Debunked self evident truths

Post Reply New Topic

You don't seem to get my point. My point is, once again, not to debate the issue I presented. I presented it because it is one of those things that a lot of people simply can't have an emotionally detached purely intellectual discussion about. You keep debating the issue, that's beside the point. If anything you prove my point.

If you are attempting to control my style of communication, which I'm hoping you are not, it is not going to work; I respond to points here, not personal requirements of my communication by others.

If you do not like my opinion, or welcome it, it is easy enough to ignore it, I think.

And it's just my opinion.

I am not here for the 'debate club', as this discussion forum can never be a REAL debate arena, anyway, as it is has never been a forum of reasonably potential civil discourse; however, I do note that you almost always seem civil to me, and I respect that, so thanks for that. :)

That was an interesting response. Well, I might have attempted to influence your thinking I guess. Isn't that what we do all the time when we communicate with others? You are welcome to write what you want. But I, hopefully, can also write what I see fit. I pointed out that I thought you were going off on a sidetrack, relative to the point I had tried to make.

I welcome all diversity of communication, as there is no reason for words to annoy me when a person is just attempting to communicate their opinions in whatever way they please.

If people as a whole could just tolerate differences in the way minds work and communication plays out it would be much more fun I think here, but nah, not all folks share that opinion and yes, I expect that, accept it, and easily tolerate that too.

And in my type of autism, I tend to see more points of view than most folks and that does lead to what some folks see as diversion, but I do not.

"C'est La Vie", as they say, different strokes of communication for different folks is my way of seeing things here as what is will be. :)

I think that many people say a truth is self-evident when they think they know everything and believe something there is no evidence for or against (at the very least not yet). They refuse to admit that there are some things we don't know.

The definition of a self-evident truth is vastly different to what you are implying.

I think I have to disagree with your premise. I would argue that a degree of disrespect is necessary for any kind of discussion to occur. If you were to be totally respectful you would only listen, and thus no discussion would occur. It's like a war in that sense, but just like war I think that the bombing of buildings and children and such is only the very tip of the iceberg. Where do you draw the line between war and competition, or just life in the material plane? I think there is no definite line, it's all war. I have observed in myself that I have become increasingly controversial or offensive towards everybody over the last year or so. I don't know why. I guess I feel some form of frustration with people. I try to curb it though lately because I have gotten banned a lot and such. But then again, that might be a good sign. If you don't have a few threads locked and a few people irritated, and get banned from a few forums, chances are you were too nice to be making any significant progress in the search for truth.

I tentatively agree with most of that. To fail to have an opinion that you are prepared to defend or amend is tantamount to saying that your head is just a vacuous ornament. I'd say not "being too nice" but, more likely, just having nothing to say that might compromise your political opportunism because your purpose is merely to gain favour.

Care to elaborate then? There are many flaws and contradictions in the creationists psuedoscience that it will never truly be accepted as real science according to Academy of Science! Which is why off to the Creationist Museum you go. It makes no difference we can pin point every single creationist flaw there is.

IN the hierarchy of logic, the lowest part of the human intelligence of verbally written logic is in offense and disrespect EXPRESSED DIRECTLY TO OTHERS and I for one follow the Kung FU way of a wave and not a storm.

However, TRUE HUMAN intelligent WIT, is A tool of telling someone F YOU, in so many other words, however many that may take, and them enjoying it or it just flying over their head AND THAT is A ART of WAR to always win.

So I agree to disagree with you here, friend, SINCERELY, in this case, as you express opinions and do not fall to this lowest hierarchy of the human intelligence of written verbally expressed logic, as far as I see of you now. :)

And in REAL WARS IN FLESH AND BLOOD WAYS THIS IS A way IT IS DONE, FOR ILLUSTRATION only, AS THE TRULY INTELLIGENT FOOL WINS, even as an ape with REAL COMMON SENSE smarts.



After all, I did work for the NAVY, in civilian service, for almost a quarter of a century, and I cannot tell you everything I did, as one part of that government service required security clearance and a FEDERAL LAW APPLICABLE that breaking that security requirement per keeping government secrets could result in criminal penalty. ;)

I think that is the case many times. I'm not sure it's always the case though. I have discussed this topic on other forums. I for example had a discussion about the seeker vs the fighter. I argued that you can't be both. And I said that the moment you choose Coca-Cola, Pepsi is no longer an option. If you were to remain in a state of considering both you'd never buy either. I also discussed how the people that have less mental inhibition from indecisiveness are more likely to produce anything, which those that are more mentally inhibited consume. I also discussed the movie Nightcrawler recently, which I find relates a lot to this topic. Anyway, not to go into a long discussion here, I just wanted to say that I think it can be the case that not having an opinion means you have a vacuous head, but I don't think it's necessarily always true. I think it might also be possible to discuss arguments without holding them as your own, or alternatively holding them as your own only provisionally. I think about a quote from History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell when I think about these things:

That's not exactly how I meant it. I agree with what you said. I meant that a discussion or debate is only really a rewarding discussion or debate when there is disagreement. Dialectic, thesis-antithesis-synthesis. I meant that when you think about it, a disagreement is really a mild form of disrespect, sometimes less mild. If some genius or prophet or whatever sat in front of you you would not think of disagreeing. Ah, anyway, I'm busy now, don't have time right now to do this. This turned into an interesting discussion in itself, and when I think about it it's an interesting philosophical topic. Have to go.

Thanks for the clarification and I definitely agree with you here that disagreement AND discernment is a VITAL PART of increasing all forms of intelligence as there are many falsehoods out tHere to sift through, and that will always be the case as long as humans are imperfect.

And since code is only as good as the programmer, it looks likely that will always be the case, but it only makes the game of life more interesting to me.

And IF GOD per all of Mother Nature True, is programmer in some way, GOD knows how to make life fun in all the dark and light of IS, in my opinion, per the deLIGHTFULLy imperfect CODE that is, IS. :)

It was originally meant to mean that everyone was born deserving of the same basic human rights, but it has been completely distorted by all sides to the point where it is nothing but another meaningless phrase for use by the bumper sticker industrial complex.