Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 10/25/13 12:54 PM, Insanctuary wrote: It's like the religious trying to teach an atheist about god...

Not really. Just some personal advice.

Assuming pretentious or implying it by saying I sound like it, should have been asked in a question "Am I right to assume that you are arrogant or sound arrogant?", but you took that assumption, and shoved it up my lovely arse.

Why would I ask you that? I was just letting you know my impression. My opinion. Which I believe is shared by some others here, though I have yet to take a poll... I was simply trying to make you aware of you come across.

I don't mind, but jumping to conclusions is like placing holes in the boat I brought to the dock because, "I wanted to make your boat holy! NARK NARK NARK!".

You could have just taken or left my advice and stopped there.

It's not because of me; look at MLK, he got assassinated -- was it his fault? I'm never going to stop doing what I do because idiots will never being idiots.

Those situations aren't comparable at all.

It's NG... All my 10+ pages of arguing on NG... NG... NG is NG.

So? Yes the text is stored on a website called newgrounds.com
Doesn't change anything about it.

It's funny, because you did not bring up the fact that I am of the same species. And proving to us all that you really think your system of accusations are at all remotely correct.

That's the point. You're a human, yet you blame a reaction to your thread on... "stupid humans". That doesn't make any sense. Unless of course, you think you are somehow above other humans.

You are, again, a religious person forcing god (arrogance) on a poor atheist.

That's a terrible analogy.

Profoundly obvious... The new dichotomy -- 2013

It's difficult to make people who aren't aware of their behavior look at it from an objective angle. Especially when they're stubborn and can't admit that they're wrong in any circumstance.

I rather people hate and flame, then make an ass out of themselves by 1. Making up things that aren't there, and 2. Enforcing that nonsense on an innocent mind. Atleast the former is honest about it.

1. That describes you perfectly. I've already corrected you numerous times on something that you or I said.

2. I am not forcing anything on you. What are you being forced to do?

Okay, so let me repeat this. I "sound" condescending to YOU

Yes.

and somehow you found reason to make something factual out of nothing?

I never said that it was a fact.

And thus I prove to you that I thought nothing less of you

Okay.

as I never treated you like a child.

It seemed that way from my perspective at the very least. Surely you can empathize with that?

So what's your point? Do you honestly think I would talk to a child like that; are you that distorted?

No. Don't take it so literally.

First of all, I do not preach my feelings or my spidey senses. I simply dig deep into the fundamentals of how the world works that is not based on "ME ME ME" & "I I I", second of all, this does apply to opinions, and I am already aware of that, however, again, I am talking about everything from the thing in itself. There is no "me" in these discussion, so you can stop fishing for a personality that is not there.

See? I pointed out a mistake you make there and you completely dodged it again. You can't even admit you used a little tiny logical fallacy.

You accused me of being condescending; I accused you of being ill-comprehensive. It's fair game!

"I know you are but what am I?"
Again. Why is it so hard for you to admit even the smallest of your mistakes?

---

At 10/25/13 01:21 PM, Entice wrote: Not really. Just some personal advice.

Personal advice that applies to pseudo arguments.

Why would I ask you that? I was just letting you know my impression. My opinion. Which I believe is shared by some others here, though I have yet to take a poll... I was simply trying to make you aware of you come across.

Why would you state it!? Ask questions, first. If you thought I was a 80 year old pedophile and started giving me personal advice... Yeah, you get the bloody point.

You could have just taken or left my advice and stopped there.

You didn't take or leave my advice, so why should I?

Those situations aren't comparable at all.

It is... People die because of what they say, no matter how true it is.

So? Yes the text is stored on a website called newgrounds.com
Doesn't change anything about it.

The atmosphere on NG... Is like baby 4chan.

That's the point. You're a human, yet you blame a reaction to your thread on... "stupid humans". That doesn't make any sense. Unless of course, you think you are somehow above other humans.

I'm not human, though. I am information. There I truly no "I". I did not lie to myself and spend my life creating a pseudo-me where, in the end, I still have no clue what "I" am. I do have emotions, but not in the way actual humans do. I am more of a computer than a human. This is why there is "not much personality" -- it's an actual result caused by a series of non-human expeditions.

That's a terrible analogy.

Maybe it is, perhaps it needs more broken penorz.

It's difficult to make people who aren't aware of their behavior look at it from an objective angle. Especially when they're stubborn and can't admit that they're wrong in any circumstance.

I do admit when I am wrong; I have done it plenty of times on here. Did you already forget? My views of self-humility are otherworldly!

1. That describes you perfectly. I've already corrected you numerous times on something that you or I said.

It describes me perfectionly, when this entire discussion is based on what YOU feel? Geez...

Yes.

Okay.

I never said that it was a fact.

Then why are we discussing your feelings and why are you teaching me about something that I never was?

Okay.

Okay.

It seemed that way from my perspective at the very least. Surely you can empathize with that?

Then clearly, your judgemental mojo is a very cronic monkey.

No. Don't take it so literally.

Fair enough.

See? I pointed out a mistake you make there and you completely dodged it again. You can't even admit you used a little tiny logical fallacy.

A logical fallacy I placed entirely out of satire...

Again. Why is it so hard for you to admit even the smallest of your mistakes?

The only mistakes you notice right now are the satiristic pseudo-mistakes I made to line up a logical retaliation the next time around.

---

At 10/25/13 01:35 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Personal advice that applies to pseudo arguments.

Just advice. How you interpret it is up to you.

Why would you state it!? Ask questions, first. If you thought I was a 80 year old pedophile and started giving me personal advice... Yeah, you get the bloody point.

I was stating my opinion. Why would I ask you for confirmation about my own opinion? That's simply idiotic.

You didn't take or leave my advice, so why should I?

A recap of the situation:
I gave you some advice, not meaning any offense.
You responded with some advice to me, in a manner that I perceived as condescending.
When I explained how it sounded to me you started arguing and got defensive.

It is... People die because of what they say, no matter how true it is.

That's a silly excuse. You can follow literally anything with "well it doesn't matter since I'm going to die".

The atmosphere on NG... Is like baby 4chan.

Yet serious, mature conversations clearly take place here on occasion. That's another bad excuse.

I'm not human, though. I am information. There I truly no "I". I did not lie to myself and spend my life creating a pseudo-me where, in the end, I still have no clue what "I" am.

That's an excuse. You're saying "I don't have to admit to my errors, because guess what? There is no I! Ha! I'm simply a conduit for fact". Terrible cop out.

I do have emotions, but not in the way actual humans do. I am more of a computer than a human. This is why there is "not much personality" -- it's an actual result caused by a series of non-human expeditions.

I highly doubt that have no emotions unless you are a psychopath or a sociopath, or trained yourself to not react to them for some reason. Even if you didn't have any emotions that would be no guarantee that your logic is sound.

I do admit when I am wrong; I have done it plenty of times on here. Did you already forget? My views of self-humility are otherworldly!

Please point out some times in this thread where you have, I haven't seen any.

It describes me perfectionly, when this entire discussion is based on what YOU feel? Geez...

Yes that's what the discussion started out as. That doesn't change the fact that you said that I said things that I simply did not say. That is what is called either making a mistake or lying. I'd rather not assume the latter, but if you can't admit that you made a few mistakes then I wonder...

Then why are we discussing your feelings and why are you teaching me about something that I never was?

Do you not understand the concept of giving advice? Of sharing opinions?

Then clearly, your judgemental mojo is a very cronic monkey.

I'm guessing that means you can't or won't empathize with that.

A logical fallacy I placed entirely out of satire...

That sounds suspiciously like another attempt at weaseling out of a mistake you made.

"You accused me of being condescending, when incidentally, those that understand me think nothing of the sort. Perhaps it's not only inferiority, but ill-comprehensive ability."

That doesn't sound like satire to me. Why did you change your argument instead of just saying that it was a joke?

The only mistakes you notice right now are the satiristic pseudo-mistakes I made to line up a logical retaliation the next time around.

Bullshit. That's just your new excuse for this post.

---

He has returneth.

---

Why is there a ballsack made of stars in the OP?

---

At 10/25/13 01:52 PM, Entice wrote: Just advice. How you interpret it is up to you.

Advice for whom? Me? Or your personal bubble?

I was stating my opinion. Why would I ask you for confirmation about my own opinion? That's simply idiotic.

So first it was a feeling you had, which is based off of assumptions that never were true, and now it's all grown up into an opinion? The more you contradict *penis replaces rainbow*

A recap of the situation:
I gave you some advice, not meaning any offense.
You responded with some advice to me, in a manner that I perceived as condescending.
When I explained how it sounded to me you started arguing and got defensive.

You perceived arrogance before I responded to you...

That's a silly excuse. You can follow literally anything with "well it doesn't matter since I'm going to die".

Yep, that's the point I was trying to get across; certainly wasn't the fact that people's reactions don't mean for shit no matter what you do.

Yet serious, mature conversations clearly take place here on occasion. That's another bad excuse.

And serious, mature conversations take place on 4chan on occasion. Try again.

That's an excuse. You're saying "I don't have to admit to my errors, because guess what? There is no I! Ha! I'm simply a conduit for fact". Terrible cop out.

When did I say I cannot be blamed? I'm still aware of my own sense of being, and can itneract with the world... I just do not have a "human" personality.

I highly doubt that have no emotions unless you are a psychopath or a sociopath, or trained yourself to not react to them for some reason. Even if you didn't have any emotions that would be no guarantee that your logic is sound.

I have some emotions, but I do not have nearly as much as humans. I simply understand the world and have suffered more than I have been given/rewarded.

Please point out some times in this thread where you have, I haven't seen any.

I made one mistake -- I took you seriously when I shouldn't have in one instance. I said "Fair Enough".

Yes that's what the discussion started out as. That doesn't change the fact that you said that I said things that I simply did not say. That is what is called either making a mistake or lying. I'd rather not assume the latter, but if you can't admit that you made a few mistakes then I wonder...

You implied things, there's a difference. I wonder where we would be if you would've asked my intentions before accusing them?

Do you not understand the concept of giving advice? Of sharing opinions?

You don't give advice that does not apply to the person you are giving the advice to...

I'm guessing that means you can't or won't empathize with that.

It means your judgement gone bananas.

That sounds suspiciously like another attempt at weaseling out of a mistake you made.

I do not run away from critical errors. This is all on you! This entire discussion is based entirely on what you feel and the amount of time you have taken to turn nothing into something. Like I said, this would all be different if you did not "accuse" me of sounding arrogant.

That doesn't sound like satire to me. Why did you change your argument instead of just saying that it was a joke?

That's because the satire lies in the statement about me not being included in the species.

Bullshit. That's just your new excuse for this post.

Absolutely not. If you pay attention, you'll see that I plan my responses beforehand.

---

At 10/25/13 02:07 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Advice for whom? Me? Or your personal bubble?

You.

So first it was a feeling you had, which is based off of assumptions that never were true, and now it's all grown up into an opinion? The more you contradict *penis replaces rainbow*

First of all "feelings" and "opinions" in this context refer to the same thing, so there's no contradiction.

Second of all, those assumptions were based on your past actions and your word choice when speaking to me.

You perceived arrogance before I responded to you...

As I've explained several times that was based on your past behavior here. I did not mean to accuse you of being arrogant at the moment in which I made that post. Why should I keep repeating these things if you forget them in a few posts?

Yep, that's the point I was trying to get across; certainly wasn't the fact that people's reactions don't mean for shit no matter what you do.

So basically you just don't care? I don't believe you, because this conversation is still going.

And serious, mature conversations take place on 4chan on occasion. Try again.

Exactly, serious, mature conversations do take place on 4chan as well as here. What's you point again?

When did I say I cannot be blamed? I'm still aware of my own sense of being, and can itneract with the world... I just do not have a "human" personality.

Just an assumption: a conduit for fact and reality doesn't sound like something that can be wrong about anything. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I made one mistake -- I took you seriously when I shouldn't have in one instance. I said "Fair Enough".

I respect the fact that. We are still at a major disagreement however.

You implied things, there's a difference. I wonder where we would be if you would've asked my intentions before accusing them?

I did not intend to imply anything. I simply made a not about your past behavior and gave you some advice.

You don't give advice that does not apply to the person you are giving the advice to...

Not on purpose. If you don't feel it applies to you, then don't take it.

It means your judgement gone bananas.

Same difference in this context.

I do not run away from critical errors. This is all on you! This entire discussion is based entirely on what you feel and the amount of time you have taken to turn nothing into something. Like I said, this would all be different if you did not "accuse" me of sounding arrogant.

Can't you try to look at it from my perspective? How would you react if someone came across as condescending towards you in conversation? I was not offended or upset I wanted to let you know that you can come across as off-putting and that I think you should work on that. Just a statement. Advice. Then you start a full psychoanalysis just because I threw you a little constructive criticism after agreeing with what you said and taking the time to talk to you about it and understand it! That's very rude, in my opinion.

That's because the satire lies in the statement about me not being included in the species.

That's some deep and very serious satire that could be easily mistaken for something that you were saying seriously... and didn't you say another part of the post was satirical earlier?

Absolutely not. If you pay attention, you'll see that I plan my responses beforehand.

Just trying to prove your intelligence here.

---

At 10/25/13 01:53 PM, Suprememessage wrote: Why is there a ballsack made of stars in the OP?

You... have a very good eye. Kudos.

At 10/25/13 02:28 PM, Entice wrote: You.

But I already explained to you that just because I appear X, doesn't mean your advice matters; especially when people complain and excuse just about everything! Those whom actually understand me do not agree with your personal feelings about me and what YOU think will be the fate of my literature.

First of all "feelings" and "opinions" in this context refer to the same thing, so there's no contradiction.

Feelings aren't pseudo-facts... Opinions are. Nobody says "I have a feeling" with confidence. With an opinion, however...There's something established to be confident about atleast.

As I've explained several times that was based on your past behavior here. I did not mean to accuse you of being arrogant at the moment in which I made that post. Why should I keep repeating these things if you forget them in a few posts?

Because you are the one that carries the accusation from the first accusatory post to the last. You still think because you think something of me, it holds any weight enough to be judged with personal suggestions. I even told you in the post after yours how I am nothing of that, and you persisted to accuse me of it because I "sound" like it unintentionally.

So basically you just don't care? I don't believe you, because this conversation is still going.

Yes, I was being sarcastic. I do care. Let's now agree that your personal advice applies to people with an actual arrogant tone to their posts and not me.

Exactly, serious, mature conversations do take place on 4chan as well as here. What's you point again?

4chan is more popular than porn.

Just an assumption: a conduit for fact and reality doesn't sound like something that can be wrong about anything. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not at all. I'm just not as emotional and faithful to myself as much as I correct myself systematically and face the world for what it intrinsically is, like others.

I respect the fact that. We are still at a major disagreement however.

A disagreement that is off its rocker. Step 1. Make accusation. Step 2. Have accusation repelled. Step 3. Still talk about accusation. Step 4. Profit $$$

I did not intend to imply anything. I simply made a not about your past behavior and gave you some advice.

"Oh boy you sound arrogant to me." I'm not arrogant, nor do I sound arrogant. It's called passion. I explained this with fat people complaining about good looking people! Way back in the first post. You are in a wrong position judging a correct position! It's passion! Not pretentiousness!

Not on purpose. If you don't feel it applies to you, then don't take it.

Then explain how my advice bothered you more than it bothered me?

Can't you try to look at it from my perspective? How would you react if someone came across as condescending towards you in conversation? I was not offended or upset I wanted to let you know that you can come across as off-putting and that I think you should work on that. Just a statement. Advice. Then you start a full psychoanalysis just because I threw you a little constructive criticism after agreeing with what you said and taking the time to talk to you about it and understand it! That's very rude, in my opinion.

If they were egotistical, I would address it by telling them I wish to communicate with them, and not their ego. Among other clever phrases. If I was so arrogant, I wouldn't be suffering and being very little rewarded. Can you please put two and two together?! I have always thought of others before myself, but in the end, TRUTH > EVERYTHING

TRUTH > OTHERS > ME

That's some deep and very serious satire that could be easily mistaken for something that you were saying seriously... and didn't you say another part of the post was satirical earlier?

Well, I lead you into making a statement about how I am "human" did I not. Then clearly I am sucessfully planting ideas and planning subsequent responses.

Just trying to prove your intelligence here.

Why in the world would we need to prove something we see differently?

---

Now that's just your opinion now isn't it?

Nah, but in all seriousness, that's only true for some people. I, for one, do not say "In my opinion..." unless I am fully aware and willing to accept that an opposing opinion or thought could be more or entirely correct instead. Although, of course, by default we tend to assume we are correct or at least, more correct than others, its just inherent egotism that most everybody has, that does not, however, mean that that person isn't also willing to accept that they are wrong. It's just they initially assume they're right.

---

At 10/25/13 03:33 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: Although, of course, by default we tend to assume we are correct or at least, more correct than others, its just inherent egotism that most everybody has, that does not, however, mean that that person isn't also willing to accept that they are wrong. It's just they initially assume they're right.

This is why we cannot trust people when they say it's an opinion, as if an opinion is harmless and entirely personal. Of course not everybody does this, but everybody can end up doing it if they allowed themselves to. It's just silly to fight for an opinion like it's the next prophecy.

---

INSANCTUARY HOLY SHIT

Have you read Wittgenstein? I think you'd enjoy Wittgenstein.

---

At 10/25/13 05:10 PM, AxTekk wrote: Have you read Wittgenstein? I think you'd enjoy Wittgenstein.

I am aware of the british lad, yes. What exactly do you think I would like about this philosopher? I'm curious.

---

At 10/25/13 05:13 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I am aware of the british lad, yes. What exactly do you think I would like about this philosopher? I'm curious.

Well, although he moved to Britain he's more Austrian than British both in terms of his nationality and his style of thought. His style of writing is both definitive and original, daring and confident whilst remaining objective. He draws logical proof for grand ideas from language itself. It's the same bold didactic style that you yourself favour, I think you'd enjoy it.

Plus Tractatus is free on tintehwebz.

---

At 10/26/13 11:01 AM, AxTekk wrote: Plus Tractatus is free on tintehwebz.

Interesting.... while reading Wittgenstein's writing -- how he thought of the artifacts being the totality of the world, and the reality being the sum total -- I've realized something extraordinary. AxTekk, you might have given me the piece of puzzle I have been looking for in years of my finest research! Thank you, my good sir! Now, I can truly show people in demonstration, the brilliant thoughts I have held in only due to metaphysical structures, but Wittgenstein is going to allow me to use his philosophy to expand upon the philosophy and now reveal that metaphysicality, in itself, is a property that is alive -- something Wittgenstein did not realize, himself. In my most profound theory, Mind Sentience, I talk about how the objects of the world do not mutate or change, while Wittgenstein explains the same thing in "Tractatus Logico"; furthermore like the grass outside of our houses, or the insects, animals or humans that inhabit this world, thoughts (which are of sense according to Wittgenstein), and the painted ideologies (which are of atomical fact according to Wittgenstein), also mutate and change.

"In order for a picture to represent a certain fact it must in some way possess the same logical structure as the fact."

I am in love with Wittgenstein. This man is a man that is of great knowledge of the world as a whole, and the man that is going to allow another man with an absurdly similar philosophy to his own philosophy to expand upon a profound notion which demonstrates the universe being not alive on the outside (object), but alive on the inside (aspect), which subsequently allows Wittgenstein's philosophy to grow in another man's philosophy, just like any seed carried from one garden to another garden.

Again, thank you!

---

At 10/26/13 03:45 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Again, thank you!

NP breh, although you should read Philosophical Investigations as well seeing as Wittgenstein ended up completely disregarding Tractatus anyway (it was only his degree level work). If you enjoyed Tractatus, I recommend Bertrand Russell as well, you'll probably really enjoy philosophy of language type stuff.

---

At 10/26/13 04:44 PM, AxTekk wrote: NP breh, although you should read Philosophical Investigations as well seeing as Wittgenstein ended up completely disregarding Tractatus anyway (it was only his degree level work). If you enjoyed Tractatus, I recommend Bertrand Russell as well, you'll probably really enjoy philosophy of language type stuff.

I am inlove with Tractatus... It's beyond PI's redundancies and flat-bowed tendencies! How are words not analogous to the paradigms we've observed? If we reverse-engineer it, we can take the artifact of thought in relation to the artifact of the world. If you ask me, like with other great minds, Wittgenstein's intelligence eroded inwards which caused tremendous epistemological damage in his studies.

I will continue to expand on Tractatus, and one day, I will step out into the light inorder to reveal to the world a further completion of Tractatus. I am telling you, Tractatus is the result of intellectual erosion. I watched it happen to Nietzche, I also watched it happen to Hitler. They both were extremely intelligent, but as they gone further into it, they lost more and more of themselves, until there was nothing except an ego in control over knowledge that can only be used for pseudo-absolutions.

Please, tell me. What do you think of my "Mind Sentience" theory?

---

At 10/26/13 05:08 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Please, tell me. What do you think of my "Mind Sentience" theory?

Dude I'm wasted, ATM I just think that I'm really surprised I could get such good weed outside of London.

---

At 10/26/13 05:12 PM, AxTekk wrote: Dude I'm wasted, ATM I just think that I'm really surprised I could get such good weed outside of London.

Bloody hell, ever since I read Tractatus, my mind has been on overdrive. I really need someone to discuss with to truly to allow this inspiration to flourish properly. I got banned on the philosophy boards because I do not listen to PC rules, so... Fuck.

If anyone on here wants to discuss this idea, feel free, because you will be doing the future a massive favor.

---

its an opinion from the point of the view of the other person, when people usually define words they do it like that duuuuuuuuh

---

At 10/26/13 05:16 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I got banned on the philosophy boards because I do not listen to PC rules, so... Fuck.

Lol I remember that. It's for the best.

---

At 10/26/13 05:17 PM, JensJensen wrote: its an opinion from the point of the view of the other person, when people usually define words they do it like that duuuuuuuuh

Being a point of view, does not alternate the intrinsic properties of the subject. Object may co-exist with what is subject, but that does not mean that they correlate, in that our perception can alter the nature of an object. It's already established by realizing that a serial killer is a serial killer on a communicative basis, and that a serial killer does not see themselves as a serial killer, does not make the actions of said serial killer any less of a serial killer when said actions are following definitive accordance to the term "serial killer" and also follows the same routine as other serial killers which also do not perceive themselves as one.

---

At 10/26/13 05:54 PM, JohnGresham07 wrote: You're a classic pseudo intellectual, nice guy though.

Then I guess Wittgenstein is a pseudo intellectual, too. I always thought when people say you are -- flat out, no strings attached, no complexes and absolutely blunt -- that you are not intellectual. However, when they refer to the negative components of intellect, like pseudo, dumb, idiot, troll (let it be known that successful trolls are very intellectual minds that gave up on caring), which are logical fallacies without clear representation of their intent, then it becomes an inferiority complex which envies the intellect, similar to how a child points fingers, laughs and calls a wise man which protects a town from consequences a stupid head. When we call people names without representation, it's called primitive backlash -- primitive backlash is the result of inferiority, weakness and fear.

At 10/26/13 05:49 PM, AxTekk wrote: Lol I remember that. It's for the best.

I need people to bounce ideas off when I am like this, or these thoughts become an army of mentality-eating forces. It drains me; it's like placing a lighter in your mouth and trying to contain the fire while also keeping from burning yourself.