At 1/26/12 08:31 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: What is its purpose. How does it motivate you to prevent what advocated it originally? Why does anger influence us to do the opposite of when we are not angry? If anger is an illusion like fear, then why is it still manipulating us?

Discuss.

Theres a difference between being angry and being pissed off imo. Being pissed off means me wanting to beat the shit out of something, while angry means the same thing as "upset." Means I'm like, "Shit. That wasn't supposed to happen."

At 1/28/12 08:48 PM, ShadyBlackGuy wrote:

At 1/28/12 08:46 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: What is really logic?

Oh

my

Fucking

God

Did he just go there?

Yes, I did. Just think about it for a moment. If you look at everything from the roots. You'd see that logic could've become anything at the start. Since this world's logic revolves around imaginary languages; distinctions; boundaries; standards and values. Just give it some though. What if there are some flaws in this ''logic'' that is basically the foundation created through all of our analysis; experimenting; becoming aware of a world that will always be _______. We can only go so far with our imaginary strings. :3

At 1/28/12 08:46 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: What are you guys talking about? I'm not Insanctuary.

How is it that you explain this then?
"(quote)
- My Simple Philosophy -
My philosophy is the sole foundation of what I, you, and everyone lives for. It's the most simplest form of being able to distinguish this world, scrutinize this world, understand this world /the best that we can/. It's about accepting everything with not of face value; what it appears to be; not of morality; it's an illusion; not of destination; goals; end of the rat maze; not of finding an answer to anything. It's not about anything, really. That is the illusion. My philosophy is built around the flaws and incomprehensible elements that were created by man. How word of say is just as formless as our imagination. How every action we make is acted upon how we interpret this world we stand in, and our abilities; virtues; goals. How nothing is as solid as it appears, and it is human ignorance -- for how metaphysical it appears to be -- adds realism to this world, and how we percieve it. It's an illusion, just as much as my philosophy. I just want to tear away at all the lies; deception; the illusions of our world that plagues our rightful judgment, and our real sense of direction from this world, and ourselves. I work through heaven, hell, this world and my mind all at one piece, so to speak. I am creating balance by understanding everything I can understand, and being opened for any newly founded awareness I could obtain. I understand that clouded judgment is the farthest we will ever have, but I expanded on this and learned to make the best of what I am, and soon to be aware of. Every human has tunnel vision, but not every human can stand through a storm of questions and answer them all; rendering the questioners questionless. I have established a way to question the unseen through the unseen. Through simplicity, and not complexity. Through nothingness, that will soon equate to everything and everyone.
"(quote.)"

As far as I can see, your "philosophy" is identical to that of Insanctuary. Give us an explanation.

That is the idea of my philosophy. I cannot tell you in words what really goes on in my head. The imaginative realm is the language I listen and speak of; understand. It has never let me down, and it is leading me to a direction that seems to stump everyone; not of my incorrect nature; but of my ability to retain my defense with my words that appear to be unsolid; illogical; yet it is solid and well established. I am able to completely re-evaluate what we ever thought was real; true of this world.. and that is why I consider my philosophy a philosophy that cannot be contradicted, and stands through time as it had. I'm not continuing to be 'blinded' by my passion via my philosophy because I chose to; no, it's more than that. It's because people look up to me, people listen to what I have to say and follow my soundless judgment I have spent every single second of my life to build to better this world. It's the people around me, strong and weak, that keep my philosophy alive. Not me.
- -

At 1/28/12 08:52 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote:

At 1/28/12 08:48 PM, ShadyBlackGuy wrote:

At 1/28/12 08:46 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: What is really logic?

Oh

my

Fucking

God

Did he just go there?

Yes, I did. Just think about it for a moment.

No.

I will not think about what you just said. Infact, I'm going to forget it as a favor to you.

At 1/28/12 08:52 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: Logic is...

Make a new thread. If this drifts too far off topic, some mod's gonna lock it and ban you.

At 1/28/12 08:53 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: If your philosophy held any weight why aren't you putting pen to paper and become the next Plato or Nietzsche or whoever? Why aren't you enlightening the planet and debating with the intellectual elite? Why aren't you doing all this instead of arguing with a website largely made up of teenagers?

Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!
Yurgen skewered the point. Place your philosophy on paper. Enter talk shows. Feel the reality and how it gets to you. I don't question your philosophy, but rather your support and its execution. If you are who I believe you to be, then you're nothing more than a mimic. A copycat.

At 1/28/12 08:54 PM, Society-of-Guardians wrote:

At 1/28/12 08:52 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: Logic is...

Make a new thread. If this drifts too far off topic, some mod's gonna lock it and ban you.

No they aren't, because I'm not going off-topic. The reason why I am questioning anger, intelligence and fear right now is simply because I question our form of logic and it's origin. Acknowledging how logic has come to be is right I believe there is a hole in our logic. I'm not saying the entire thing; I'm saying that right now, I'm questiong anger mostly -- then intelligence and fear relatively.

It's not off-topic. Don't assume. Also, why are you going off-topic with something that has to do with that Insanctuary guy? Stop it. :{

At 1/28/12 08:58 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: Acknowledging how logic has come to be is right I believe there is a hole in our logic

Oh god this is just..

I have no words.

This just in people, the last guardian, blackhole logic, and insanctuary are all the same dude.

At 1/28/12 08:53 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 1/28/12 08:46 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: I do not get backed into a corner.

But you do. Throughout the last seven pages you've repeatedly gotten yourself in over your head and tried to squirm out of it by avoiding questions, making irrelevant claims and playing the "This is just my way of viewing the world" card.

I see this world differently. So what? Does that give you the right to treat me the way you do?

People aren't mocking you because you see the world differently. They are mocking you because you have clearly no idea what you are talking about and you fail to understand many of the words you use, leading us to believe you're just trying to come across as some kind of deep, abstract thinker when the reality is you're just a pretentious tryhard.

If your philosophy held any weight why aren't you putting pen to paper and become the next Plato or Nietzsche or whoever? Why aren't you enlightening the planet and debating with the intellectual elite? Why aren't you doing all this instead of arguing with a website largely made up of teenagers?

No. There has been no progress on either side [unless you count how you help me see from your side]. Everyone is still in the same place. The argument hasn't gotten anywhere [yet]. I've never squirmed out of anything. I responded to everyone I possibly can while trying to avoid that post limit. What are you talking about? That Society guy tells me that I think I have the upper-hand; when it's obvious that you guys think you do. -....-

You want to know why? I'm just trying to understand how you -- as individual minds -- see this world. It helps me shape my idea into a broader form. What is so wrong with my influencing an idea; and questioning so many things [that is not going off-topic.]

You are making me out to be something I'm not -- please stop doing that and just discuss with me.

At 1/28/12 09:04 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: You are making me out to be something I'm not -- please stop doing that and just discuss with me.

They've been trying to do this for a while already.

At 1/28/12 09:00 PM, Xyphon202 wrote: Are you ACTUALLY saying you aren't Insanctuary?
Sorry, but you CLEARLY are, there is no fucking debate here. You say the exact same things.

"The reason why you don't agree is because you don't understand my philosophy"(refusing to accept that you might be wrong)
"It is true... unto myself"(you both have said this on numerous occasions)
"Nothing is everything"(or something along those lines. A bunch of pseudo-intellectual bullshit)

Then you do the same things as Insanctuary. If someone asks you a question, you turn it around on them. Just answer the fucking question you indecisive fuck!

If someone asks you why you think fear is just an illusion, you don't answer that by saying "why do you think fear is an instinct?", no. Just answer the fucking question.

You are either Insanctuary or you are exactly like him. Either way you are an ignorant pseudo-intellectual with a holier-than-thou attitude.

Coincidence? 8-{. Wait, when did I say ''unto myself''? I have been saying something different. I'm obviously not Insanctuary. I'm just somebody who is here to question and explore ideas. :C

It's kind of hard not to turn around a question when I'm not turning around a question.

I asked that Society guy a question afterwards to have a further understanding how he perceives this world and that particular idea before I answered the question. Stop blowing this out of proportion because you think I'm somebody -- when I'm not.

How am I a pseudo intellectual? I don't even want to be intelligent. I just was to question. I'm a very inquisitive fellow. :{ I don't remember once I spoke down anyone. They have been speaking down on me though. Go attack them. Not me.

She's not Insanctuary. All is settled. Run off children.

At 1/28/12 09:24 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote:

I don't even want to be intelligent.

Good

because you're not

At 1/28/12 09:30 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 1/28/12 09:04 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: I've never squirmed out of anything. I responded to everyone I possibly can while trying to avoid that post limit.

About two-thirds of the way down this page I asked you what word/s you would use in place of "fear" since "fear" isn't good enough for you, bearing in mind that whatever word or phrase you choose has to be practical for everyday use while still expressing the same meaning as "fear" plus whatever other bullshit you want to glue onto it.

You responded with:

I would say that one who fears is one who is casted off balance by cowardice; weakness; lack of understanding. When you realise how to capitalise on a situation beforehand, and understand that ''fear'' [cowardice; weakness; lack of understanding/control] will do you know good; what is left of it?

That does NOT meet what I asked you for in any way whatsoever. This wouldn't be so bad except YOU are the one claiming that "fear" doesn't accurately describe any particular human emotion, and yet when asked for a suitable alternative you regurgitate all this contrived donkey shit.

That Society guy tells me that I think I have the upper-hand; when it's obvious that you guys think you do. -....-

Why should that concern you when you've got this infallible all-encompassing life philosophy on your side?

You want to know why? I'm just trying to understand how you -- as individual minds -- see this world.

There you go: More squirming. The reality is that you KNOW deep down that your philosophy is nonsense and that you'd be metaphorically shat all over if you tried taking your ideas out into the real world.

Don't give us that crap about trying to "understand our minds"; you obviously already think you understand our minds when you say things like:

You will never understand the simplicity of my reasoning...
I don't need you to lecture me with what I'm am highly knowledgable of...
I cry that you are delusional, and should open your mind up for more understanding of what you speak there of....

It helps me shape my idea into a broader form. What is so wrong with my influencing an idea; and questioning so many things [that is not going off-topic.]

You're not questioning anything; you are making bold claims and failing to support them with evidence or sound reasoning. The reason this argument "hasn't gotten anywhere" is because so far you've done nothing but reiterate your weak position and tapdance around having to explain it.

You are making me out to be something I'm not

Trust me, nobody is making you out to be a reasonably intelligent individual.

I tried. I see a flaw. I'm not some master at terminology. Excuse me. I believe we are misinterpreting the signals of our body. That is the general idea I'm trying to influence.

I don't have the upper-hand. Nobody does. We are welcome to agree and disagree with how we see this world. You really think less of me. :{

How? I'm not squirming. I really am questioning your point of views right now. Why do you think so low of my philosophy? Only because it defies today's logic? What if our logic today is flawed in some areas? Is it so hard to atleast let it be a possibility?

That was towards that Emma person :/ They were deluded, in my eyes. You know why? They tried to defend something that they weren't even sure of. Then when I presented my opinion. They shut it down as if they knew 100% of what they were talking about when they admitted to not being certain.

That is what you think; therefore it's true?

Of course not. They are bashing me. Accusing me. Calling me a troll. This is not a jungle. Why can't we accept our different point of views no matter how broad they are, and have a mutual discussion?

At 1/28/12 09:40 PM, Xyphon202 wrote:

At 1/28/12 09:24 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: Coincidence? 8-{. Wait, when did I say ''unto myself''? I have been saying something different. I'm obviously not Insanctuary. I'm just somebody who is here to question and explore ideas. :C

At 1/27/12 03:54 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: My philosophy is nothing and everything at the same time. It's nothing, because anyone can disagree with me. It's everything, because it's true unto myself.
It's kind of hard not to turn around a question when I'm not turning around a question.

What.

I asked that Society guy a question afterwards to have a further understanding how he perceives this world and that particular idea before I answered the question. Stop blowing this out of proportion because you think I'm somebody -- when I'm not.

How about you answer the question THEN ask him? You do not need to know his philosophy to answer the question he asked you. You know in an official debate, you would be docked points for responding to a question with a question, which I have seen you do many times in this thread. I just read one page and you did it like 3 times.

How am I a pseudo intellectual? I don't even want to be intelligent. I just was to question. I'm a very inquisitive fellow. :{ I don't remember once I spoke down anyone. They have been speaking down on me though. Go attack them. Not me.

You speak down to people by saying "you do not understand my philosophy", that is very negative. How do you know they do not understand your philosophy, how do you know they just don't agree with it anyway?

Oh, wow. I actually did. I don't usually do that. :{

It's kind of hard to do something when I'm being accused of doing it in the first place.

Yes I do. It saves time. Would you jump into an argument without knowing what the argument is about? No. You would make sure you have an idea before you take action.

I said they ''don't understand my philosophy''? Or are you pulling something I've said out of context? >.> <3

At 1/28/12 09:44 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: Yes I do. It saves time. Would you jump into an argument without knowing what the argument is about? No. You would make sure you have an idea before you take action.

Isn't this argument about anger? Or is it about your philosophy?

At 1/28/12 09:50 PM, Society-of-Guardians wrote:

At 1/28/12 09:44 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: Yes I do. It saves time. Would you jump into an argument without knowing what the argument is about? No. You would make sure you have an idea before you take action.

Isn't this argument about anger? Or is it about your philosophy?

It's more of three terms: anger, fear and intelligence.

But, yea. I went off-topic there. Xyphone threw me off with some of the things I didn't realise I did. :<

At 1/28/12 09:53 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 1/28/12 09:37 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: I tried. I see a flaw. I'm not some master at terminology. Excuse me. I believe we are misinterpreting the signals of our body. That is the general idea I'm trying to influence.

And once again you're playing the "I'm just trying to get my ideas across..." card.

I don't have the upper-hand. Nobody does.

Actually I'd say it's pretty obvious that the majority of people you've tried arguing with in this thread have come out on top. If you need evidence please feel free to read over the last eight pages.

You really think less of me. :{

Playing the sympathy card, now? What a fucking joke.

Why do you think so low of my philosophy?

Because it is empty and stupid. Its emptiness and stupidity has been confirmed repeatedly in this thread.

What if our logic today is flawed in some areas? Is it so hard to atleast let it be a possibility?

Of course. But if the possibility of our modern grasp of "logic" being flawed in some way is all that your philosophy has to justify its existence, well... need I say more?

That was towards that Emma person :/ They were deluded, in my eyes. You know why? They tried to defend something that they weren't even sure of. Then when I presented my opinion. They shut it down as if they knew 100% of what they were talking about when they admitted to not being certain.

But since you're here to try and gain an understanding of how our individual minds work, why aren't you attempting to understand how that person's mind works as well? Why write them off as "deluded" instead of pursuing the matter and trying to "broaden your understanding" of these people, especially those whose ideas and ways of thinking sharply contrast with your own?

That is what you think; therefore it's true?

No. But on this page you said exactly that, about yourself:
"We are having an argument. It's not just an opinion. I see it as a fact, and I am going out of my way to express the factual essence of my perspective. You are welcome to discuss while agreeing or disagreeing. It will always be fact to me, and will make more sense than allowing these three terms to continue deluding people with it's flawed structure, in my eyes."

Why can't we accept our different point of views no matter how broad they are, and have a mutual discussion?

Because, as pointed out above, you're uninterested in changing your position on any of the matters brought up. You've resorted to claiming that you're here to broaden your understanding of the human mind, yet having already stated that what you believe will "always be fact."

Your imagination is wild, isn't it? I can't argue with somebody who does the I think something -- therefore it's true -- nonsense.

One again. You are wrong. Support your claims. You only state what you do because I oppose your ''logic''. So what. What is so wrong with being inquisitve -- even if I'm going too far for your realistic standards?

Oh, no. I wouldn't take my faces too literally. ^.^

No, it has not. It's only empty and stupid because it's not logical in your eyes. I'm here to discuss. Not argue with you about what you think of my philosophy. Now tell me: what do you think of ''anger''?

Ugh. I'm influencing the idea. I'm not exactly an architecture with ideas.

When somebody clearly is unsure of something and then attacks your opinion as if they knew it afterwards -- you tend to say things like that. I apologise for that slip then. Happy?

Oh trust me. You cannot consciously see how much this has helped me expand on my ideas. >:D

Now! Let's get back on-topic! :D What is ''anger''? What is ''intelligence''? And, what is ''fear''? :}

At 1/28/12 10:23 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 1/28/12 10:04 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: Your imagination is wild, isn't it? I can't argue with somebody who does the I think something -- therefore it's true -- nonsense.

Referring once again to this page where you said the exact same thing about yourself.

One again. You are wrong. Support your claims.

You mean the claim that you've been routinely owned over the last eight pages? I already supported this claim by suggesting that you check out the last eight pages. The evidence is there whether you acknowledge it or not. Fool.

You only state what you do because I oppose your ''logic''.

It's not that you oppose my logic; it's that you oppose all logic and can't justify or explain why you oppose it.

So what. What is so wrong with being inquisitve -- even if I'm going too far for your realistic standards?

ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE PLAYING THE "I'M JUST BEING..." CARD.

Nobody is getting at you for being "inquisitive" or anything like that. We are all in general agreement that the pursuit of knowledge is a fundamentally good thing. The reason you're getting pissed all over by everyone in this thread is that you're asking dumb questions and trying to argue with blatant reasoning for the sake of appearing deep and philosophical.

It's only empty and stupid because it's not logical in your eyes.

Well done, you've basically just said "That is just your opinion." No shit, it's obviously my opinion in virtue of the fact that it was me that was saying it. Derp.

I'm here to discuss. Not argue with you about what you think of my philosophy.

"We are having an argument.It's not just an opinion. I see it as a fact."

Now tell me: what do you think of ''anger''?

Already explained that at some point in the last eight pages. Go back and refresh your memory, and stop trying to squirm out of being raped by changing the subject.

Ugh. I'm influencing the idea. I'm not exactly an architecture with ideas.

You're not influencing any idea, though. You have no ideas. Your whole philosophy relies on the "what if modern logic is wrong" argument, which is nothing more than a one-size-fits-all stencil that could be applied to any way of thinking no matter how retarded. Example:

I think walking forwards everywhere isn't good enough. As humans we have to go deeper than that. It would make much more logical sense if we all walked backwards everywhere we went. Sure, we wouldn't be able to see where we were going, but we'd be fully aware of where we were coming from, and knowing where we came from is a prerequisite to understanding our species and our future existence on this planet.

Some would say it makes more logical sense to walk forwards everywhere, but I say my idea is perfectly valid because modern logic might be wrong.

See? Moronic.

Oh trust me. You cannot consciously see how much this has helped me expand on my ideas. >:D

Oh, how ominous and brooding of you.

Be more specific. I can't see what is clearly not there.

Be more specific. I cannot see what is clearly not there. What evidence? Evidence that's disguised by your inability to mutually accept my point of view? You can't call it out if you have no way to state as to why.

How am I opposing all logic by stating that there are possible flaws in those three terms? They obviously don't add up. There are other functions of the body that can create the illusion of the vague definitions of ''anger'' ''fear'' and ''intelligence''.

What card? You are just fabricating things about me. Stop it.

I'm not sure you understand where I'm coming from if you think I'm getting pissed over a discussion. Lol. If you are going to make assumptions; you might aswell own up to your possible flawed claims that regard me.

Nah. You took me as a fool and didn't answer it correctly. Answer it mutually and stop acting like I'm doing something when I'm clearly not.

It's not a what if. I see it as wrong. I'm discussing that it's wrong. I'm understanding your point of view. I'm trying to put together a tangible way of expressing why it's wrong; aswell as have you understand where I'm coming from atleast.

That was moronic. Indeed. My philosophy isn't moronic. You can't state why without saying ''Go check something that you aren't going to be able to see, because my empty viewpoint of your philosophy is not allowing me to see where you are coming from.'' You can do better than that. Alot of assumptions are obviously wrong. How much you want to bet that your viewpoint is clouded just as much?

I c wut u did thar! <3

At 1/28/12 11:03 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 1/28/12 10:35 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: Be more specific. I can't see what is clearly not there.

It is there, because I've already pointed it out to you, and quoted it a few posts above this one.

"We are having an argument. It's not just an opinion. I see it as a fact, and I am going out of my way to express the factual essence of my perspective. You are welcome to discuss while agreeing or disagreeing. It will always be fact to me."

This is while you are accusing me of adopting the "My opinions are fact" mentality, when actually you yourself are not only guilty of this but apparently proud of it at the same time, as the evidence shows.

Be more specific. I cannot see what is clearly not there. What evidence? Evidence that's disguised by your inability to mutually accept my point of view? You can't call it out if you have no way to state as to why.

I've stated clearly, as have others, why your point of view is arbitrary and moronic. It has been pointed out to you and quoted twice by myself and you refuse to acknowledge that this evidence even exists. You are an idiot.

What card? You are just fabricating things about me. Stop it.

As another user whose name escapes me right now already pointed out, throughout this thread you have repeatedly gotten yourself in over your head with debating and have resorted to playing the "I'm just expressing my opinion" card, this is AFTER arrogantly claiming that your opinions are facts and will never change.

I'm not sure you understand where I'm coming from if you think I'm getting pissed over a discussion. Lol. If you are going to make assumptions

It's not an assumption. It's a completely irrefutable fact that everyone you've tried debating with in this thread has owned you, and the reason for this ownage is that your arguments are completely void of substance, you cannot back them up with sound reasoning, and you've accused others (i.e. myself) of commiting fallacies that you yourself are actually guilty of.

You claim that you are "highly knowledgeable" yet unable to see why everyone thinks your philosophy is null and void.

It's not a what if. I see it as wrong. I'm discussing that it's wrong. I'm understanding your point of view. I'm trying to put together a tangible way of expressing why it's wrong; aswell as have you understand where I'm coming from atleast.

I know where you're coming from. I have illustrated it with the walking-backwards example. Your entire philosophy relies on the "what if..." argument. Deny it all you want, but so far that's the only bit of reasoning you've been able to produce in this whole thread.

If you disagree, you can link back to earlier posts you've made and/or quote them to support your position, as I have courteously done for you. Not that you've been prepared to acknowledge their obvious existence, however.

My philosophy isn't moronic. You can't state why without saying ''Go check something that you aren't going to be able to see, because my empty viewpoint of your philosophy is not allowing me to see where you are coming from.''

Wrong, because I've already illustrated why your philosophy is moronic, and now I'm having to reiterate it to you because you have the attention span of a sandwich. Your entire argument relies solely on the "what if logic is wrong" technicality; a one-size-fits-all rubber stamp that can be applied to literally any remotely-abstract way of thinking.

How much you want to bet that your viewpoint is clouded just as much?

I wouldn't bet against someone who refuses to accept the existence of evidence even when it is shown to him.

You've missed the curve ball :D. It's fact to me; through my eyes. I have not stated it fact in any other dimension. You, on the other hand, happen to be making assumptions about me; and attack me as if you know what you are saying is indeed fact -- without giving me a chance to just share my ideas mutually. Thus, your counter-argument turns to dust. :{

No. That is called your opinion. There are flaws in these terms rather you like it or not. Just because my philosophy pressures your precious ''logic'', doesn't mean you cannot just discuss with me regardless.

Once again. You've gotten your assumptions all tangled up. I didn't state anything I said as fact in reality; only through my eyes. Also, you still refuse to understand where I'm coming from after misconstruing the entire atmosphere of my thread.

When you accused me of things. You are the fallacious one. I didn't accuse you of anything. You are making assumptions of me, are you not? Yes, you are. Just because you say what you say; doesn't mean it's fact. See how hypocritical that is? You are trying to push me towards a direction I've long known from; and came from.. To discover more than what is perceived as ''logic''.

Because they can't prove it? Because their claims are empty?

It's not a ''what if''. It's ''what do you think of anger, fear and intelligence''. Which you cannot understand, because I am pushing past your boundaries of ''logic''. You aren't able to understand the broad picture that forms my idea. Simply because you are too grounded on land you don't know the real name of. ^.^

I've noticed them. You imply more things about me. :{

It's not a ''what if''. I'm discussing an idea that could influence a greater terminology for our body's way of reacting during certain situations.

It's not really evidence really.. It's just that you applied distinctions on an already existent chemistry and patterns created by nature. Then, you call it evidence. Because it repeats itself, simply because it's been repeating itself the entire time; even when we didn't exist. You can't add objectivity to this world; then tell me you know what it is. :D

At 1/28/12 11:30 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 1/28/12 11:19 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: herpy derpy without giving me a chance to just share my ideas mutually. Thus, your counter-argument turns to dust. :{

You have complete freedom to share your ideas. You have instead chosen to tapdance around all reasoning that renders your ideas void.

No. That is called your opinion. There are flaws in these terms rather you like it or not.

Another thing: Learn English.

Once again. You've gotten your assumptions all tangled up. I didn't state anything I said as fact in reality; only through my eyes.

So are you still denying the existence of the evidence I linked to? Or are you now accepting its existence but trying to retroactively skew it to fit the mess of an argument you've fumbled together?

I didn't accuse you of anything. You are making assumptions of me, are you not?

You just accused me of making assumptions about you. Literally one sentence after the other.

It's not a ''what if''. It's ''what do you think of anger, fear and intelligence''. Which you cannot understand, because I am pushing past your boundaries of ''logic''. You aren't able to understand the broad picture that forms my idea. Simply because you are too grounded on land you don't know the real name of. ^.^

And everyone has shared with you what they think of anger, fear and intelligence, and so far all you've been able to come up with in defence of your position is "what if your logic is wrong?"

I understand completely this "broad picture" you're talking about. You can't get more broad than "what if...?"

It's not a ''what if''. I'm discussing an idea that could influence a greater terminology for our body's way of reacting during certain situations.

But you aren't discussing anything. You are asking "what if logic is wrong" and taking it no further.

Logic is a human concept. All human concepts are capable of being flawed. This is not news to anyone except yourself, apparently.

It's not really evidence really.. It's just that you applied distinctions on an already existent chemistry and patterns created by nature. Then, you call it evidence.

>Deny evidence exists
>Be shown evidence
>Still deny it exists
>Be shown evidence again
>Unable to deny evidence's existence futher
>Resort to claims of subjectivity

Because denying your blatant ''logic'' is running around in circles, right? When telling me the obvious from the not so obvious is what is really dragging me into these useless circles. <3

I believe the correct term is: grammatically correct [I make a few slips here and there. So what? <3]

What evidence? I just see that you disagree with my philosophy through your ''logic'' that mostly everyone will agree with. When I'm trying to state an idea that opposes your logic for a moment; to get you to think about it for a while. That perhaps these terms are flawed? *gasp*

You are assuming alot about me as if it was fact. I'm not assuming if it's blatantly true.

It's part of the discussion. I ask if there is a possibility we misinterpreted the symbolism of these terms. Is that so wrong?

Broad picture :What if these terms we are using; anger, fear and intelligence; are being used misconstructively? What if there is a greater way of interpreting our body's signals? That those three terms are flawed? When I say ''what if'', I'm asking you because you do not agree with me. It's not ''what if'' in my eyes. Only in yours, because I'm asking you to consider ''what if''.

I'm discussing quite a bit. :D You just aren't perceiving it correctly. You are too busy assuming things about me, and misunderstanding everything -- then blow that out of proportion.

I'm very aware that it can have flaws generally. Yet, I'm talking about these three terms right now. ^.^

What evidence? It's simply just your opinion that you are pressuring me with as if it's fact -- when it's clearly not.

At 1/28/12 11:55 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 1/28/12 11:44 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: Broad picture :What if these terms we are using; anger, fear and intelligence; are being used misconstructively? What if there is a greater way of interpreting our body's signals?

You've had numerous chances to elaborate on this and have failed to do so. All you are doing, as I've already pointed out to you, is saying "what if" and taking it no further.

That those three terms are flawed? When I say ''what if'', I'm asking you because you do not agree with me. It's not ''what if'' in my eyes. Only in yours, because I'm asking you to consider ''what if''.

You are asking nothing more than "what if x is wrong and y is right."
That would be fine but for the millionth time, you've provided literally zero reasoning to support this supposition. Because, again, your ideas are empty and stupid.

The technicality that "we might be wrong about x" is nothing new to humans. If you honestly believe you're paving the way for some kind of greater method of interpreting and understanding anger, fear and intelligence then all I can say is that I hope you don't spend too much of your life dwelling on such an arbitrarily pointless topic.

Furthermore, I hope for the sake of humanity that you grow out of this tits-upside-down philosophical phase you're clearly going through at this moment in your life before you become old enough to vote, own a firearm and operate heavy machinery.

I'm asking YOU ''what if''. It's fact in my eyes, and I've stated it plenty of times. You are just too focused on the wrong perspective when it comes to me and my philosophy. Get that through your thick head. You arguing with me through your wrong perspective of me is no different than some inebriated man arguing with me. Get sober; and stop making empty assumptions about me. Be a man, and mutually discuss with me. Stop attacking me. Stop acting like your opinion is fact; then attacking me -- telling me I need to stop acting like my opinion if fact; when I've clearly stated many times that it is true in my eyes only. >.>

I'm not going to grow out of my philosophy just because of people like you who are hypocritical about what you say. Who blow things out of proportion simply because they cannot find their grounds. You are looking the wrong way; turn around and look at me. Let's discuss -- without you implying anymore nonsense. Mutual discussion. Go!

Round and round we go in circles. This thread probably ended on page seven and it wasn't much of a real attempt for answers to begin with. If you really want know how and why people use emotions or what triggers them, like anger, then I guess enroll in a psychology course.