"religions" (lets not go there)
You're a wikipedia narrating robot with an annoying condescending tone.
I'll find someone more interesting to discuss with somewhere else on the internet.
If you were considering this an argument, considere you won. Congratulations.
Last edited by deprav; Mar 22, 2013 at 04:57 PM.
"Religion" has specific supernatural connotations. I don't even know what you were trying to argue, that somehow capitalism is making us devolve? It makes 0 sense.
I think you don't understand the concept of value, basic economics, probably evolution as well, plus you seem to subscribe to some pretty out there theories.
It's disheartening to see you hand wave and act like wikipedia is evil instead of trying to educate yourself.
I think you don't understand the concept of value, basic economics, probably evolution as well, plus you seem to subscribe to some pretty out there theories.
It's disheartening to see you hand wave and act like wikipedia is evil instead of trying to educate yourself.
Originally Posted by deprav
"religions" (lets not go there)
You're a wikipedia narrating robot with an annoying condescending tone.
I'll find someone more interesting to discuss with somewhere else on the internet.
If you were considering this an argument, considere you won. Congratulations.
Cow has countered all of your points logically and calmly. The problem with this discourse is that you're unable to comprehend what he's saying because you're either stubborn and unwilling to change your position when you're wrong or because you just lack the necessary critical thinking faculties to realise that you're wrong.
Don't get pissy because you can't bullshit him.
Cow >
Seriously what the actual fuck... I gave you a dictrionary link to show you "religion" or "religious" or "religiously" can be used in different ways, not only refering to "supernatural conotations" but refering to the dogmatic and "unquestionnable" aspect of something, as in "following the football world cup religiously" (where the fuck is "supernatural" in that?) it's a common use of the concept that you can hear everyday but you somehow never did. (Now apply that aspect of unquestionnable dogmas to capitalism or whatever the fuck I said I won't even bother going back and read again)
And what the actual fuck again ? I never spoke the word "devolution". The concept in itself is totally retarded and implies time going backward. Evolution only goes forward but has endless possibilities, and becoming worst is a constant threat if we make the "bad" (if we considere morals) choices at some point. Evolution doesn't mean "improving".
You're making me say stuffs I never said, that just shows me you don't have any clue what it is I'm putting under your noze.
I never tried to prove you guys wrong. I just tried to make you see further than your technical knowledges. All you said was basically true but you're just seeing the tree hidding the forest. You need to go out of the "beaten track" and start doubting at least a bit.
Thanks for your very interesting assumptions, that made the discussion progress 200%
But, as WE said already, the concept of value has different shapes depending on the culture or the person, and I don't see how someone could not grasp the concept of value anyway, even a 5 years old kid does...
As for Evolution, please do tell me more about devolution again, that makes me horny. I'm not claiming myself omniscient, and my perception of evolution still evolves day after day because I'm not afraid to doubt about what I percieve as being true already, you should try it sometimes.
As for Economics. Are you guys economics students? You're trying so hard to prove it right and sounds so reluctent doubting it even a bit it looks like you would be in an endless despair if you ever do. (Or like you'd go to economics hell I dunno, hueheuheuh [religious/hell ... that's funny])
FUCKING ONCE AGAIN, are you fucking with me for fun or is it not on purpose? EACH ONE of your post you're quoting me wrong or making me say some totally other things ! where did I say wikipedia is evil ? I probably read interesting stuffs on wikipedia almost everyday when searching about any subject, it's like everytime I say something you fix on a word and make more assumptions. But I'll help you there : I just called you "wikipedia narrating robot", "narrating robot" being the thing to notice in opposition to "deducting human being" or "answering person", If I'd say "you sound like a fuckin schoolbook" you'd probably be saying I said school is evil or something, but I was implying that no one could have a serious discussion with you, since you're just repeating stuffs like a robot. (It's the first time I've to explain someone an offense I just told him)
Tutlenecks >
niqqa pls, he merely answered 20% of all the shit I wrote. Logically is discutable but I'll concede it. Calmly ? niqqa plsē. I haven't been trying to put any one of you down, while you were being condescending and assuming I'm stupid from the start.
Thanks for proving my point above.
I could say the exact same thing to you, being all jerky and subjective. But look at me, I'm not! because I can show enough good will to try and put myself in your shoes and understand your point to enhance my own, while you're just denying all I said like it was a big pile of horseshit mumbled by a mad man.
If someone needs some more self-critiscism aptitude, it's certainly not me [huehueheuh ironic, funny again]
You could have just said "you're wrong and you're wrong" without all the useless shit around, to show me how much of a constructive critic you are yourself.
And if that can help you in any way : I did understand what he said, some of it did bring me some fresh technical knowledges who were actually compatible with my point of view and what I was trying to expose you... then he started answering the same thing over and over to different points I wanted to show him (which makes no sense).
__________________________________________________
Both >
I wasn't trying to reveal you some kind of ultimate truth, prove your knowledges wrong or as Turtle said "change your position". What I'm generally trying to do with people on those matters is making them think further than they actually do, because we need to.
You guys need to stop being so sure about what you know and start giving credit to people who don't necessarily think like you do. There are many forms of intelligences and many ways to use it, being a close-minded dick ain't one of them. Maybe you Aussies fried a bit too long on the beach.
And yes NOW i'm kinda pissed, you made me lose my cool (you should be proud that's kinda rare), and NOW it's an argument, not a friendly discussion anymore.
"Religion" has specific supernatural connotations. I don't even know what you were trying to argue, that somehow capitalism is making us devolve? It makes 0 sense.
Seriously what the actual fuck... I gave you a dictrionary link to show you "religion" or "religious" or "religiously" can be used in different ways, not only refering to "supernatural conotations" but refering to the dogmatic and "unquestionnable" aspect of something, as in "following the football world cup religiously" (where the fuck is "supernatural" in that?) it's a common use of the concept that you can hear everyday but you somehow never did. (Now apply that aspect of unquestionnable dogmas to capitalism or whatever the fuck I said I won't even bother going back and read again)
And what the actual fuck again ? I never spoke the word "devolution". The concept in itself is totally retarded and implies time going backward. Evolution only goes forward but has endless possibilities, and becoming worst is a constant threat if we make the "bad" (if we considere morals) choices at some point. Evolution doesn't mean "improving".
You're making me say stuffs I never said, that just shows me you don't have any clue what it is I'm putting under your noze.
I never tried to prove you guys wrong. I just tried to make you see further than your technical knowledges. All you said was basically true but you're just seeing the tree hidding the forest. You need to go out of the "beaten track" and start doubting at least a bit.
I think you don't understand the concept of value, basic economics, probably evolution as well, plus you seem to subscribe to some pretty out there theories.
Thanks for your very interesting assumptions, that made the discussion progress 200%
But, as WE said already, the concept of value has different shapes depending on the culture or the person, and I don't see how someone could not grasp the concept of value anyway, even a 5 years old kid does...
As for Evolution, please do tell me more about devolution again, that makes me horny. I'm not claiming myself omniscient, and my perception of evolution still evolves day after day because I'm not afraid to doubt about what I percieve as being true already, you should try it sometimes.
As for Economics. Are you guys economics students? You're trying so hard to prove it right and sounds so reluctent doubting it even a bit it looks like you would be in an endless despair if you ever do. (Or like you'd go to economics hell I dunno, hueheuheuh [religious/hell ... that's funny])
It's disheartening to see you hand wave and act like wikipedia is evil instead of trying to educate yourself.
FUCKING ONCE AGAIN, are you fucking with me for fun or is it not on purpose? EACH ONE of your post you're quoting me wrong or making me say some totally other things ! where did I say wikipedia is evil ? I probably read interesting stuffs on wikipedia almost everyday when searching about any subject, it's like everytime I say something you fix on a word and make more assumptions. But I'll help you there : I just called you "wikipedia narrating robot", "narrating robot" being the thing to notice in opposition to "deducting human being" or "answering person", If I'd say "you sound like a fuckin schoolbook" you'd probably be saying I said school is evil or something, but I was implying that no one could have a serious discussion with you, since you're just repeating stuffs like a robot. (It's the first time I've to explain someone an offense I just told him)
Tutlenecks >
Cow has countered all of your points logically and calmly.
niqqa pls, he merely answered 20% of all the shit I wrote. Logically is discutable but I'll concede it. Calmly ? niqqa plsē. I haven't been trying to put any one of you down, while you were being condescending and assuming I'm stupid from the start.
The problem with this discourse is that you're unable to comprehend what he's saying because you're either stubborn and unwilling to change your position when you're wrong or because you just lack the necessary critical thinking faculties to realise that you're wrong.
Thanks for proving my point above.
I could say the exact same thing to you, being all jerky and subjective. But look at me, I'm not! because I can show enough good will to try and put myself in your shoes and understand your point to enhance my own, while you're just denying all I said like it was a big pile of horseshit mumbled by a mad man.
If someone needs some more self-critiscism aptitude, it's certainly not me [huehueheuh ironic, funny again]
You could have just said "you're wrong and you're wrong" without all the useless shit around, to show me how much of a constructive critic you are yourself.
And if that can help you in any way : I did understand what he said, some of it did bring me some fresh technical knowledges who were actually compatible with my point of view and what I was trying to expose you... then he started answering the same thing over and over to different points I wanted to show him (which makes no sense).
__________________________________________________
Both >
I wasn't trying to reveal you some kind of ultimate truth, prove your knowledges wrong or as Turtle said "change your position". What I'm generally trying to do with people on those matters is making them think further than they actually do, because we need to.
You guys need to stop being so sure about what you know and start giving credit to people who don't necessarily think like you do. There are many forms of intelligences and many ways to use it, being a close-minded dick ain't one of them. Maybe you Aussies fried a bit too long on the beach.
And yes NOW i'm kinda pissed, you made me lose my cool (you should be proud that's kinda rare), and NOW it's an argument, not a friendly discussion anymore.
Last edited by deprav; Mar 23, 2013 at 06:08 PM.
deprav it is impolite to make huge posts and expect people to read them, please try and be concise. I've tried to keep my replys under 10 lines, I'd appreciate it if you try and do the same...
"religiously" means "like a religion", where as "capitalism is a religion" means caplitalism IS a religion. I understand it was metaphor, but there are serious connotations associated with words which you should take in to consideration. I understand what you were trying to say, there's no need to discuss it further.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to understand what you are saying.
Here is the passage I was referring to:
"We're organic matter who emerged from a planet due to the "intricacy" of a shitload of random factors, just by luck mainly, that's how evolution work. And now, we're destroying what made us for the sake of arbitrary values, because we're the all mighty specy, full of ourselves and so proud to have invented civilized things such as economics and petrol cars. We just lost it somewhere, and the evolution of what money is now had a big role in this loss of marks"
You say we evolved and then later that we are losing it - are you not refering to our evolutionary traits? What exactly are we losing?
Economics is more reliable on a macro scale than psychology, so even if you can explain things in terms of psychology it's not useful.
I agree, this is not an assumption, this is fact.
There's no point doubting things without reason.
As above, if you presented a point which gave us reason to doubt PPP or some other dynamic, we would. But right now all you are saying is that we /should/ doubt it, and not explaining why.
What's more, PPP et al are theories build from observation, testing and review. The scientific proses is very trustworthy.
I have as much faith (continuing the religions theme) in the validity of purchasing power parity as I do in evolution.
On multiple occasions it has seemed like you are shunning economics and wikipedia. If you want to set the record straight and acknowledge them, then that's fine too.
Insulting someone by saying they narrate the greatest font of human knowledge ever compiled is kind of an oxymoron.
In your first post in this thread you hand waved the entire field of economics away. If I didn't answer something, I felt that it didn't need to be answered. If there is a specific point that you would like my opinion on, then feel free to post it and I will reply. Try to be concise and communicate a few points well rather than write a huge rambling rant and expect comments on every line.
Putting economics aside, I have studied a bit of psychology, and from the way you are writing it seems like you are upset.
The previous post you made you said something interesting, that you thought this was some kind of contest where someone can "win". I think you need to change gears a bit and understand this is a discussion, and that anyone will agree with you if you make sense. People in this subforum will readily recognise critical thinking and analysis.
You kept trying to redefine value, where as it's current definition is already sufficient.
Then you should acknowledge the current situation first, and then pretext your post with the proposition that you want to think further, rather than presenting a counter argument.
Your first post clearly was saying you disagree with everything already said.
Thinking patterns are one thing, but if I say "1+1=2" and someone else says "1+1=9" should I consider them to be merely a "different" form of intelligence?
Please calm down before posting again. This board is for discussions not arguments.
Originally Posted by deprav
Cow >
Seriously what the actual fuck... I gave you a dictrionary link to show you "religion" or "religious" or "religiously" can be used in different ways, not only refering to "supernatural conotations" but refering to the dogmatic and "unquestionnable" aspect of something, as in "following the football world cup religiously" (where the fuck is "supernatural" in that?) it's a common use of the concept that you can hear everyday but you somehow never did. (Now apply that aspect of unquestionnable dogmas to capitalism or whatever the fuck I said I won't even bother going back and read again)
"religiously" means "like a religion", where as "capitalism is a religion" means caplitalism IS a religion. I understand it was metaphor, but there are serious connotations associated with words which you should take in to consideration. I understand what you were trying to say, there's no need to discuss it further.
Originally Posted by deprav
And what the actual fuck again ? I never spoke the word "devolution". The concept in itself is totally retarded and implies time going backward. Evolution only goes forward but has endless possibilities, and becoming worst is a constant threat if we make the "bad" (if we considere morals) choices at some point. Evolution doesn't mean "improving".
You're making me say stuffs I never said, that just shows me you don't have any clue what it is I'm putting under your noze.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to understand what you are saying.
Here is the passage I was referring to:
"We're organic matter who emerged from a planet due to the "intricacy" of a shitload of random factors, just by luck mainly, that's how evolution work. And now, we're destroying what made us for the sake of arbitrary values, because we're the all mighty specy, full of ourselves and so proud to have invented civilized things such as economics and petrol cars. We just lost it somewhere, and the evolution of what money is now had a big role in this loss of marks"
You say we evolved and then later that we are losing it - are you not refering to our evolutionary traits? What exactly are we losing?
Originally Posted by deprav
I never tried to prove you guys wrong. I just tried to make you see further than your technical knowledges. All you said was basically true but you're just seeing the tree hidding the forest. You need to go out of the "beaten track" and start doubting at least a bit.
Economics is more reliable on a macro scale than psychology, so even if you can explain things in terms of psychology it's not useful.
Originally Posted by deprav
Thanks for your very interesting assumptions, that made the discussion progress 200%
But, as WE said already, the concept of value has different shapes depending on the culture or the person, and I don't see how someone could not grasp the concept of value anyway, even a 5 years old kid does...
I agree, this is not an assumption, this is fact.
Originally Posted by deprav
I'm not afraid to doubt about what I percieve as being true already, you should try it sometimes.
There's no point doubting things without reason.
Originally Posted by deprav
As for Economics. Are you guys economics students? You're trying so hard to prove it right and sounds so reluctent doubting it even a bit it looks like you would be in an endless despair if you ever do. (Or like you'd go to economics hell I dunno, hueheuheuh [religious/hell ... that's funny])
As above, if you presented a point which gave us reason to doubt PPP or some other dynamic, we would. But right now all you are saying is that we /should/ doubt it, and not explaining why.
What's more, PPP et al are theories build from observation, testing and review. The scientific proses is very trustworthy.
I have as much faith (continuing the religions theme) in the validity of purchasing power parity as I do in evolution.
Originally Posted by deprav
FUCKING ONCE AGAIN, are you fucking with me for fun or is it not on purpose? EACH ONE of your post you're quoting me wrong or making me say some totally other things ! where did I say wikipedia is evil ? I probably read interesting stuffs on wikipedia almost everyday when searching about any subject, it's like everytime I say something you fix on a word and make more assumptions. But I'll help you there : I just called you "wikipedia narrating robot", "narrating robot" being the thing to notice in opposition to "deducting human being" or "answering person", If I'd say "you sound like a fuckin schoolbook" you'd probably be saying I said school is evil or something, but I was implying that no one could have a serious discussion with you, since you're just repeating stuffs like a robot. (It's the first time I've to explain someone an offense I just told him)
On multiple occasions it has seemed like you are shunning economics and wikipedia. If you want to set the record straight and acknowledge them, then that's fine too.
Insulting someone by saying they narrate the greatest font of human knowledge ever compiled is kind of an oxymoron.
Originally Posted by deprav
niqqa pls, he merely answered 20% of all the shit I wrote. Logically is discutable but I'll concede it. Calmly ? niqqa plsē. I haven't been trying to put any one of you down, while you were being condescending and assuming I'm stupid from the start.
In your first post in this thread you hand waved the entire field of economics away. If I didn't answer something, I felt that it didn't need to be answered. If there is a specific point that you would like my opinion on, then feel free to post it and I will reply. Try to be concise and communicate a few points well rather than write a huge rambling rant and expect comments on every line.
Originally Posted by deprav
Thanks for proving my point above.
I could say the exact same thing to you, being all jerky and subjective. But look at me, I'm not! because I can show enough good will to try and put myself in your shoes and understand your point to enhance my own, while you're just denying all I said like it was a big pile of horseshit mumbled by a mad man.
If someone needs some more self-critiscism aptitude, it's certainly not me [huehueheuh ironic, funny again]
You could have just said "you're wrong and you're wrong" without all the useless shit around, to show me how much of a constructive critic you are yourself.
Putting economics aside, I have studied a bit of psychology, and from the way you are writing it seems like you are upset.
The previous post you made you said something interesting, that you thought this was some kind of contest where someone can "win". I think you need to change gears a bit and understand this is a discussion, and that anyone will agree with you if you make sense. People in this subforum will readily recognise critical thinking and analysis.
Originally Posted by deprav
then he started answering the same thing over and over to different points I wanted to show him (which makes no sense).
You kept trying to redefine value, where as it's current definition is already sufficient.
Originally Posted by deprav
I wasn't trying to reveal you some kind of ultimate truth, prove your knowledges wrong or as Turtle said "change your position". What I'm generally trying to do with people on those matters is making them think further than they actually do, because we need to.
Then you should acknowledge the current situation first, and then pretext your post with the proposition that you want to think further, rather than presenting a counter argument.
Your first post clearly was saying you disagree with everything already said.
Originally Posted by deprav
You guys need to stop being so sure about what you know and start giving credit to people who don't necessarily think like you do. There are many forms of intelligences and many ways to use it, being a close-minded dick ain't one of them. Maybe you Aussies fried a bit too long on the beach.
Thinking patterns are one thing, but if I say "1+1=2" and someone else says "1+1=9" should I consider them to be merely a "different" form of intelligence?
Originally Posted by deprav
And yes NOW i'm kinda pissed, you made me lose my cool (you should be proud that's kinda rare), and NOW it's an argument, not a friendly discussion anymore.
Please calm down before posting again. This board is for discussions not arguments.
