At 4/29/12 02:09 AM, SKHM wrote:

At 4/29/12 02:04 AM, ILoveToGrok wrote: What if the void is as subjective as a reality?

What if there is only an abyss presented to one convinced of an abyss?

solipsistic thinking

the abyss is there whether or not you "believe" in it and there are noumenal sources to our forms

And life presented to those convinced of a life?

What if there is more than 1, 2, or even 3 realms to those who are convinced of a multitude of realms?

What if you only see what you convince yourself to see?

solipsistic thinking ad nauseum

grow up

So you think I should grow up for stating a possibility, and asking a question to support these possibilities?

While you bask in false actuality. You could be wrong. You deny this afront. I'm not the one that should be growing up, and even then, I rather be a child than an adult who always stuck up about everything.

At 4/29/12 02:13 AM, Xyphon202 wrote:

At 4/29/12 02:08 AM, ILoveToGrok wrote: If you have no argument to provide.

Leave.

No thanks.

If you are going to conjure wild assertions out of thin air.

Leave.

I never conjured shit, all I did was tell you to fuck off. I don't care if you're the best philosopher to ever live, threads like this are annoying as fuck.

If you can not fathom the point behind my thread.

Leave.

I can't fathom the point behind your thread because first of all
A. you will not reach out to anyone who does not agree with you. Trust me, philosophy threads go nowhere
and B. This is Newgrounds. Go to some goddamn philosophy forum for christ sake. All you'll get here is people telling you you are retarded or telling you to fuck off, and then people who pretend to be philosophical but are actually pulling your leg or retarded.

I like the challenge.

I like the challenge.

I understand, but I like the challenge.

Your personal opinion of philosophy sounds like a rooted conflict. I'd suggest you to look into it. Might derive from self-defeatism. It could explain your strong sense of ad-absurdum towards philosophy.

At 4/29/12 02:17 AM, ILove2Grok wrote: Your personal opinion of philosophy sounds like a rooted conflict. I'd suggest you to look into it. Might derive from self-defeatism. It could explain your strong sense of ad-absurdum towards philosophy.

I don't need a psychoanalysis, I need you to fuck off. I have no problem with philosophy, I love philosophy, I am very philosophical myself at times. However, I HATE philosophy threads on Newgrounds. They're shit. They never go anywhere and they are annoying as fuck and usually involve a bunch of cocky idiots talking about a bunch of bullshit.

At 4/29/12 02:14 AM, ILove2Grok wrote: So you think I should grow up for stating a possibility, and asking a question to support these possibilities?

While you bask in false actuality. You could be wrong. You deny this afront. I'm not the one that should be growing up, and even then, I rather be a child than an adult who always stuck up about everything.

it's not a possibility

it's wrong

and has been proved wrong for thousands of years

At 4/29/12 02:21 AM, Xypr0n202 wrote:

At 4/29/12 02:17 AM, ILove2Grok wrote: Your personal opinion of philosophy sounds like a rooted conflict. I'd suggest you to look into it. Might derive from self-defeatism. It could explain your strong sense of ad-absurdum towards philosophy.

I don't need a psychoanalysis, I need you to fuck off. I have no problem with philosophy, I love philosophy, I am very philosophical myself at times. However, I HATE philosophy threads on Newgrounds. They're shit. They never go anywhere and they are annoying as fuck and usually involve a bunch of cocky idiots talking about a bunch of bullshit.

You want me to fuck off because of your bad experience with philosophical posts. You've become so tired of it, that you have turned hostile on any form of philosophical discussion on Newgrounds. [Because any philosophical thread is magically garbage when it is only on Newgrounds, right? Even when you copy and paste everything onto another sight's board, the exact same wording and everything, it will only be garbage on Newgrounds, because you said so.]

I am having a hard time seeing logic in that, and you say you are a philosopher? Your deducing abilities are highly unnoticable.

A thread on Newgrounds is not what makes it shit. It is the people who make the thread, or your perception of said thread. Your attempts to rationalise your irrationality is not healthy for you.

These are all generalisations based off your spite. Get over it

just excuse Xyphon202... he likes to rustle jimmies

At 4/29/12 02:24 AM, SKHM wrote:

At 4/29/12 02:14 AM, ILove2Grok wrote: So you think I should grow up for stating a possibility, and asking a question to support these possibilities?

While you bask in false actuality. You could be wrong. You deny this afront. I'm not the one that should be growing up, and even then, I rather be a child than an adult who always stuck up about everything.

it's not a possibility

it's wrong

and has been proved wrong for thousands of years

Perhaps I am not really that familiar with your ontic principles.

Can you be more polite, and debate like an adult? Help me understand where you come from? Instead of attacking me for all of the wrong reason? Thank you.

These arguments are so much fun to read, even though they don't lead anywhere! Keep it up.

All I know is that every thought, emotion, and action a person has is REALER than REAL. One can chose NOT to believe what he/she feels, and even sees; but does that very thought stop it from being so ?

I can try to convince myself all day that God is not real and only exist in my head, but that would not stop him from existing outside of my thoughts

At 4/29/12 02:30 AM, ILove2Grok wrote: Perhaps I am not really that familiar with your ontic principles.

Can you be more polite, and debate like an adult? Help me understand where you come from? Instead of attacking me for all of the wrong reason? Thank you.

i refuse to debate with a solipsist

sorry

At 4/29/12 02:31 AM, SKHM wrote:

At 4/29/12 02:30 AM, ILove2Grok wrote: Perhaps I am not really that familiar with your ontic principles.

Can you be more polite, and debate like an adult? Help me understand where you come from? Instead of attacking me for all of the wrong reason? Thank you.

i refuse to debate with a solipsist

sorry

What if I'm not a solipist? What if you are under the wrong impression?

At 4/29/12 02:33 AM, ILoveToGrok wrote: What if I'm not a solipist? What if you are under the wrong impression?

then what are you?

just a regular idiot?

you cannot "debate" with a solipist

it's a fruitless endeavor

At 4/29/12 02:32 AM, Xyphon202 wrote:

At 4/29/12 02:27 AM, ILove2Grok wrote: You want me to fuck off because of your bad experience with philosophical posts. You've become so tired of it, that you have turned hostile on any form of philosophical discussion on Newgrounds. [Because any philosophical thread is magically garbage when it is only on Newgrounds, right? Even when you copy and paste everything onto another sight's board, the exact same wording and everything, it will only be garbage on Newgrounds, because you said so.]

It's the environment man. If you post it in a philosophical forum, you will have a better thread naturally.

I am having a hard time seeing logic in that, and you say you are a philosopher? Your deducing abilities are highly unnoticable.

I'm not a philosopher, but I am philosophical at times. And are you retarded? As if I am trying to make extremely reasonable arguments. I'm calling you a faggot and telling you to fuck off. Oh yes I am just being soo philosophical right now.
Eat a dick.

A thread on Newgrounds is not what makes it shit. It is the people who make the thread, or your perception of said thread. Your attempts to rationalise your irrationality is not healthy for you.

These are all generalisations based off your spite. Get over it

And the people on Newgrounds will undoubtedly make it shit. Again, don't give a psychoanalysis of me.

This is exactly what I am talking about. You are acting like you are better than me, you are acting like you know me based on some of my posts. These are the types of people in philosophical threads, this is exactly why these threads are shit. They are cocky as fuck and act like they know the answer to everything, and then when called out on it will deny ever acting better than anyone and will say they are only speculating, when guaranteed at their house they have this smug look of satisfaction on their face.

Any thread has its subtle environment and the bile that follows behind it. Besides, it is how you allocate the individuals that come into the thread. All you have to do is pay no mind to the trouble makers. Oh, telling someone to fuck off is counted as being a 'trouble maker'.

Calling me a faggot, because of your own personal conflictions. Very smooth.

You are a testy individual.

Your assumption that I think ofmyself higher than you will be the only reason why you will be under such a false impression. Insecurities, much?

Great another tongue twisting post, over complicating a topic.

Objectivity= facts, unbias

Subjectivity= Beliefs morals, emotions

Religion doesn't equal objectivity in the adjective sense of the word.

At 4/29/12 02:37 AM, SKHM wrote:

At 4/29/12 02:33 AM, ILoveToGrok wrote: What if I'm not a solipist? What if you are under the wrong impression?

then what are you?

just a regular idiot?

you cannot "debate" with a solipist

it's a fruitless endeavor

i once debated with a rock... i won

it was on the road and i kept telling it move before the bull dozer ran it over, needless to say it was crushed because it failed to gtfo
all i could do was laugh at it

you can debate with anything

At 4/29/12 02:41 AM, GoodFish wrote: Yadda yadda yadda.

finally a good post

At 4/29/12 02:37 AM, SKHM wrote:

At 4/29/12 02:33 AM, ILoveToGrok wrote: What if I'm not a solipist? What if you are under the wrong impression?

then what are you?

just a regular idiot?

you cannot "debate" with a solipist

it's a fruitless endeavor

I am what ever you perceive me to be, of course.

Very rude assertion.

I know. A solopist can't debate with anyone, since they think they are the origin of existence.

I concur.

At 4/29/12 02:40 AM, II2none wrote: Great another tongue twisting post, over complicating a topic.

Objectivity= facts, unbias

Subjectivity= Beliefs morals, emotions

Religion doesn't equal objectivity in the adjective sense of the word.

Great, another poster that thinks they have everything all figured out.

When someone perceives their subjective perception as objective, you can not contest against what they convinced themselves to see.

I'd suggest you to re-read the part with the external God.

At 4/29/12 02:43 AM, Xyphon202 wrote:

At 4/29/12 02:39 AM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Any thread has its subtle environment and the bile that follows behind it. Besides, it is how you allocate the individuals that come into the thread. All you have to do is pay no mind to the trouble makers. Oh, telling someone to fuck off is counted as being a 'trouble maker'.

Sorry sir, I won't cause any more trouble.

Calling me a faggot, because of your own personal conflictions. Very smooth.

No, calling you a faggot because you are a faggot. Also you are taking things a bit seriously here. I am not having a gentlemanly debate here, I am blatantly insulting you. Not trying to be smooth.

You are a testy individual.

Thanks

Your assumption that I think ofmyself higher than you will be the only reason why you will be under such a false impression. Insecurities, much?

I'm not insecure (however that comment is fairly belittling, and only justifies my original assumption that you think you are better than others), as I do not actually think you are better than me. I do however, think that you think that you are better than me. Quite a big difference.

Your wild tangents are not amusing.

Leave.

To respond to the only remotely mature response -- you said exactly what I said. You think that I think that I am higher than you. I said exactly that in my prior post, ''Your assumption [you think] that I think of myself higher than yourself.''

Can you try to be coherent next time? Assess your material.

If you aren't going to put effort in your responses.

Again, leave.

At 4/29/12 02:45 AM, ILoveToGrok wrote:

At 4/29/12 02:40 AM, II2none wrote: Great another tongue twisting post, over complicating a topic.

Objectivity= facts, unbias

Subjectivity= Beliefs morals, emotions

Religion doesn't equal objectivity in the adjective sense of the word.

Great, another poster that thinks they have everything all figured out.

When someone perceives their subjective perception as objective, you can not contest against what they convinced themselves to see.

Yes but not you can't state religion as fact. What you've stated in a over complicated manner is pretty much if one is determined enough you can't deter them from faith.

At 4/29/12 02:48 AM, II2none wrote:

At 4/29/12 02:45 AM, ILoveToGrok wrote:

At 4/29/12 02:40 AM, II2none wrote: Great another tongue twisting post, over complicating a topic.

Objectivity= facts, unbias

Subjectivity= Beliefs morals, emotions

Religion doesn't equal objectivity in the adjective sense of the word.

Great, another poster that thinks they have everything all figured out.

When someone perceives their subjective perception as objective, you can not contest against what they convinced themselves to see.

Yes but not you can't state religion as fact. What you've stated in a over complicated manner is pretty much if one is determined enough you can't deter them from faith.

Religion is not fact, of course. It is built on my concept though. That people can turn subjectivity into false objectivity. Though, they do not become aware of the falsehood of said objectivity. Anyone aorund them can see the subjectivity, but they convinced themselves that what they see does not come from their head.

Nobody can contest against their sense of reality.

At 4/29/12 02:52 AM, Xyphon202 wrote:

At 4/29/12 02:48 AM, ILove2Grok wrote: Your wild tangents are not amusing.

Leave.

The fact that you think I am trying to be amusing is ironically amusing in itself. I'm not trying to be funny, I'm just telling you that you suck.

To respond to the only remotely mature response -- you said exactly what I said. You think that I think that I am higher than you. I said exactly that in my prior post, ''Your assumption [you think] that I think of myself higher than yourself.''

Again. I am not trying to be mature, that was never my purpose. I also already noted previously that I knew you would say that you don't actually think that and that I am only assuming it. But whether you DO think it or not (and I have made this argument many many times), you certainly act better than other people, intentionally or unintentionally.

Can you try to be coherent next time? Assess your material.

I believe I was fairly coherent.

If you aren't going to put effort in your responses.

Again, leave.

I'm not here to put effort, I am simply just telling you to fuck off. As I said, I'm not having a gentlemanly debate here.

This is where the example becomes resurrected after dying, because you didn't give it enough nutrients the first time you came up with it.

The example 2.0 -- you said that I did not say ''I think that you think of yourself higher than me.'' When I did. You were very redundant about it. Now, you are saying ''The fact that you think I am trying to be amusing'' is a much more legitimate of an example. You see, I've never stated I thought you were attempting to be amusing. I simple said, ''I did not find it amusing.''

Your lack of maturity isn't going to reward you with anything. You are going off some wild tangent that you can't even manifest properly. Then there are the assertions, insults and improper attitudes towards a stranger like me.

You can believe all you may want. You weren't at all coherent. Very redundant, derpived of character, but not coherent.

At 4/29/12 02:53 AM, ILove2Grok wrote:
Religion is not fact, of course. It is built on my concept though. That people can turn subjectivity into false objectivity. Though, they do not become aware of the falsehood of said objectivity. Anyone aorund them can see the subjectivity, but they convinced themselves that what they see does not come from their head.

Nobody can contest against their sense of reality.

In other words people can choose to follow what they believe in to the point of insanity (to others). Whats your point? Everyone knows religion is a matter of whether you believe or not.

At 4/29/12 03:02 AM, II2none wrote:

At 4/29/12 02:53 AM, ILove2Grok wrote:
Religion is not fact, of course. It is built on my concept though. That people can turn subjectivity into false objectivity. Though, they do not become aware of the falsehood of said objectivity. Anyone aorund them can see the subjectivity, but they convinced themselves that what they see does not come from their head.

Nobody can contest against their sense of reality.

In other words people can choose to follow what they believe in to the point of insanity (to others). Whats your point? Everyone knows religion is a matter of whether you believe or not.

My point is, that there is more than simply a naked definition of objectivism and subjectivism.

Your ambition to understand this worries me. You are only overtly complicating the point.

At 4/29/12 03:04 AM, ILove2Grok wrote:

You are only overtly complicating the point.

Because I know this already, you just posted it in a unnecessary mind- fuckish way.

At 4/29/12 03:08 AM, II2none wrote:

At 4/29/12 03:04 AM, ILove2Grok wrote:

You are only overtly complicating the point.

Because I know this already, you just posted it in a unnecessary mind- fuckish way.

You do not know it, because you are going off on a random tangent that is irrelevant to the point I am expressing.

Tell me, then.

Person A has an ideology for Project A.

Person B has an ideology for Project B.

Person A is being ___ - ___ when he judges Person B's Project.

Person B is being ___ - ___ when he judges Person A's Project.

Person A judges their project with ___ - ___ .

Person B judges their project with ___ - ___ .

Fill in the blanks with the right combination of perceptions: objectivism, subjectivism.

You want t osee what god probably is?

At 4/29/12 05:12 AM, stinkychops wrote: You want t osee what god probably is?

i always thought him more the shape of a lego...
step on him and you are overcome by powers and feelings that no mere mortal can understand... only try to deal with.. .

At 4/29/12 05:15 AM, tox wrote:

At 4/29/12 05:12 AM, stinkychops wrote: You want t osee what god probably is?

i always thought him more the shape of a lego...
step on him and you are overcome by powers and feelings that no mere mortal can understand... only try to deal with.. .

Lego's have built considerably more things and hurt considerably more people.

Fantastic trolling. Tip of the hat to you, OP.