L is for Luminescence.

[Insanctuary]

Perception is a wonderful tool of self-awareness. How you see the world with the questions you ask, is more important than how the world really is; and having those answers for those questions. As we question what we already see, we grant ourselves curiosity; our curiosity is endless, therefore we shouldn't ever settle with our one way of viewing the world as an individual. I will show you. Place either hand infront of your forehead, now make the L symbol. Quickly, you will think of either 'Loser', or another derogative interpretation, but what if you were to change that 'L' into the representation of 'Life'?

[Buoy]

At 10/30/12 01:32 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Place either hand infront of your forehead, now make the L symbol. Quickly, you will think of either 'Loser', or another derogative interpretation, but what if you were to change that 'L' into the representation of 'Life'?

lmfao

[Emma]

I'm actually gonna try to dissect this post because I'm bored and have 30 minutes to kill.

At 10/30/12 01:32 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Perception is a wonderful tool of self-awareness.

No, self-awareness is a product of perception.

How you see the world with the questions you ask, is more important than how the world really is;

This is apples and oranges.

As we question what we already see, we grant ourselves curiosity;

You have it backwards again. Curiosity causes questions.

our curiosity is endless

No, otherwise we'd be immortal.

We shouldn't ever settle with our one way of viewing the world as an individual.

This is true, but you reached this conclusion without a logical premise.

I will show you. Place either hand infront of your forehead, now make the L symbol. Quickly, you will think of either 'Loser', or another derogative interpretation, but what if you were to change that 'L' into the representation of 'Life'?

What you said before this has nothing to do with social implications (ie: NOT independent perception).

[tox]

Yeah common everyone lets go put our dicks in meat grinders just like op tells us to
We will be fine

[Entice]

Okay.

Why do I even know this song.

[Insanctuary]

At 10/30/12 01:40 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: I'm actually gonna try to dissect this post because I'm bored and have 30 minutes to kill.

At 10/30/12 01:32 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Perception is a wonderful tool of self-awareness.

No, self-awareness is a product of perception.

My thresholds of perception are delicate, and I consider even the smallest of symbolisms. Our self-awareness facilitates our tool of perception. Perception did not come before self-awareness.

How you see the world with the questions you ask, is more important than how the world really is;

This is apples and oranges.

I don't follow.

As we question what we already see, we grant ourselves curiosity;

You have it backwards again. Curiosity causes questions.

I consider the frivolous aspects of life. Therefore curiosity, and the act of asking questions, are seperate symbolic features. Not all questions are curious, but all curiosities lead to questions.

our curiosity is endless

No, otherwise we'd be immortal.

We always will have the ability to question. There is not a time where we can't ask questions.

We shouldn't ever settle with our one way of viewing the world as an individual.

This is true, but you reached this conclusion without a logical premise.

My premise is sound.

I will show you. Place either hand infront of your forehead, now make the L symbol. Quickly, you will think of either 'Loser', or another derogative interpretation, but what if you were to change that 'L' into the representation of 'Life'?

What you said before this has nothing to do with social implications (ie: NOT independent perception).

You've misinterpreted it.

[tox]

Well... Here we go again
Weeee3eeee333eeee

[Emma]

At 10/30/12 01:50 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:40 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: I'm actually gonna try to dissect this post because I'm bored and have 30 minutes to kill.

At 10/30/12 01:32 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Perception is a wonderful tool of self-awareness.

No, self-awareness is a product of perception.

My thresholds of perception are delicate, and I consider even the smallest of symbolisms. Our self-awareness facilitates our tool of perception. Perception did not come before self-awareness.

Animals have perception, yet not self-awareness.

How you see the world with the questions you ask, is more important than how the world really is;

This is apples and oranges.

I don't follow.

In other words you're saying one subject is "more important" than a completely different one.

As we question what we already see, we grant ourselves curiosity;

You have it backwards again. Curiosity causes questions.

I consider the frivolous aspects of life. Therefore curiosity, and the act of asking questions, are seperate symbolic features. Not all questions are curious, but all curiosities lead to questions.

Then you define curiosity as imagination. Otherwise the words would be synonymous.

our curiosity is endless

No, otherwise we'd be immortal.

We always will have the ability to question. There is not a time where we can't ask questions.

See, you just admitted that questions come from curiosity.

We shouldn't ever settle with our one way of viewing the world as an individual.

This is true, but you reached this conclusion without a logical premise.

My premise is sound.

Nonsense.

I will show you. Place either hand infront of your forehead, now make the L symbol. Quickly, you will think of either 'Loser', or another derogative interpretation, but what if you were to change that 'L' into the representation of 'Life'?

What you said before this has nothing to do with social implications (ie: NOT independent perception).

You've misinterpreted it.

Okay, then I guess this example was just filler text.

[Otto]

I will donate four million dollars to a charity of Tom Fulp's choice if everybody stops replying to Insanctuary's thread

you have heard my offer

[ohbombuh]

At 10/30/12 02:08 PM, MonthlyVolatile wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:57 PM, Otto wrote: I will donate four million dollars to a charity of Tom Fulp's choice if everybody stops replying to Insanctuary's thread

you have heard my offer

I propose something as well: A mass protest by going on posting strike. Everyone can still log in and pm each other and shit but no one posts on general or any other boards for three days.

But which 3 days, which times zone will we use, and what are our exact demands going to be? Ban Insanctuary and get the mods to actually keep shitty political threads in politics?

[FairSquare]

At 10/30/12 01:57 PM, Otto wrote: I will donate four million dollars to a charity of Tom Fulp's choice if everybody stops replying to Insanctuary's thread

you have heard my offer

Or you could just stop clicking on threads he makes

[Insanctuary]

At 10/30/12 01:57 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:50 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:40 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: I'm actually gonna try to dissect this post because I'm bored and have 30 minutes to kill.

At 10/30/12 01:32 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Perception is a wonderful tool of self-awareness.

No, self-awareness is a product of perception.

My thresholds of perception are delicate, and I consider even the smallest of symbolisms. Our self-awareness facilitates our tool of perception. Perception did not come before self-awareness.

Animals have perception, yet not self-awareness.

Animals do not have perception. They are deeply mechanical, which is why our advancements in society has revealed errors in their natural system of coding. Dogs still go around in circles as if they did back in the wild. They do not have perception of self-awareness. They can not adapt to our new world; and already adaptable animals can only adapt to what they are biologically able to adapt to.

How you see the world with the questions you ask, is more important than how the world really is;

This is apples and oranges.

I don't follow.

In other words you're saying one subject is "more important" than a completely different one.

They are very much the same.

As we question what we already see, we grant ourselves curiosity;

You have it backwards again. Curiosity causes questions.

I consider the frivolous aspects of life. Therefore curiosity, and the act of asking questions, are seperate symbolic features. Not all questions are curious, but all curiosities lead to questions.

Then you define curiosity as imagination. Otherwise the words would be synonymous.

Imagination doesn't always come with questions. All questions are curious, but all curiosities lead to questions. When you are discussing with me, there is a point in time where you have to consider the smallest of details. I take every grain of sand of my ideological island into consideration.

our curiosity is endless

No, otherwise we'd be immortal.

We always will have the ability to question. There is not a time where we can't ask questions.

See, you just admitted that questions come from curiosity.

Asking questions does not lead to curiosity everytime. Much of us are not prepared to be curious, but many of us are prepared to ask questions. This is regardless if we are asking the wrong questions.

We shouldn't ever settle with our one way of viewing the world as an individual.

This is true, but you reached this conclusion without a logical premise.

My premise is sound.

Nonsense.

Sense.

I will show you. Place either hand infront of your forehead, now make the L symbol. Quickly, you will think of either 'Loser', or another derogative interpretation, but what if you were to change that 'L' into the representation of 'Life'?

What you said before this has nothing to do with social implications (ie: NOT independent perception).

You've misinterpreted it.

Okay, then I guess this example was just filler text.

All of what I've said coincides as a single aggregated concept of perception. It's sound.

[HipnikDragomir]

At 10/30/12 01:57 PM, Otto wrote: I will donate four million dollars to a charity of Tom Fulp's choice if everybody stops replying to Insanctuary's thread

you have heard my offer

I don't hear text.

[Nebula]

How much longer is this gonna keep going man?

[Emma]

At 10/30/12 02:21 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:57 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Animals have perception, yet not self-awareness.

Animals do not have perception. They are deeply mechanical, which is why our advancements in society has revealed errors in their natural system of coding. Dogs still go around in circles as if they did back in the wild. They do not have perception of self-awareness. They can not adapt to our new world; and already adaptable animals can only adapt to what they are biologically able to adapt to.

But you can fool an animal with fake food. Therefore, they have perception.

In other words you're saying one subject is "more important" than a completely different one.

They are very much the same.

Nu-uh!

Then you define curiosity as imagination. Otherwise the words would be synonymous.

Imagination doesn't always come with questions. All questions are curious, but all curiosities lead to questions. When you are discussing with me, there is a point in time where you have to consider the smallest of details. I take every grain of sand of my ideological island into consideration.

Okay, you just changed your position then. Curiosity and questions are synonymous?

See, you just admitted that questions come from curiosity.

Asking questions does not lead to curiosity everytime. Much of us are not prepared to be curious, but many of us are prepared to ask questions. This is regardless if we are asking the wrong questions.

I'm not saying questions lead to curiosity. I'm saying, you're saying, it comes from curiosity.

Nonsense.

Sense.

Nonsense.

Okay, then I guess this example was just filler text.

All of what I've said coincides as a single aggregated concept of perception. It's sound.

I didn't say it was nonsensical, it was just filler text.

[FairSquare]

At 10/30/12 01:40 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: I'm actually gonna try to dissect this post because I'm bored and have 30 minutes to kill.

30 minutes huh?

At 10/30/12 02:43 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

But you can..

That's over an hour! You lied!

[Suprememessage]

S is for shut the fuck up.

N is for put this in a newpost you spammer fucktard.

[Emma]

At 10/30/12 02:49 PM, FairSquare wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:40 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: I'm actually gonna try to dissect this post because I'm bored and have 30 minutes to kill.

30 minutes huh?

At 10/30/12 02:43 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

But you can..

That's over an hour! You lied!

IM IN CLASS STOP DISTRACTING ME IM GONNA FAIL

[Urban-Champion]

3 characters in length

[Insanctuary]

At 10/30/12 02:43 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 10/30/12 02:21 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:57 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Animals have perception, yet not self-awareness.

Animals do not have perception. They are deeply mechanical, which is why our advancements in society has revealed errors in their natural system of coding. Dogs still go around in circles as if they did back in the wild. They do not have perception of self-awareness. They can not adapt to our new world; and already adaptable animals can only adapt to what they are biologically able to adapt to.

But you can fool an animal with fake food. Therefore, they have perception.

This is not perception. Perception is fueled by awareness. They only can do so much with their sensory organs.

In other words you're saying one subject is "more important" than a completely different one.

They are very much the same.

Nu-uh!

Yes, it is connect in a way. Asking why you question and considering if you are asking the right questions plays a big part as the real questionnaire.

Then you define curiosity as imagination. Otherwise the words would be synonymous.

Imagination doesn't always come with questions. All questions are curious, but all curiosities lead to questions. When you are discussing with me, there is a point in time where you have to consider the smallest of details. I take every grain of sand of my ideological island into consideration.

Okay, you just changed your position then. Curiosity and questions are synonymous?

No, they are not synonymous. Curiosity is the intent to question. Questions do not always have the intent to carry through to curiosity.

See, you just admitted that questions come from curiosity.

Asking questions does not lead to curiosity everytime. Much of us are not prepared to be curious, but many of us are prepared to ask questions. This is regardless if we are asking the wrong questions.

I'm not saying questions lead to curiosity. I'm saying, you're saying, it comes from curiosity.

The intent to question leads to questioning. Questioning does not always have the intent to lead to curiosities.

Nonsense.

Sense.

Nonsense.

Sense.

Okay, then I guess this example was just filler text.

All of what I've said coincides as a single aggregated concept of perception. It's sound.

I didn't say it was nonsensical, it was just filler text.

No, it plays an important role in my aggregated assault against stasis.

[Otto]

At 10/30/12 02:16 PM, FairSquare wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:57 PM, Otto wrote: I will donate four million dollars to a charity of Tom Fulp's choice if everybody stops replying to Insanctuary's thread

you have heard my offer

Or you could just stop clicking on threads he makes

no no no you're missing the point

[Emma]

At 10/30/12 02:57 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

Animals do not have perception.

Perception is fueled by awareness.

perception (n): awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation.

You just contradicted yourself.

I'm not saying questions lead to curiosity. I'm saying, you're saying, it comes from curiosity.

The intent to question leads to questioning.

The intent to question is curiosity.

Nonsense.

Sense.

Nonsense.

Sense.

Nonsense.

[Urban-Champion]

At 10/30/12 02:59 PM, Otto wrote:

At 10/30/12 02:16 PM, FairSquare wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:57 PM, Otto wrote: I will donate four million dollars to a charity of Tom Fulp's choice if everybody stops replying to Insanctuary's thread

you have heard my offer

Or you could just stop clicking on threads he makes

no no no you're missing the point

except that he isnt because you're both saying "don't reply to his threads"

[FairSquare]

At 10/30/12 02:52 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: IM IN CLASS STOP DISTRACTING ME IM GONNA FAIL

You're so classy

[Insanctuary]

At 10/30/12 03:06 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 10/30/12 02:57 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

Animals do not have perception.

Perception is fueled by awareness.

perception (n): awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation.

No, animals are not aware of the elements of our enviornment. They have no cognition to experience what we do. They act entirely off of the mechanical system of nature. There is nothing more to it.

You just contradicted yourself.

You take things out of context.

I'm not saying questions lead to curiosity. I'm saying, you're saying, it comes from curiosity.

The intent to question leads to questioning.

The intent to question is curiosity.

Nonsense.

Sense.

Nonsense.

Sense.

Nonsense.

Sense.

[Otto]

At 10/30/12 03:08 PM, Urban-Champion wrote:

At 10/30/12 02:59 PM, Otto wrote:

At 10/30/12 02:16 PM, FairSquare wrote:

At 10/30/12 01:57 PM, Otto wrote: I will donate four million dollars to a charity of Tom Fulp's choice if everybody stops replying to Insanctuary's thread

you have heard my offer

Or you could just stop clicking on threads he makes

no no no you're missing the point

except that he isnt because you're both saying "don't reply to his threads"

Well, he is, because he's telling me to stop clicking his threads so I don't have to see it, yes? I don't want to just not see it, I want Insanctuary to feel like nobody saw it. Do you understand now clever clogs? Me not +1 viewcounting it isn't going to do that.

[Insanctuary]

At 10/30/12 03:14 PM, Otto wrote: Me not +1 viewcounting it isn't going to do that.

I don't understand why you hate me more than you hate your hatred for me. My difference on the BBS is a healthy one, while your difference towards me is destructive. Why do you call me out as the enemy, when you attack me with the intent of an enemy?

[Emma]

At 10/30/12 03:13 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 03:06 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

They have no cognition to experience what we do. They act entirely off of the mechanical system of nature. There is nothing more to it.

Oh, so now this is about experience?

You just contradicted yourself.

You take things out of context.

You have no context from which to take out of.

Nonsense.

Sense.

Nonsense.

Sense.

Nonsense.

Sense.

Nonsense.

[Otto]

At 10/30/12 03:17 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 03:14 PM, Otto wrote: Me not +1 viewcounting it isn't going to do that.

I don't understand why you hate me more than you hate your hatred for me. My difference on the BBS is a healthy one, while your difference towards me is destructive. Why do you call me out as the enemy, when you attack me with the intent of an enemy?

Because the few times I have really tried to understand what you're saying, and have posted agreements and genuine conversation, you always pick on small segments of my post to spout some psuedo-hippie shit that I hear 20 times a day because I live in Glastonbury. You're not the first guy in the world to sound like you're on shrooms.

[Insanctuary]

At 10/30/12 03:20 PM, Otto wrote: Because the few times I have really tried to understand what you're saying, and have posted agreements and genuine conversation, you always pick on small segments of my post to spout some psuedo-hippie shit that I hear 20 times a day because I live in Glastonbury. You're not the first guy in the world to sound like you're on shrooms.

So you attack me like the monster you see me as, for you were hurt by natural discordance between you and I. Why become what you accuse me for being, for the sake of your own pain in disagreement? I have done nothing to harm you; life came with thorns, so I came with thorns.