Radioactive
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:21 am



Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
I'm outta here. 
Author Message
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 7:25 pm
Posts: 376
Location: Nederland
Reply with quote
Post 

To return to your point on this:

frublz wrote:
What you refer to as 'wise-ass' is simply systematically pointing out the logical fallacies and hypocrisies in the western set of morale you and other humans believe in by virtue that it is imprinted into your mind when you were a child with no resistance to it.


Quote:
You believe in ideas that happiness should be achieved, people should be kind to each other, murder is wrong, truth, reality and more of such only because you were raised to believe it and because some are spawned by your humanity.


You have a point. Many of our conceptions may be imprinted into our minds. Personally, I think they are there for a reason. Pointing out logical fallacies and hypocrisies can be a good thing, and it has its function.

Let me put it to you, though: Do you reject these human qualities or morality? If so, I wonder why you even try to interact with humans. If you don't, than may I ask what's wrong with choosing to believe in them, like I do?

Quote:
You are not 'alternative' or 'different' to any top 40 breezer slut. Perhaps in extremely slight aspects. Note that these are the words of someone who has really for the greatest part rejected his humanity and therefore can be classed as what you call 'Obscure dark arts', as you address it on Evening of Light, observe how these words annoy you and leave you with no comprehension of their actual meaning and note this as a point that you are human like any other.


I don't pretend to be that different, in that respect that I don't deny that we are all human. Listening to doom metal or neofolk means you are alternative to a certain degree: something to do with musical taste in the first place. You view these aspects as extremely slight, based on your own perceived 'extreme' difference from so-called breezah sluts. I, however, consider aesthetics and dedication to aesthetic pursuits to be one of the more fundamental aspects my identity. That's why I do think there is a significant difference in that respect between (underground) scenes and people who don't care as deeply for such matters.

The words (though I'm not sure to which you are referring) annoy me, because you fall into another trap. You take words as used by someone else, and interpret them only in the way you would use them, as though you had a semantic monopoly on "darkness", "obscure" and "alternative".

Quote:
You are not 'alternative' if there exists an active forum on the web where you can find like minded people as you. Or if you can go to concerts where you will meet people you identify with. Or if you meet people in real life which you consider 'friends'.


An alternative is an alternative compared to some other. This forum is about doom metal, and is an alternative to forums about power metal, country, or f*cking dolphins. Meeting like-minded people in itself is not 'alternative', no, that's correct. But forming a social subculture with these people constitues an alternative to other subcultures. They are not fundementally different in any sense you would find significant, but they are alternatives to the mainstream culture in certain respects.

If you strive to be truly alternative in your sense of the word, I think it would mean conducting yourself in such a manner that people do not want to associate with you. If you want to attain that, you only have to push your current stance to the extreme. In effect, you would become an outcast, a recluse. And there are already plenty of those, so that's not truly alernative in any fundamental sense either.

Finally, posting here to kill time is fun. Killing time by deliberately annoying other (because you know the reaction of the average 'human' to you posts) is fun only to you and sadistic onlookers.

_________________
::we:stained:the:grey:horizon:red::

Image


Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:56 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Forum User

Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:59 pm
Posts: 262
Location: Oulu, Fin
Reply with quote
Post 

The reason why I come here is not to have a debate. The reason why I follow what's written here is that I sometimes find music by following the so called discussions. Then I will support the scene and the musicians by buying albums and going to gigs. It's difficult for my simple mind to understand what frublz, being the enlightened individual that he is, wishes to accomplish by partaking in these humble discussions.


Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:02 pm
Profile WWW
Reply with quote
Post 

I owe you a response to this, I am artificially awake now due to coffee and I cannot think extremely clearly.


Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:03 pm
Reply with quote
Post 

Qwallath wrote:
Let me put it to you, though: Do you reject these human qualities or morality? If so, I wonder why you even try to interact with humans. If you don't, than may I ask what's wrong with choosing to believe in them, like I do?
A pretty absurd reasoning. I am sure there are quality of your house you dislike, yet you keep living in it. To make it even more parallel, you live in your house, rather than on the streets, yet I am sure there are things of your house you like to see improved?


Qwallath wrote:
YThe words (though I'm not sure to which you are referring) annoy me, because you fall into another trap. You take words as used by someone else, and interpret them only in the way you would use them, as though you had a semantic monopoly on "darkness", "obscure" and "alternative".
And neither do you, it appears we are are a pat setting here. Allow me to rephrase more directly, I content in that you are not obscure, alternative and dark by my standards, which are more demanding than yours. As I surely would be included in yours.

Edit: I might add to that argument that it will only hold if the how 'obscure/dark/alternative' someone is is one-dimensional', if you feel that is not so, feel free to say so and my point will crumble.

Qwallath wrote:
An alternative is an alternative compared to some other. This forum is about doom metal, and is an alternative to forums about power metal, country, or f*cking dolphins. Meeting like-minded people in itself is not 'alternative', no, that's correct. But forming a social subculture with these people constitues an alternative to other subcultures. They are not fundementally different in any sense you would find significant, but they are alternatives to the mainstream culture in certain respects.
Exactly, I am relating this to myself of course. Most of the society here is to me, as power metallers are to most here. And indeed you would probably be on those power metal boards if doom metal was so obscure that such a board as this one would not be feasible.

Qwallath wrote:
If you strive to be truly alternative in your sense of the word, I think it would mean conducting yourself in such a manner that people do not want to associate with you. If you want to attain that, you only have to push your current stance to the extreme. In effect, you would become an outcast, a recluse. And there are already plenty of those, so that's not truly alernative in any fundamental sense either.
Why so, I content in that it very much is?

Qwallath wrote:
Finally, posting here to kill time is fun. Killing time by deliberately annoying other (because you know the reaction of the average 'human' to you posts) is fun only to you and sadistic onlookers.
I never had such intentions and I remain at my stance that I do not troll. I post my honest opinions.


Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:40 pm
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 7:25 pm
Posts: 376
Location: Nederland
Reply with quote
Post 

frublz wrote:
Qwallath wrote:
Let me put it to you, though: Do you reject these human qualities or morality? If so, I wonder why you even try to interact with humans. If you don't, than may I ask what's wrong with choosing to believe in them, like I do?
A pretty absurd reasoning. I am sure there are quality of your house you dislike, yet you keep living in it. To make it even more parallel, you live in your house, rather than on the streets, yet I am sure there are things of your house you like to see improved?


Fair enough, but my whole point is that there are many ways of criticising people's morals and opinions. The keywords here are 'constructive criticism'. The way I see it, you often present your critique in a way that antagonises people rather than encourages them to listen to it. That's their fault as well, but you might have more success if you adapted to this.


Quote:
Qwallath wrote:
YThe words (though I'm not sure to which you are referring) annoy me, because you fall into another trap. You take words as used by someone else, and interpret them only in the way you would use them, as though you had a semantic monopoly on "darkness", "obscure" and "alternative".
And neither do you, it appears we are are a pat setting here. Allow me to rephrase more directly, I content in that you are not obscure, alternative and dark by my standards, which are more demanding than yours. As I surely would be included in yours.


It's called a stalemate in English, by the way.
Anyway: it's not a big surprise that I don't live up to your standards, since they are pretty high, and I used the words in my own sense (and that of my girlfriend's, since it's our site).

As for you: yes, you're definitely dark and alternative by both our standards, but that's not a virtue per se. It's one aspect of one's personality. As you've noticed, I have some issues with you on other parts of your internet personum, whereas I respect your attitude towards underground music and culture.

Quote:
Edit: I might add to that argument that it will only hold if the how 'obscure/dark/alternative' someone is is one-dimensional', if you feel that is not so, feel free to say so and my point will crumble.


I'm not sure what you mean.

Quote:
Qwallath wrote:
An alternative is an alternative compared to some other. This forum is about doom metal, and is an alternative to forums about power metal, country, or f*cking dolphins. Meeting like-minded people in itself is not 'alternative', no, that's correct. But forming a social subculture with these people constitues an alternative to other subcultures. They are not fundementally different in any sense you would find significant, but they are alternatives to the mainstream culture in certain respects.
Exactly, I am relating this to myself of course. Most of the society here is to me, as power metallers are to most here. And indeed you would probably be on those power metal boards if doom metal was so obscure that such a board as this one would not be feasible.


Perhaps. I post on several forums relating to many of my activites. None of them are particularly large, though. This is definitely one of the biggest ones.

I also feel alienated from a large part of society to some degree, though probably in other ways than you do. I think I mentioned this part when I spoke about aesthetics before.

Quote:
Qwallath wrote:
If you strive to be truly alternative in your sense of the word, I think it would mean conducting yourself in such a manner that people do not want to associate with you. If you want to attain that, you only have to push your current stance to the extreme. In effect, you would become an outcast, a recluse. And there are already plenty of those, so that's not truly alernative in any fundamental sense either.
Why so, I content in that it very much is?


I don't get this one either.
You are content about something that is?
Or you contend that something is a certain way?

Quote:
Qwallath wrote:
Finally, posting here to kill time is fun. Killing time by deliberately annoying other (because you know the reaction of the average 'human' to you posts) is fun only to you and sadistic onlookers.
I never had such intentions and I remain at my stance that I do not troll. I post my honest opinions.


Very well. I don't think I've called you a troll, personally, by the way, nor is it my opinion that you are one, per se.
I believe you when you say you don't want to annoy people, yet it should be clear by now that you do that sometimes through the form of your criticisms and challenges. It's up to you to decide what to do with this information.

_________________
::we:stained:the:grey:horizon:red::

Image


Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:13 am
Profile ICQ WWW
Reply with quote
Post 

Qwallath wrote:
Fair enough, but my whole point is that there are many ways of criticising people's morals and opinions. The keywords here are 'constructive criticism'. The way I see it, you often present your critique in a way that antagonises people rather than encourages them to listen to it. That's their fault as well, but you might have more success if you adapted to this.
I debated this point with Joost over and over. Debate is an art, and art cannot be understood by those not versed in it. The point is that if one has the aim of to convince people, most explicitly the beer and tits metallers. One has to lower one's arguments to a level understandable by those never having been introduced to proper reasoning, nor having any genetic capability to and therefore end up 'studying' journalism. That is what you see in politics nowadays, it is called 'populism', effectively the argument that is going to convince the masses places subtle logical fallacies and does massive appeals to emotion, which is not a style of debate, nor art which please my own taste in æsthetics. I have compared much to his own dislike Joost to Dimmu Borgir for præsenting his arguments in such a way that they may become accessible to the other party. I do no such thing and create my arguments with the sole intent of making them as I personally am most pleased about them, regardless of how many people I will persuade. This is shown by the book 'The God Delusion', by Richard Dawkins, though completely criticized and slaughtered from within the mathematical and physical community at least for unscientific reasoning, logical fallacies and most important of all dealing with 'God' as a concept vaguely, that is to say, not defining it first. It has persuaded many. I for one will not lower myself to such a level.


Qwallath wrote:
It's called a stalemate in English, by the way.
Anyway: it's not a big surprise that I don't live up to your standards, since they are pretty high, and I used the words in my own sense (and that of my girlfriend's, since it's our site).
Yes, I was already aware of the Dunglish there, I knew something was wrong with it when I typed it and it felt ungrammatical so I looked it up, careless enough to not observe that it is actually a term used in a certain programming language with a ":' between it. It is your site, but it is my inherent right as citizen of the Netherlands to criticize it under the same philosophy the scientific community criticizes creation science, which is science by its own declaration and also called as such on its own sites.

Qwallath wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean.
It is quite simple. Assume that how 'dark' something is can indicated by placing it on a linear -scaled infinitely long line. With no lower or upper bound. Let's say that 10 on that line is darker than 9. And -4 is lighter than 7. Than of course you can define a simple total order on this line. Very similar to 10 > 4. As in x > y means x is darker than y. As everything has a certain value on that line. The point of this line is that you can shift the centre of it, the additive identity, the 0, so to speak. Which is essentially the line which separates the last thing you can call dark from the first think you can call light. (notwithstanding that this is not possible on the real numbers. There is no 'first' number after 0 but just for illustration.), of course, if you have a > b and you add any c to both you have a+c > b+c, which is still valid. Adding either a positive or negative c to it changes the neutral point of the line and is effectively the difference between people's personal perspectives of it. If from my perspective i > 0 and you < 0 and from your perspective i > 0 and you > 0 it is valid to conclude that my line has a certain positive constant added to it and that i > you in terms of darkness.


Qwallath wrote:
I don't get this one either.
You are content about something that is?
Or you contend that something is a certain way?
The latter, pardon my chaotic typing.

Qwallath wrote:
Very well. I don't think I've called you a troll, personally, by the way, nor is it my opinion that you are one, per se.
I believe you when you say you don't want to annoy people, yet it should be clear by now that you do that sometimes through the form of your criticisms and challenges. It's up to you to decide what to do with this information.
Well. A friend of mine was threatened to get banned on a trance board because she contributed nothing but criticism about the current state of trance by a moderator who said she had nothing positive to contribute. She replied with giving very valid arguments why the trance scene has gone to hell. Most notably that there are three Dutch guys probably constantly high on weed who control ninety per cent of it on their own and who are merely in it for the money and that it needs people to criticise what is going on to get out of this. And it needed a lot more people than just her. Yes, I have some very hard critique about the current state of doom metal, about the current state of black metal, about industrial, also about trance, about dark ambient, nearly everything. Take for instance the Kludde topic. Wouldn't you find it at least a bit reasonable that I thought it was just plain amateurish of the band to write lyrics and song titles in a language they simply didn't speak properly? Just hoping that there would be no one to spot their errors? What do your lyrics and song titles mean then? If they are just to look good in archaïc Dutch but really have no meaning? I placed systematic criticism on that which is what everyone would do. If I were Japanese and I would encounter someone making songtitles in just poor Japanese just for the Oriental look of it I would tell them that's highly unprofessional to do, like anyone. And that was completely marketed at the release with a minor note under it saying that I found it a bit weak to let others do the production of the album and not include them as session members or full band members if you keep getting the same people for the production. The first part was a paragraph. The last two lines. And only the last was quoted and I was attacked on it with various ad-hominems and in the end accused of taking the thread off topic. There is a staff member here who has deleted a post of mine in a topic from his band where I criticized it for sounding cheesy and 'gæ' if you like. To which I got back a personal message from said staff member using language somewhat inappropriate for a staffmember to take care of such matters. And also, I rarely post it when I simply 'agree' with what has already been said without adding something new. I am somewhat annoyed by people who quote posts and just say '+1', it has already been said, the insight has been placed for people to think about it. What is it going to change if people know another agrees with that point? It shouldn't affect people's judgement knowing how many people agree with them or are against them, no? So I usually only post when I have something new to add, which of course by reason can be assumed to in the majority of cases going against what has already said. In the downloading topic I agreed with 3/5 of the posters a rough estimate tells me. But I still would not just quote them and say 'I agree' unless I had some new arguments to add to the equation.


Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:54 am
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 7:25 pm
Posts: 376
Location: Nederland
Reply with quote
Post 

frublz wrote:
Qwallath wrote:
Fair enough, but my whole point is that there are many ways of criticising people's morals and opinions.
I debated this point with Joost over and over. Debate is an art, and art cannot be understood by those not versed in it. The point is that if one has the aim of to convince people, most explicitly the beer and tits metallers. One has to lower one's arguments to a level understandable by those never having been introduced to proper reasoning, nor having any genetic capability to and therefore end up 'studying' journalism. That is what you see in politics nowadays, it is called 'populism', effectively the argument that is going to convince the masses places subtle logical fallacies and does massive appeals to emotion, which is not a style of debate, nor art which please my own taste in æsthetics. I have compared much to his own dislike Joost to Dimmu Borgir for præsenting his arguments in such a way that they may become accessible to the other party. I do no such thing and create my arguments with the sole intent of making them as I personally am most pleased about them, regardless of how many people I will persuade. This is shown by the book 'The God Delusion', by Richard Dawkins, though completely criticized and slaughtered from within the mathematical and physical community at least for unscientific reasoning, logical fallacies and most important of all dealing with 'God' as a concept vaguely, that is to say, not defining it first. It has persuaded many. I for one will not lower myself to such a level.


I understand that you may have an aversity to lowering yourself to the level of some other people. What astounds me is that you then continue the debate in your own style, while that will obviously have no other result than the cause of irritation on a public forum, the main goal of which is to promote discussion on different levels, but in a pleasant way.

If you do not care about persuading people, and only post your arguments to please your own ego, you might as well begin a blog, because you are not interested in interacting with people, as I have pointed out before. Since this is a forum, ergo, a place for interaction between people, I suggest again that you try to accommodate to other people.

Quote:
It is your site, but it is my inherent right as citizen of the Netherlands to criticize it under the same philosophy the scientific community criticizes creation science, which is science by its own declaration and also called as such on its own sites.
Sure thing. I just pointed out that I have my own reasons for not not taking this criticism to heart, which is also my right.

Quote:
It is quite simple. Assume that how 'dark' something is can indicated by placing it on a linear -scaled infinitely long line.

Yep, I get it then. Anyway, I'm only hoping to be 'dark and obscure' enough by my own standards, and those of the people whose opinion I value for some reason or other. Currently, that doesn't include yours.

Quote:
Qwallath wrote:
Very well. I don't think I've called you a troll, personally, by the way, nor is it my opinion that you are one, per se.
Well. A friend of mine was threatened to get banned on a trance board because she contributed nothing but criticism about the current state of trance by a moderator who said she had nothing positive to contribute. She replied with giving very valid arguments why the trance scene has gone to hell. Most notably that there are three Dutch guys probably constantly high on weed who control ninety per cent of it on their own and who are merely in it for the money and that it needs people to criticise what is going on to get out of this. And it needed a lot more people than just her. Yes, I have some very hard critique about the current state of doom metal, about the current state of black metal, about industrial, also about trance, about dark ambient, nearly everything. Take for instance the Kludde topic. Wouldn't you find it at least a bit reasonable that I thought it was just plain amateurish of the band to write lyrics and song titles in a language they simply didn't speak properly? Just hoping that there would be no one to spot their errors? What do your lyrics and song titles mean then? If they are just to look good in archaïc Dutch but really have no meaning? I placed systematic criticism on that which is what everyone would do. If I were Japanese and I would encounter someone making songtitles in just poor Japanese just for the Oriental look of it I would tell them that's highly unprofessional to do, like anyone. And that was completely marketed at the release with a minor note under it saying that I found it a bit weak to let others do the production of the album and not include them as session members or full band members if you keep getting the same people for the production. The first part was a paragraph. The last two lines. And only the last was quoted and I was attacked on it with various ad-hominems and in the end accused of taking the thread off topic. There is a staff member here who has deleted a post of mine in a topic from his band where I criticized it for sounding cheesy and 'gæ' if you like. To which I got back a personal message from said staff member using language somewhat inappropriate for a staffmember to take care of such matters. And also, I rarely post it when I simply 'agree' with what has already been said without adding something new. I am somewhat annoyed by people who quote posts and just say '+1', it has already been said, the insight has been placed for people to think about it. What is it going to change if people know another agrees with that point? It shouldn't affect people's judgement knowing how many people agree with them or are against them, no? So I usually only post when I have something new to add, which of course by reason can be assumed to in the majority of cases going against what has already said. In the downloading topic I agreed with 3/5 of the posters a rough estimate tells me. But I still would not just quote them and say 'I agree' unless I had some new arguments to add to the equation.


It's great that you would like to add something to a topic before posting, something that more people should try to strive for. However, this issue again recoils back towards the first point: constructive criticism.

I haven't heard Kludde, and perhaps I share your criticism of tha music, I wouldn't know. Now, if you offer them this information of criticism so they can perhaps do something with it, why not present it in a way that accommodates a positive reception of the criticism.

If that's not your intent, i.e. you only want to state your opinion for the heck of it, not caring if you insult people with it, then what's the use of posting it in the first place?

I'm still convinced that it's better to try and adapt your discourse to the people around you if you want to interact with them in a way that maximises both the pleasantness and the usefulness for all parties.

_________________
::we:stained:the:grey:horizon:red::

Image


Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:07 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Reply with quote
Post 

http://www.doom-metal.com/phpbb2/viewto ... highlight=
Observe that I give substantial amounts of arguments as I usually do, which is responded to with a strange ad-hominem.

And then you get this:

Yawn.
Another topic that's become a dull argument. I understand that people want to make a point but there's no need to be so condescending.


Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:32 pm
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 7:25 pm
Posts: 376
Location: Nederland
Reply with quote
Post 

That hardly qualifies as constructive criticism, it's just criticism. Your tone of writing alone provokes people into not interpreting your arguments as constructive criticism, yet as, indeed, condescending and insulting criticism, a.k.a 'slagging off'.

I actually think the comment you quote is rather spot on.

_________________
::we:stained:the:grey:horizon:red::

Image


Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:40 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Reply with quote
Post 

Define 'constructive criticism' then? I have given a wide scale of technical arguments going in with detail what is wrong with the music have I not? What to you is constructive criticism then? Also, I haven't sweared or used foul words anywhere have I? I never do. And I have never made any accusations I could not back up. I have never directly accused anyone of anything that didn't visually happen in that topic. In fact, I was one of the most proper debaters in the entire topic, strictly adhering to the rules of debate. I only debated in favour of a side they, you and humans generally do not like to see debated in favour for. I get random topics opened about me which call me things, make accusations about me. Users like z10, and De Tuinman en de Dood have made accusations about me based on pure assumptions, effectively technically in the vein of having assumptions about Moroccans and accusing them of things without having any visual evidence about it. And if you technically wish to disagree with this. Than technically back it up with technical arguments. Not your feeling, you know the saying 'If you want to be a good scientist you have to suppress your humanity.'? I am pretty confident I can force a logical contradiction in your reasoning here. I am going to ask you this, and I want an honest answer. With which of the following excerpts would you agree more:

'I think all humans should be treated equal because that will lead to a better society for everyone.'

or

'I think some races should just be treated as differently because that is how they are ultimately created.'

Your call.


Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:56 pm
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 7:25 pm
Posts: 376
Location: Nederland
Reply with quote
Post 

frublz wrote:
Define 'constructive criticism' then?

Presenting your criticism in such a way that people are encouraged to accept it, rather than getting angry and reject it.
Like I said, you presented concrete points that could be improved upon, yet the style of your post could (and has) antagonise(d) people - for example:

Quote:
Grammar nazi says your archaïc Dutch is pretty poor.

This is a general statement, which is later elaborated, but which could have just been left out. Simply stating the mistake would be better, i.e. saying "I'm not sure if you realised it, but you've made a gender mistake..."&c.

Quote:
Making lyrics and/or track names in a language you do not know is a bit unprofessional to do.

You present this as fact, while it is in fact your opinion that this is a particularly unprofessional thing to do. Presenting it as an opinion rather than a fact also helps in setting a different tone.

Quote:
Also, please do your own mixing and mastering or include the one that does as a full band member or at least a session musician. To let the studio work be done by an outsider simply reeks of pop/rock/metal culture.

"reeks" suggests by its nature a pretty negative attitude, and in this use it constitutes a condescending form of speech. The way I interpret it, you accuse the band of being part of a cultural current you look down upon. This is generally not appreciated by the party looked down upon, and, again, lowers the practical 'constructiveness' of the criticism.

===

Quote:
I am pretty confident I can force a logical contradiction in your reasoning here. I am going to ask you this, and I want an honest answer. With which of the following excerpts would you agree more:

'I think all humans should be treated equal because that will lead to a better society for everyone.'

or

'I think some races should just be treated as differently because that is how they are ultimately created.'

Your call.


I don't agree with either 100%, but I would choose the first.
I would rephrase 1 as: "I think all humans should be treated in such a way that everyone has an equal opportunity to live their lives the way they choose to."

Phrase 2 is unacceptable to me because I do not believe in the creation of racial differences. I'm not a creationist. I think there are subtle genetic differences in each human, and among races, and these are a consequence of evolution, but these do not entail an excuse for value judgments (i.e. that one race would be intrinsically better in general than another).

_________________
::we:stained:the:grey:horizon:red::

Image


Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:41 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Reply with quote
Post 

Well, it didn't matter which one you would have chosen, you have failed my test. The very harsh truth is that both statements are logical gibberish. What I have effectively done is created two conclusions, being very opposite to each other. And placed a 'reason' behind it which uses words which harmonise with the conclusions. But both are in no way logically coherent arguments. They are both of the form:

1 Axiom ->
1 Conclusion completely unrelated to the axiom.

Yours is even worse actually. That's just of the form:

- Conclusion (I don't need no fuckin' reasoning yo brotha.)

And in the first form it's still depending on if you agree with the axiom. And that's essentially my point on how humans judge a post. They judge what someone says purely on the conclusion that person makes. Not the reasoning behind it. I have far stronger and more correct reasoning behind my posts than others have Of course we are dealing with English here and not fancy mathematical symbols so you can never obtain truly correct reasoning. Those who disagree with me do it purely because of my conclusion, and vice versa, the people who have added me on MSN to say to me that I have said some very interesting things here also only judge on my conclusion. Not my reasoning, I'm not going to prætend that 'my side' or something can do this better. They are on everyone's side. Joost is probably more on your side but he also judged more on reasoning than the end conclusion. I have once tried this: I made a paragraph in the most coherent logic I could think of, start from the axioms and finally properly deduce the conclusion 'Women should all be killed.', if you have the right axioms you can deduce that. I kept that paragraph and made a second version of it which was completely the same to the original except that I changed the conclusion to 'And therefore women should have equal rights to men.', the final conclusion in the last paragraph was complete logical garbage of course. And I showed both to different sets of people and everyone thought the original one was written by a 'sexist dangerous idiot' and stuff like that and everyone agreed with the second version of it.

Draw your conclusions from this. You have præferred one argument over another based completely on its conclusion. While both were completely incoherent reasoning which was just writing some words down which harmonise with each other.


Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:43 pm
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 7:25 pm
Posts: 376
Location: Nederland
Reply with quote
Post 

Why did I know beforehand I would fall into your logical 'trap'?

This doesn't mean squat, though. You simply stop replying to my points about you not being either constructive, accommodating or social, and start about the thing you are best at home at: logic.

All the points you make in the previous post are valid observations about humans' ideological tendency to look the the results or conclusions. But that's not a reply to my criticism of your forum behaviour, as you should well know.

_________________
::we:stained:the:grey:horizon:red::

Image


Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:27 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Reply with quote
Post 

Oh, I'm terribly sorry, I just thought that the conclusion of my logical trap overshadowed everything here. I forgot all else.

Qwallath wrote:
Presenting your criticism in such a way that people are encouraged to accept it, rather than getting angry and reject it.
Like I said, you presented concrete points that could be improved upon, yet the style of your post could (and has) antagonise(d) people - for example:
Then we have different definitions. My definition is tell them what is wrong with them and how they can improve it. Regardless of the tone. Tone is a very hard term to logically approach.

Qwallath wrote:
Quote:
Grammar nazi says your archaïc Dutch is pretty poor.

This is a general statement, which is later elaborated, but which could have just been left out. Simply stating the mistake would be better, i.e. saying "I'm not sure if you realised it, but you've made a gender mistake..."&c.
Ah, that explains it, I thought this was a funny way to introduce the problem but I guess my humour sucks.

Qwallath wrote:
You present this as fact, while it is in fact your opinion that this is a particularly unprofessional thing to do. Presenting it as an opinion rather than a fact also helps in setting a different tone.
Did you know the difference between opinion and fact is extremely hard to formalize and the only formalization that works yields everything as an opinion. That's the problem. When do opinions become hard enough to be colloquially be accepted as 'facts', I mean, it's probably seen as a fact in society that 1+1=2. And you can mathematically prove this of course. But only under certain asserted axioms. The idea is that something becomes more of a fact if the axioms required to come to it become more commonly shared. Like 'Earth is round and not flat.'

Qwallath wrote:
Quote:
Also, please do your own mixing and mastering or include the one that does as a full band member or at least a session musician. To let the studio work be done by an outsider simply reeks of pop/rock/metal culture.

"reeks" suggests by its nature a pretty negative attitude, and in this use it constitutes a condescending form of speech. The way I interpret it, you accuse the band of being part of a cultural current you look down upon. This is generally not appreciated by the party looked down upon, and, again, lowers the practical 'constructiveness' of the criticism.
Again, our definitions pretty much differ on what constitutes constructive criticism. And I condone not the idiom of society that 'negativity' should be avoided in such contexts. That is probably where I am fundamentally different from most people. The people with whom I associate and socialize are generally hateful people. And I like that quality of them. Note that this differs from aggression, which I see as a very primitive emotion that should be kept under control. I know someone who back when we were still in the same class would make particularly hateful comments to certain classes of society. But he always remained very calm under it and professional. He would say things like 'Because you are a person with whom I would find it less desirable to socialise with. I shall præfer to remain without your companionship.' but you could feel so much hatred coming from him, I found it a pleasant sensation to watch those conversations happen. And he had very little social limiting in saying what he wanted like. 'The solution to this problem which is polluting this world with its insufficiency would effectively be the murder of all but 500 000 human beings which would be selected by my very own taste to remain alive. The rest shall not be granted what is called a 'humane death', instead. They shall be tortured to a slow and painful end which I shall oversee personally, both for security concerns and my own personal recreation.', you are basing your axioms on positive things like love and happiness. I do the opposite and base them on hatred and suffer. I think the latter two should be maximized. What happened in a college I had together with Medical Sciences students:

I: 'I severely object to this veritable joke of a lecture which is præsented to us here and I contend it diminishes this establishment's credit as an academic institute. We are educated to become academici here. I believe I need not inform you that one of the fundamental principles of academic philosophy is to not believe what you are told until the other can demonstrate it to be true to you. Now I shall ask you again. These formulae you præsent to us on this blackboard of which by all honesty I have doubts you understand yourself. Wherefrom were they derived, from what definitions?'
Medical Sciences student: 'What are you talking about? We learn stuff from textbooks all the time without that it tells you were it has gotten it from, it's a textbook, you can trust it, relax...'
I: 'Oh, I see people doing a "nobled professional education" feel themselves to be addressed by the term "academicus in progress", pardon, I meant the physics students here, is that clear enough of a difference for you to be able to understand or do you require it printed out in Comic Sans Bold in pink?'

And of course the whole room was more shocked than they already were by my outright rudeness and arrogance in their eyes. Except one of course, who fell from his chair practically rolling on the floor laughing. But I can't really care about that to be honest. It is my honest opinion that my education is superior to theirs and I shall not simply be a slave to the social rules of this society which have evolved before me and without any input from me. I have no respect for those people whatsoever and you immediately see the difference between the physics students which are gaming internet geeks with the occasional going out to some bar and get drunk (in which I shall not participate), and the Medical Sciences students from whom you obtain the impression your university is a MBO facility with people talking about hoes, dope and bitches.


To return to the point of logic. What I was trying to assert is that people who have certain opinions will thus be looked down on for that. I merely tried to demonstrate the humans weakness in separating a well made post from a bad made post and that humans simply seek of a post to which they agree to quote it and say 'Well said, I totally agree.' I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated this attribute of at least you, and enough reason to make you think that this probably applies to your entire staff and the effective consequence of this is extremely simple. Neither you, nor your staff will be susceptible to any logical construct which would effectively demonstrate your notions about certain users to be untrue. Your staff will only look at the final line of the argument and check if they agree with that , is my believe of humans in general.

Now that I have shown you how susceptible you are to this simple mechanism which allows for politicians like Wilders to gain popularity. I hope you will take this little 'trap' of mine to think about how many possible logically very valid arguments you as an administrator a human in everyday live have missed to see for their true value simply because you didn't like the final sentence.


Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:13 pm
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 7:25 pm
Posts: 376
Location: Nederland
Reply with quote
Post 

frublz wrote:
To return to the point of logic. What I was trying to assert is that people who have certain opinions will thus be looked down on for that. I merely tried to demonstrate the humans weakness in separating a well made post from a bad made post and that humans simply seek of a post to which they agree to quote it and say 'Well said, I totally agree.' I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated this attribute of at least you, and enough reason to make you think that this probably applies to your entire staff and the effective consequence of this is extremely simple. Neither you, nor your staff will be susceptible to any logical construct which would effectively demonstrate your notions about certain users to be untrue. Your staff will only look at the final line of the argument and check if they agree with that , is my believe of humans in general.

Now that I have shown you how susceptible you are to this simple mechanism which allows for politicians like Wilders to gain popularity. I hope you will take this little 'trap' of mine to think about how many possible logically very valid arguments you as an administrator a human in everyday live have missed to see for their true value simply because you didn't like the final sentence.


I don't think you have sufficient demonstrated what you claim you have, frankly.

We disagree on what constitutes a suitable tone of writing, and in this respect, I think you have the majority opinion against you, not that you'd care. This is not a matter of logic, but a matter of semantics and definitions, and above all of social consensus. You can disgree with it, but it's a given in the arena you are currently operating in: this forum.

I never once stated that I don't respect your ability to dissect logic. You're very good at it. That simple fact doesn't make you a suitable or pleasant critic, though, as many forum members have experienced.

It is, however, quite a stretch (not of logic, but of observation and induction) to claim that I think in the way you think I do. All you have to go by is posts on an internet forum, on which I don't necessarily spend all of my intellectual attention. Reading articles and books is, in the end, a lot more interesting than this discussion, so I try not to get carried away. What I mean is, you can't conclude the way I approach issues as a person from what you see here in cyberspace. It's a guess; it is based more on your preconceptions about me and the rest of the staff than on representative empirical facts, of which you have but few. You are quite quick to believe you have shown something, when in actual fact you haven't.

Besides, you can't possibly accuse me of not trying to understand your way of thinking, because I've probably spent more time on discussing with you than many a moderator or admin would have. That alone counters your argument to a certain degree. If I acted purely on instinct and prejudice, you would have been kicked from the forum barely days after you'd started posting. Whether or not that's going to happen in the future anyway depends to a degree on your answer or response to the following questions:

-Why do you choose to interact with the people on this forum?
-Do you intend to try to adapt to the more general social ettiquette of this forum?

There's not necessarily a particular right or wrong answer, but I feel it is very important to hear your answer, since you are one of the most vehement dissenters here. That's not a bad thing per se, as I've said countless times. You add to the discussion, ergo you are not a troll, but I simply can't tolerate someone who is unwilling to accommodate to others in any way. If you choose not to accommodate, I really don't think even the lowest lowlife should grant you the honour of conversation.

_________________
::we:stained:the:grey:horizon:red::

Image


Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:55 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Forum User

Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:59 pm
Posts: 262
Location: Oulu, Fin
Reply with quote
Post 

I don't think Frublz makes that many good counter arguments. He does know how to avoid making a proper counter argument by knit picking either about logic, grammar, spelling or the subjective nature of the meaning of words ad nauseam.

Here is my subjective opinion after spending some time observing the forum as of late:
Frublz does not contribute anything to the people here who like doom metal in the traditional or even in its loosest definition.
This would be of no consequence if F. wasn't the attention whore that he seems to be despite all the claims of possessing supreme logic and what not. You state you are reclusive, which is not true as you seem to have this weird craving for attention that you so very often display on this forum.

My 2 cents.


Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:35 pm
Profile WWW
Reply with quote
Post 

Qwallath wrote:
We disagree on what constitutes a suitable tone of writing, and in this respect, I think you have the majority opinion against you, not that you'd care. This is not a matter of logic, but a matter of semantics and definitions, and above all of social consensus. You can disgree with it, but it's a given in the arena you are currently operating in: this forum.
The world? Have you ever argued with a fundamental Christian, you know, the type at which you can launch any scientific, historical, logical, or just plain common sense argument as to why there is an inconsistency in the bible and you have the inconsistencies right in front of you and you have two lists of the same group of people who don't match. And still, the fundamental Christian keeps pulling everything you launch at him or her which you feel anyone with the slightest bit of reason just can't deny out of context, using false logic, using dogma's. Using the infamous: 'The bible is true because it's the word of God; God exists because the bible says so.'? If you have you know what a pain it is. Imagine the whole world being such debaters...?

Essentially I have launched a great deal of logical arguments against a lot of things which are established as true in the western society and have deduced them to be inconsistent as anyone with sense knows of the bible. But people keep pulling it out of context, misinterpret it in the same way such a hypothetical fundamental Christian would. And just as much as this hypothetical fundamental Christian does not realize his own dubious reasoning. So does the world. Do you really thing in 600 years humanity has genetically evolved enough to understand how it is done now, while they were completely in error back then. They have just found another thing to zealously defend against all reasonable thought. Their ethics, their moral, their code, their laws. You have grown up in these societies customs and defend them the same as that fundamental Christian would with the bible. Every human does. Humans haven't changed anything in the last 600 years. Evolution is not that fast a process. It's quite simple. Children are more and more exposed to other explanations to how existence came to be than the biblical one so they are more open to others. However this is not so with moral and ethics and socials rules. It is regarded as true that it is a fundamentally wrong thing to do certain things. And if someone is going to demonstrate the inconsistency of it, release scientific things on it, history. Either people are going to pull your arguments out of context and debate in a dubious way back. Or they will acknowledge you have a point but simply still will live on to believe in and act by these rules. That's how you, or people anywhere appear to me at least. As any completely whack fundamental Christian who clings on to his or her faith against all reason. It has taken me a long time to control my aggression against this as you might understand. Of course I was a child, I was naïve as any other child and believed the propaganda the society launched at me. But I started to see the inconsistencies in it and that it was just nonsense by mere rational sense alone. And it is extremely frustrating that you cannot convince others about it, even if your arguments and logic as an eight year old child are more than a match for adults. I know I am not going to convince anyone anywhere. As a friend of mine once put it. I shall never win this fight, you are too stupid, and you are with too many. A combination ever so powerful if your adversary uses logic and reason. I believe you saw my debate with Krataknathrak on Heathen Harvest. I believe you said 'You just can't be a logical machine.', what if you tried to convince a fundamental Christian about apparent inconsistencies in the bible and he or she says that back at you with no arguments tied to it whatsoever? An extremely simple way to evade the bare truth that you've beaten the Christian in a debate.
Qwallath wrote:
-Why do you choose to interact with the people on this forum?
-Do you intend to try to adapt to the more general social ettiquette of this forum?
1: What else is there for me to do in live than the strive of perfecting my own arguments?
2: No, I have demonstrated them by any rational mind to be irrational and internally inconsistent. That others do not like the way I post I blame solely on them. Just as you would blame it on a fundamental Christian if he or she did not like the way you blasphemize if you try to point out the inconsistencies in the bible.

There, a different logical technique. A comparison by analogy. If you are willing to share these axioms with me:

1: It is irrelevant who uses logic for it to hold any value of justice.
2: It is irrelevant against whom the logic is used for it to hold any value of judgement.
3: It is irrelevant what constructs contains logical flaws for it to be unusable in the empirical models.

Then I've effectively præsented you with three options to choice from.
A: I am right when I argue against fundamental Christians in such a way, and Frublz is equally right when he does so against me.
B: Frublz is wrong when he argues agsinst me in such a way, and so am I when I argue against fundamental Christians like so.
C: Neither of the above I am willing to accept, moral is eternally inconsistent and I have proven frublz point.

That's it effectively. If you agree with axioms 1,2, and 3. You may choice from A,B, or C.

A little discussion about 'vilpir's' post here. His or her post is essentially of the form of one big statement without deduction to it. Just asking us to accept it as true without questions.


Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:08 pm
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 7:25 pm
Posts: 376
Location: Nederland
Reply with quote
Post 

frublz wrote:
Children are more and more exposed to other explanations to how existence came to be than the biblical one so they are more open to others. However this is not so with moral and ethics and socials rules. It is regarded as true that it is a fundamentally wrong thing to do certain things. And if someone is going to demonstrate the inconsistency of it, release scientific things on it, history. Either people are going to pull your arguments out of context and debate in a dubious way back. Or they will acknowledge you have a point but simply still will live on to believe in and act by these rules.


You know why that is? Because morals are just that: morals. They are intrinsically independent of hard-boiled logical reasoning. Probably the most universal moral rule is not to kill another human being. Regardless of whether you believe in it or not, it is not set in stone anywhere, yet - and in this I differ from a fundemental religious person - I still believe in it, because all things considered, I think in the end, it will lead to the greatest amount of human happiness to keep this as a general rule. This is not because it is a law of nature or mathematics that it is wrong to kill, it is because of the subjective experience of valueing ones own life, and that of another.

It's good that you can criticise rules and things that are taken for granted, but in the end it's still one way or the other.

Quote:
That's how you, or people anywhere appear to me at least. As any completely whack fundamental Christian who clings on to his or her faith against all reason. It has taken me a long time to control my aggression against this as you might understand. Of course I was a child, I was naïve as any other child and believed the propaganda the society launched at me. But I started to see the inconsistencies in it and that it was just nonsense by mere rational sense alone. And it is extremely frustrating that you cannot convince others about it, even if your arguments and logic as an eight year old child are more than a match for adults.


I can understand that. Believe it or not, I know how that feels, at least with respect to some social or moral issues that I never understood and still don't understand.

Quote:
I know I am not going to convince anyone anywhere. As a friend of mine once put it. I shall never win this fight, you are too stupid, and you are with too many. A combination ever so powerful if your adversary uses logic and reason.


The question is: why do we need convincing? Simply so that you can write in the way you want, without having to pay mind to the needs and preferences of others? Consider the other side of the coin for a while: why should we have to put up with you? Regardless of the logical soundness of your writing, you add very little of aesthetic or even informational value to the conversations you take part in. That disappoints me.

Quote:
Qwallath wrote:
-Why do you choose to interact with the people on this forum?
-Do you intend to try to adapt to the more general social ettiquette of this forum?
1: What else is there for me to do in live than the strive of perfecting my own arguments?


I don't know. I'm sure you can think of something. That's something everyone can best decide for themselves. If that's your calling in life, be my guest.

Quote:
2: No, I have demonstrated them by any rational mind to be irrational and internally inconsistent. That others do not like the way I post I blame solely on them. Just as you would blame it on a fundamental Christian if he or she did not like the way you blasphemize if you try to point out the inconsistencies in the bible.


No, you have not demonstrated that, as I said before.
That others do not like the way you post is because of two things: a) their idea of what is a nice way to post, and b) the way you post. They can change the one, you can change the other: a compromise is generally the result in our fluffy soft Dutch polder-culture.

Those who are not willing to compromise are in the end the ones who will cause the end of the interaction. I believe I have shown considerable will to compromise (a.k.a. tolerance) by not kicking you off the forum (which some others probably would have done) despite seeing absolutely nihil of that goodwill from your side. This alone would be a valid reason (by these social standards at least, by which we here are bound) to end the interaction: no will to compromise even a small bit from the other party. However, I try to accommodate to your way of writing by accepting it in those cases where it adds to the conversation.

For the record: all I ask of you is that you try not to invade people's topics with unrelated comments, wisecracks or such things. In all other cases, your logic is perfectly welcome on this forum.

A bit more consideration for other people's feeling is very welcome, but not essential.

Quote:
There, a different logical technique. A comparison by analogy. If you are willing to share these axioms with me:

1: It is irrelevant who uses logic for it to hold any value of justice.
2: It is irrelevant against whom the logic is used for it to hold any value of judgement.
3: It is irrelevant what constructs contains logical flaws for it to be unusable in the empirical models.

Then I've effectively præsented you with three options to choice from.
A: I am right when I argue against fundamental Christians in such a way, and Frublz is equally right when he does so against me.
B: Frublz is wrong when he argues agsinst me in such a way, and so am I when I argue against fundamental Christians like so.
C: Neither of the above I am willing to accept, moral is eternally inconsistent and I have proven frublz point.

That's it effectively. If you agree with axioms 1,2, and 3. You may choice from A,B, or C.


I agree with C: morals are logically inconsistent.
Yet they still stand, because for me, a social arena without morals is unacceptable. Not because you or I couldn't handle it. I believe we very well might be able to. Yet the (what you call stupid) majority happens to feel comfortable with a set of morals.

I believe it is our burden as human beings, not only to bear the weight of logic, and apply it where possible, but also to bear the weight of illogic, and live with it in cases where it seems impossible to dispel it. I actually think it is a great moral achievement if you can see the logical fallacies in others, try and persuade those people (preferably in a constructive way), but forgive them if they seem unwilling to change their mind. But maybe I'm too much of a crypto-Christian?

As for the forum: here, I choose to implement those moral givens which I believe in (perfectly logical or not), and hold dear, and that was worked very well in the majority of the cases. I believe the common courtesy and conduct rules maximise the forum enjoyment for the greatest amount of people, and by utilitarian logic, that would be the most desirable outcome. The only downside is that some forum members, yourself included, will have to either bend a tiny bit, or simply break.

Now, I ask you, is that too much too ask of an intelligent young man? Or are your principles worth more than the opportunity to interact with others? I'll say it again, and for the final time: if the latter is the case, I suggest you start looking for another place to hone your argumentative skills, because you wouldn't be welcome in our puny insignificant piece of cyberspace anymore.

_________________
::we:stained:the:grey:horizon:red::

Image


Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:54 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Reply with quote
Post 

Qwallath wrote:
You know why that is? Because morals are just that: morals. They are intrinsically independent of hard-boiled logical reasoning. Probably the most universal moral rule is not to kill another human being. Regardless of whether you believe in it or not, it is not set in stone anywhere, yet - and in this I differ from a fundemental religious person - I still believe in it, because all things considered, I think in the end, it will lead to the greatest amount of human happiness to keep this as a general rule. This is not because it is a law of nature or mathematics that it is wrong to kill, it is because of the subjective experience of valueing ones own life, and that of another.
The point is that these ideas lead to inconsistencies, contradictions. I mean, you can perfectly create an axiomatic system as a theoretical experiment which has contradictions. But not one that says anything about the physical world. Because in the physical world, things aren't true and false at the same time. That's just science. If you have an hypothesis about something and that leads to contradictions people aren't even going to look into if it works. It cannot possible work if it has contradictions. That's the whole point, a very simple cliché is that western moral has freedom of speech but also that you cannot insult someone? It's even written on paper both in the constitution we live in and it does not take a big brain to see that these conflict. And when they do, a whole team of judges bows over the case to see what should be done. My moral doesn't have the idea that you cannot insult someone but it does keep the freedom of speech. It's an extremely simple case and there are deeper things going on like what I wrote about in my entire essay in the prævious post.

Qwallath wrote:
The question is: why do we need convincing? Simply so that you can write in the way you want, without having to pay mind to the needs and preferences of others? Consider the other side of the coin for a while: why should we have to put up with you? Regardless of the logical soundness of your writing, you add very little of aesthetic or even informational value to the conversations you take part in. That disappoints me.
Why do young earth creationists need to be convinced that what they believe in is simply bullshit? What you believe in is not true, it's internally inconsistent.

Qwallath wrote:
I don't know. I'm sure you can think of something. That's something everyone can best decide for themselves. If that's your calling in life, be my guest.
I seek to perfect everything of course. I haven't really had any musical inspiration or ideas for something in a while and I'm focussing on comics more nowadays. And this afternoon I was playing therapist for five people at the same time. I had to fix an argument in a relationship. Talk with someone about her past as abused by her father. Look for options for someone who wants to let someone know that she loved him and trying to make someone realize her own paranoidness. That's also a big part of my time. When something is bothering someone, I'm the first and with most the only person they will go and talk about it with.

Qwallath wrote:
No, you have not demonstrated that, as I said before.
That others do not like the way you post is because of two things: a) their idea of what is a nice way to post, and b) the way you post. They can change the one, you can change the other: a compromise is generally the result in our fluffy soft Dutch polder-culture.
That's the point. I've shown many times what inconsistencies would arise by not liking posts with a negative tone to it compared to the other notions they have about certain things. I mean, it's not completely formal here, we are dealing with English, not fancy pure mathematics symbols but it's decent enough. Like I said. If you accept 1,2,3 which all fall into standard western moral. And you think it's okay to become annoyed at fundamental Christians for not letting reason hit them that the bible simply contains inconsistencies. And lastly you are not okay with me getting annoyed at you because you effectively do the same. Then you are working inconsistently. Do this as you like but if you do you simply loose all right to the claim 'I'm right in this discussion.'

It's extremely simple in the empirical world: Let A and B be proposed empirical hypotheses:
- IF A contradicts with B THEN (IF true(A) THEN false(B)) AND (IF true(B) THEN false(A))
- IF A contradicts A THEN false(A)
- IF B contradicts B THEN false(B)

This is where the empirical system is different from the formal theoretical system. There there can be multiple theories contradicting each other since none makes the claim that they say something about the world we experience. Empirically, we experience only one world. So if they don't stroke with each other at least one of them doesn't describe the world. If they don't stroke with themselves.. then they have no change to be right in the first place. I mean, you can live in an inconsistent system of ideologies if you like. You just can never say you are right at all of them if they are inconsistent. That's the point. If I were to have both the ideology that insulting is wrong and unlimited freedom of speech is good. How can that coëxist when they contradict each other? How can I say that both are fundamentally good ideas then? That's the point. It's exactly the same thing as someone saying that two books in the bible are both true while they contradict each other.

I can't recall a case here were I randomly started spamming that wasn't spammed in already or was my own topic. I still have you to explain to me what was the difference in both threads, I know you can feel what the difference is, but can you also formalize is? I am not a cold logical machine incapable of anything else. I have my artistic side too. The point is that art is not a way for me to find the truth. And art will not succeed in doing that. If I want to find the truth I must resort to logic and science.

EDIT: And if you look around you see that there is also a substantial number of people who value my opinion here and view that I'm bringing a welcome change and critical attitude here. I've been added by four lurkers here on MSN just to tell me that I say things that make more sense than any other user. Though I hold no pride in it knowing that most likely they all just went for the conclusion and not the reasoning behind it.

Do you know the concept of mathematical beauty?


Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:39 pm
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 7:25 pm
Posts: 376
Location: Nederland
Reply with quote
Post 

frublz wrote:
That's the whole point, a very simple cliché is that western moral has freedom of speech but also that you cannot insult someone? It's even written on paper both in the constitution we live in and it does not take a big brain to see that these conflict. And when they do, a whole team of judges bows over the case to see what should be done. My moral doesn't have the idea that you cannot insult someone but it does keep the freedom of speech. It's an extremely simple case and there are deeper things going on like what I wrote about in my entire essay in the prævious post.


You're right, but I'm not forcing you legally not to insult anyone, I'm simply strongly requesting that you try to accommodate some more, and you know that. It's perfectly possible to phrase criticisms in such a way that you generate less antagonism, if you only study how this works a bit more. Like I was trying to explain, there are certain things in the way you can write criticism which most people tend not to like. Then, if you're in a forum, criticising people you don't know well enough, you could try and stick by those general observations and avoid this way of writing, as far as possible without losing the points of your criticism.

Quote:
Qwallath wrote:
The question is: why do we need convincing? Simply so that you can write in the way you want, without having to pay mind to the needs and preferences of others? Consider the other side of the coin for a while: why should we have to put up with you? Regardless of the logical soundness of your writing, you add very little of aesthetic or even informational value to the conversations you take part in. That disappoints me.
Why do young earth creationists need to be convinced that what they believe in is simply bullshit? What you believe in is not true, it's internally inconsistent.

Qwallath wrote:
No, you have not demonstrated that, as I said before.
That others do not like the way you post is because of two things: a) their idea of what is a nice way to post, and b) the way you post. They can change the one, you can change the other: a compromise is generally the result in our fluffy soft Dutch polder-culture.
That's the point. I've shown many times what inconsistencies would arise by not liking posts with a negative tone to it compared to the other notions they have about certain things. I mean, it's not completely formal here, we are dealing with English, not fancy pure mathematics symbols but it's decent enough. Like I said. If you accept 1,2,3 which all fall into standard western moral. And you think it's okay to become annoyed at fundamental Christians for not letting reason hit them that the bible simply contains inconsistencies. And lastly you are not okay with me getting annoyed at you because you effectively do the same. Then you are working inconsistently. Do this as you like but if you do you simply loose all right to the claim 'I'm right in this discussion.'


There you go again, placing the full burden of the issue on the shoulders of others.

You think it's a problem when people show logical inconsistencies concerning some opinions on a forum. But as you have well demonstrated yourself, logical inconsistencies are quite commonplace among mankind. I mean, we are essentially logical beings, and most people can apply it to various matters, yet that does not mean that everyone chooses to apply it everywhere, or seeks to make all of the opinions logically consistent. I understand that that is the way you would like to do it, and what you consider best, and that's perfectly fine for your own life.

However, like I've said in the previous post (without having the honour of receiving your reply) is that it would grace you if you took these human tendencies into consideration, perhaps trying to improve them in a subtle way, instead of hammering down upon them like you are doing now. It's really a subtle change in approach from your side, and I don't think it would demand of you that you compromise your own principles. I hope you will consider this.


Quote:
I can't recall a case here were I randomly started spamming that wasn't spammed in already or was my own topic. I still have you to explain to me what was the difference in both threads, I know you can feel what the difference is, but can you also formalize is? I am not a cold logical machine incapable of anything else. I have my artistic side too. The point is that art is not a way for me to find the truth. And art will not succeed in doing that. If I want to find the truth I must resort to logic and science.


I think for me, and for many others, the concept is to a great degree context-dependent.
I'll give an example from the dutch forum. A band was looking for a keyboard player, and after a few posts by others, your reply was:
"Doom metal met een band maken en niet in je eentje is zeer betreurenswaardig." my translation: "Making doom with a band and not alone is very deplorable."
This essentially adds one thing to the discussion: The other people choose to play in a band, but you, for some reason, think that's a thing for losers. Maybe you weren't being totally serious, or maybe you were. Regardless, it adds little to the discussion, and certainly doesn't further the original goal of the topic. So, combining the condescending tone of your post with the distraction from the original post, are you really surprised people are annoyed at it?

Quote:
EDIT: And if you look around you see that there is also a substantial number of people who value my opinion here and view that I'm bringing a welcome change and critical attitude here. I've been added by four lurkers here on MSN just to tell me that I say things that make more sense than any other user. Though I hold no pride in it knowing that most likely they all just went for the conclusion and not the reasoning behind it.
It doesn't surprise me at all. I'm sure I also value your opinion in some cases, or at least your style of arguing in some cases. In that sense, like I said, you're perfectly welcome here.

Quote:
Do you know the concept of mathematical beauty?

I'm not sure what you mean by it, but feel free to open a topic about it in the Philosophy forum.

_________________
::we:stained:the:grey:horizon:red::

Image


Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:09 am
Profile ICQ WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.