned, it is one of my own purposes when I present (confrontational) arguments. I have learned a great deal about what will affect people, and how, and likewise I have learned what I mentioned earlier--to refine and sharpen the presentation of my ideas to better withstand critical scrutiny (or, alternatively, to identify and discard ideas which would not).

The most open minded of the debaters is not one who is intelligent, but one who is open to sound reasoning and not only molding data on the table, but also his/her own thoughts in the right direction.

What is your definition of "intelligence" that it could exclude someone who is "open to sound reasoning"?

But open-mindedness depends on these questions: Do you accept new or different knowledge than your own? Do you imagine yourself faithfully in someone else's shoes (first person)? Does your prejudice/bias stop you from leaving your sentimental bounds of your world? Are your beliefs strong, and yet flexible, or are they everything to you? Can you stand hypothetical questions, no matter how insane and inaccurate they may sound?

If it is worthy; I try; sometimes; I reject the premise of "belief"; usually.

You have a lot to learn about open-mindedness, although at least you may be one of the people who does not preclude themselves from learning it. I, here, have the choice of whether to simply tell you flat out that open-mindedness is one of the two key character traits at the top of my philosophy, around which all subsequent character integrity is based, and that I have given the matter more thought and consideration than you could possibly know, or I could take the rather more laborious route and explain to you some of my personal journey so that you would see I am not simply making a boast. If all else were equal, I would choose the latter because you deserve not to be asked to take me at my word, but my time constraints compel me to leave the assertion as a placeholder for now, and I invite your more specific questions on the subject for the indefinite future until such time as I have prepared more formal works to which I may refer you. It's no real loss; all it means is that my statement that you have a lot to learn about open-mindedness is not strictly valid for the time being, but, about your own situation, you probably know as much yourself.

You think yourself to be on the right side of the affair, so kudos to you. Then kudos to everyone, because everyone thinks they're right.

I am well aware that "everyone" thinks they're right. I find that to be one of the great ironies in life. I accept it as a part of human nature and I am compelled by it to lend a greater urgency to my work. For, you see...there is a logical fallacy in assuming that, simply because "everyone" thinks they are right, no one actually is. The human world needs strong philosophical leadership, and always has, yet few people are competent to deliver it.

Even the word "right" is difficult for me to accept, when talking about these mattes, without qualification. "Rightness" in this sense is little more than a consistent and comprehensive system of ideas (or any portion thereof) which would effect, or effect toward, a worldwide environment where more people enjoy a higher material and ideal quality of life, and where the standards by which such qualities are judged would be more consistent with the needs and desires of the human body as well as the intellectual integrity of the human will and the emotional wholesomeness of the human psyche. When I say I'm "right" about, for example, abortion, I mean that my policy will make the world a better place on those terms. I am not generally laying claim to any metaphysical certitude, as such a thing is much harder to earn and seldom possible to attain. (If pressed to present my credentials of metaphysical certitude, which fortunately few people think to demand, the ensuing epistemological discussion completely leaves behind the specific topic at hand--i.e., abortion.)

But you're confusing intelligence with open-mindedness, because seriously, even an idiot can be open-minded if they choose to be so. What's even more baffling is how narrow-minded most so-called intelligent people can be, drowning so much in their arrogance that they fail to see the bigger picture.

Your anti-intellectual streak does not behoove you, and I won't afford you the luxury of my addressing it. Sadly, the thing you describe is common to most people, the unintelligent even more so than the intelligent. It is not a failure of intellectualism; it is a flaw in the human condition. And, yes, even an "idiot" can be open-minded, although intelligence and open-mindedness share enough of a bond that a sufficiently unintelligent person would not be able to recognize or capitalize upon open-mindedness as the ideal subjective worldview bias.

Incidentally, you are confusing closed-mindedness with judgment. There's nothing wrong with a person making a judgment about something once they are competent to do so. Indeed, not making the judgment at that point would be the wrong choice. Open-mindedness pertains only to the unknown (such as how many light-years away the nearest civilization is) and to matters of personal preference (such as your friend's favorite food). When it comes to objective knowns, open-mindedness has no trouble encompassing sound judgment, which in turn leads to a better-defined and more consistent strength of character.

See, there's this concept called Argument Abuser, which defines an intelligent (and sufficiently arrogant) person who uses sensible reasoning to back up his ideas, even if the ideas are inherently flawed, thus disposing the opposing view for victory. One of the most frequent abusers of these argumentative powers is Richard Dawkins: When he believes he is right at something, at the cost of an argument's intellectual benefits, he will ignore considering the opposing ideas, simply backing up his own, and try to win and enforce his suggestions. Some others like him even go so far as covering flaws in their ideas with figurative veils and directly attacking the audience's sentiments, thus claiming majority. Of course, some resolve to much more sophisticated tricks, sometimes subtle, such as wordsmithing, etc. For these people, argumentative powers simply serves as a tool, akin to weapons defending your own castle and attacking others'. Even Osama Bin Laden can make sound arguments and win favors (and he already has in many places).

You strike me as a budding relativist with strong quasi-spiritual tendencies, inasmuch as you seem prone to reject both the merit and even the validity of knowing things objectively. Putting aside your specific examples of Dawkins and bin Laden, and the unverified correctness of identifying them as you have done so here, you are claiming here that people who argue to win are wrong in their views. You do this by conflating the use of certain tactics with the possession of weak underlying ideas--when the two are rightly independent. Again you are ill-served by making these kinds of assumptions. What about the case of the person who has no flaws in their ideas an argues to win? Your mind does not like to think in those terms, but can you explain how it is incorrect for one party to argue to win when their argument is objectively right and the other party's is objectively wrong?

Whether or not you are aware of your mistake, I expect you think that argument is not well-served when people try to win rather than striving to foster an understanding in themselves about where the other party is coming from. And to someone such as yourself who learns through confrontational argument, that view indeed makes sense. However, by generalizing what works for you to include all such argument, you create a huge opening for correctness and incorrectness to coexist as part of the consensus wisdom, which is anything but wise and undermines everybody.

And when it really comes down to this, it is hardly an intelligent debate. It turns into a war of beliefs, where people with opposing beliefs narrowmindedly give their all just to win arguments, and because here belief matters more to a person each argument becomes a personal offense. In this case, you telling the religious they're wrong, and they saying you're wrong. Who's right? Your guess is as good as mine.

My "guess" is a working theory that conveys the way things are, and is undoubtedly more meritorious by far than whatever assertion you might pit against it. I would certainly never say that non-Christians or even fully non-religious people don't suffer their own curses of slime and wretchedness, but Christianity (and Islam, while we're at it) add a whole extra dimension of rottenness, unique unto itself, that affects the entire world for the worse.

I don't expect you to take me at my word on that. I expect you to look for yourself. If you see it for yourself then I don't need to prove anything, and if you don't see it for yourself then proving it to you would be considerably more intensive a project than I care to undertake at this point.

You accuse others of not being open-minded enough to debate with you, but ask yourself this: do you even require someone to be so? You assume to have an open-mind but your statement contradicts you. No, you don't argue for the sake of its vivid benefits and new ideas, except for the only ones you seek: sharpen my own ideas so that they could withstand and even defeat opposing points of view. You don't argue for the sheer learning experience. You argue for victory, regardless of whether you're right or wrong, satisfied with delusions that you actually are.

I commend you for what must certainly have taken you some courage to write, since you claim to be overwhelmed at times by my intelligence and language. I appreciate your audacity.

I think by now you have a better sense of why I argue, in the confrontational sense of the word. I do so, in addition to putting my ideas on the record for all to see, to aid my understanding of people and occasionally their understanding of me, and (more so in the past than now) I do so to improve my instruments of presenting arguments--or, more appropriately--to improve my ability of presenting a logically valid argument and, more difficultly, getting people to recognize that I'm right and they're not.

Although I have had many more failures than successes on that latter count, I have had a better record than most people who strive to enlighten rather than brainwash. (Brainwashing is easy.) My technique is certainly a work in progress, and I recognize that the aggressiveness puts some people off. (Unfortunately those people live in a make-believe world where convictions somehow exist without contention). However, the basic premise is solid: Anyone strong of mind and open of mind can engage with me and both they and I will come out ahead because I do not lie and will not present a weak position. Anyone but the strongest would probably be better off asking me questions, making constructive criticisms, or taking my pronouncements as an opportunity to make inquiries elsewhere. Attempting to refute my positions without having the substance to do so, is pure folly.

This does not make me closed-minded. A mook really is a mook. If somebody comes along and says the Earth is flat, well, what do you expect me to do? Am I closed-minded for dismissing them, even when I know and can see for myself that they are wrong? That's what a lot of political and metaphysical argument comes down to: People up and say the craziest shit, the kind of stuff that I'd be embarrassed to read if I were their teacher. If they do that to me, then, my time permitting, I will tell them that they're wrong. End.

I take in knowledge and opinion everywhere I go. Maybe you don't see that because it isn't as apparent as me posting in a topic laying down a point of view and leaving little room for debate. My open-mindedness is rather legendary; you would be amazed at what I am willing to consider. What I am not willing to consider is bullshit. I am at the point now where I have "done" the whole "arguments for and against the existence of god" routine. I've learned the various points of view. I've read the best arguments, and the most comprehensive. I've seen pretty much all there is to see on the subject. And I've made up my mind. That's not closed-minded, even if it does imply that everyone who has taken a different position from me is wrong, no matter their level of intelligence. That's simply good judgment.

Moreover, when it comes to my participation in confrontational argument, I have long since learned that most people simply aren't interested in learning--even if you are--and enter into debate only to validate themselves and be validated by others. They have little chance of gleaning new facts when they perceive themselves to be under attack, and attacks are all they perceive when gainspoken, for they have never been taught how to discern between the many forms of adversarial engagements. The list of gains I may accomplish in such situations is short, and my own opportunity to learn from them about the subject matter under discussion is limited.

In some ways your perceptions of me are no fault of your own, but a symptom of the gulf between us and of the fact that I have lost the energy to tell my whole life's story to every new person who comes along. For that much of it, I do not hold you accountable for your wrongness.

But if that's really what you're after then I implore you to come to India where most Theological (Christian) experts are not only open-minded philanthropists, but also majors in Science (at least the ones I know). With the way you seek to argue, I guarantee you'll be weeping with your self-esteem shattered. It's sad, really.

You make it sound as if I have no capacity to argue with people who have an academic education, or as if I refuse to acknowledge that Christians can and do commit acts of kindness upon the world. You also make it sound as though I base my self-confidence on my ability to tell other people when they are wrong.

That's all foolish.

Like, for instance a religious person criticizes Atheism, I defend Atheism. When an Atheist criticizes religion, I defend that religion.  Even if I know that the moment I stepped into the battlefield I've already lost.

Aye, you've already...but I suspect not for the reasons you think. Your own sense of self-superiority is showing, tush. Do you have the depth to back it up?

tushantin

  • CC:DBT Dream Team
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5645
  • Under Your Moonlight, Stealing Your Stars
    • View Profile
    • My Website
Re: Park Your Amusements Here
« Reply #719 on: June 25, 2011, 08:55:25 pm »
XDDD First of all, I'm sorry if I came off offensive. Secondly, you've hit me with a gigantic wall of text again, knowing (or not knowing) that I'm still struggling with Dvorak. Damn you!

However, I thank you for your precious time to respond, and your post has been an interesting read indeed (so much so I'm gonna bookmark it). Yet it might take me a while to respond properly, so apologize for the delay.

I have learned an interesting thing, though: According to my previous studies and my own findings, as a person ages and grasps language well enough to communicate his imagination begins to somewhat leak at adolescence and subsequently begins to stagnate after adulthood. However, the very harness of language makes an individual capable of imaginative tasks, so much so that he/she relies on it for almost everything, including thought imagery processing. But your post concludes that a person's mastery over language also enables him/her to master his/her own intelligence. Go figure: I should get into more linguistic-psychology.

Sorry if that statement sounded superficial, but there's actually more to it than that.

Aye, you've already...but I suspect not for the reasons you think. Your own sense of self-superiority is showing, tush. Do you have the depth to back it up?
Well, maybe my self-superiority. And I did say that I lose these debates (and you're already aware of why; you said lose em too).

The real reason is this, however: Born in a Hindu family, as an infant I believed someone was out there, looking out for me (God, nonetheless). But then again, every child does, regardless of their cast. I yearned for my purpose. As I grew older (I think, by the age of 9) I saw festivals of deities that I enjoyed so much and played along with folks. I also participated in prayers. I tried to ask these stone idols questions, or even requests, and eventually lost faith in their existence. I didn't think these Gods exist.

However, upon hearing these stories, despite my disbelief I somehow grew to respect them. An undying respect. I researched more, and found they actually existed back then, not as some super-powered deities but as humans. Going back to understanding my world I saw that existed today was awesome, and what made it so rad in the first place. Why the people rejoice. Why everything was just so beautiful. How the culture bound and united the country. What ethics were brought by their different religion and how it mingled with our nation's philosophy. For several years nobody knew there was a non-believer in their midst, but who cares? It was what these various cultures stood for that made me smile, not what they believed in, and I saw no reason to correct them. Humanity was blessed, free of discrimination, and I found myself in paradise.  Plus, those ancestors deserve that respect and immortal admiration.

Throughout my life I dabbled in various cultures and religion just to expand my understanding of them -- Hindu, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity/Judaism, Tao, Pagan, and hell, even Satanism -- going so far as reading their scriptures and finding symbolical, historical and philosophical meaning within. This helps me paint a bigger picture. Cultures that sprang from them varied depending on location, and each of them did have their flaws (again, depending on people who practice them in the first place). But the good that came from (most of) them far outweighed from the bad, and with today's standards of thought it makes more sense to correct and update them rather than eradicating them.

And at the same time I also agree with Atheists' practices of Spiritual Indifference, where they decide to become freethinkers. Yes, it is a wonderful practice, and I do share similar sentiments. What enrages me is when those freethinkers act like Religion Fundamentalists and initiate war against beliefs, where they enforce, convert and discriminate against those that do not think like them. I personally believe that Atheists can keep their beliefs and still enjoy positive aspects of religion, and if they don't want to that's good too.

The reason I defend both is because I feel both sides are right in their own accord. Belief whether there is God is a personal matter and should not be enforced, because the term God is usually a very general term. Some consider the Sun to be a God. Some say it's the ancestors, or the spirits of people (zeal, not magical thinking), or a painting of a dragon. God could be anything, from the very breath you take to someone who's dream this might be. What comes beyond belief is what important, something that both the religious and atheists can share. Like Philanthropy, for instance!

That said, I do not believe in personal Gods like Jehova or Allah, or Odin, or Chuck Norris (I might believe in Bruce Lee and Sherlock Holmes, though). But I do believe that God exists (again, in a general term, not a supernatural sentient entity). No, I know it exists. Just not in the way Atheists and Religious folks can comprehend. And since it isn't really important for people to know what God I'm talking about, or whether it even exists, there's hardly any reason to talk about (much less enforce) my beliefs with other people.