So I was wondering on how other people think..

[Madam Kagu]

Solar Void

Madam Kagu

Gloom Star

Madam Kagu

Gloom Star

Lack of brightness isn't equivalent to lack of intelligence. But saying the subconscious just plain doesn't exist isn't very bright either so I guess we each get a tally.

What you said isnt worded right. Rephrase?

Just because you can't look at a puzzle from a different angle doesn't mean it was worded incorrectly.

Are you gonna answer my question or what? But you also put words into my mouth since I never said subconsciousness didn't exists.

Actually that was a mix up. I mostly wanted to rage at the stupid "psychologist" cuz she said that. So I apologize for that. Actually I don't have much of a problem with you honestly, i guess I thought you were the psychologist I wanted to rage against. She seems overly presumptuous just because she claims to be a psychologist. Although she is right about it being impossible to constantly wonder. There's always gaps.

Alright I'll let it slide. lol

[Aeldra Jayden]

CH1YO

Aeldra Jayden

CH1YO

Aeldra Jayden

CH1YO

2. No I didn't. I simply corrected you that it is the pacemaker, not current, which maintains the rhythm of the heart. You then went on to assert that a pacemaker was not a naturally occurring anatomical distinction.
3. A lightning strike being more than enough to effective annihilate a sausage but not necessarily to kill a person.
4. We don't need defence from fire breath as it is not a phenomenon. Fire breath as a defensive mechanism might be useful, in that we do not have it to form an existing adaptation.
5. Lots of people drown, it is not generally a good idea to though. A doctor can do whatever they please but it will always be from the informed position of there being no such phenomenon.
6. Imaginary people can mean all sorts of things when they start talking in metaphor, it is best to not imagine them doing so.
7. If you insist I will accept that I have a better than basic level of knowledge of biology, as of course does any physician, again though this does not reflect poorly.
8. I could probably tie it back in but I doubt that it really matters.
9. It was an analogy which furthermore lends itself as evidence to a psychotic delusion. Also your conclusion does not at all follow from my statement.

2) The pacemaker creates the electrical current. And no, I simply stated that the thing people usually refer to when saying "pacemaker" is the one given by doctors. You will never take a CPR class and have the instructor warn you to not place the AED pads directly over a person's natural pacemaker.
3) People have defenses warning them of lightning strikes. (<-- was my point)And unless said sausage was on very , very high ground, it would be nigh impossible for it to get hit by lightening.
4) A person would benefit from internal protection from fire, as well as the physical protection of being able to produce fire.
5) Never said it said. I just said it happens. And if a doctor actually did that, as you are suggesting, they would be sued at the very least.
6) So now you're saying that uneducated people with complaints of burning sensation are only imaginary? Nice.
7) I never said you had any grasp anything more than the most very basic of biology. It's rather clear you don't. And you did previously mention that you would benefit from such a class.
8. It's the point of the thread, and the ability to remain relevant to the main idea is the entire basis upon which a solid argument is based. If you can't even remember what you were trying to say (your thesis, btw), then you have no argument. You have rambling, whiny, drivel.
9) The fact that you commented the person in question would go to a doctor and not a psychologist/psychiatrist means that you personally made it a physical condition, not a psychological one.

2. That's not quite what you said, no. There is no shame in making an oversight.
3. Sausages do not occur in nature.
4. A person would not benefit from internal protection from fire, that just came out of nowhere.
5. Doctors usually get paid, not sued, for holding medical knowledge.
6. We are discussing imaginary people, yes. Although that is not what our imaginary people are complaining of.
7. You've already explained why my knowledge exceeds the base level. You will embarrass yourself if you push this further.
8. I am indeed having to contend with rambling, whiny, drivel but I'll continue to indulge you as to the direction of the conversation.
9. No. One traditionally visits a physician upon detection of a presumed physical problem. The very function of delusion is that one does not recognise that it is an imagination. Also people very rarely self-refer to specialists, a general practitioner of medicine is the first line of care in most instances. Don't try to catch me out on silly little points, it s not going to work but it cheapens our exchange.

2) Then my apologies for the wording I used.
3) Have you even seen a sausage get annihilated by lightening? It would not happen, because the lightning would not hit it. And, sausages are smaller and not living, so it is natural that lightning would be more effective, however, that is because lighting can get up around 54000 F.
4) Try swallowing something on fire and then say you wouldn't benefit from protection.
5) If a doctor chucked someone out with a "go away, that's impossible" and no actual exam, you can safely bet that the patient will sue. To kick someone out without examination (in the ER; if they don't have the money, then it is allowed in regular clinics, i believe) goes against the codes and vows that all doctors must follow. So an almost guaranteed lawsuit would be the least of their problems.
6) HYPOTHETICAL. This is a HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION, THEY ARE NOT IMAGINARY, THE ARE HYPOTHETICAL. There is a difference, and your lack of attention to such details is appalling.
7) I never said that your knowledge exceeded base level. I very clearly stated that it barely reached base level. Stop reading what you wish to, and start reading what I actually wrote.
8. You are terrible at arguing. I am beginning to suspect that everything you write is actually just an elaborate troll, because I would like to believe, for the sake of the species, that no one could be as stupid as you are currently behaving.
9) You are the one you said they were contacting a doctor. No one would go to a psychologist if they thought they could breathe fire. A psychologist would do nothing to help them with their perceived MEDICAL condition. IF they sought help at all, it would be with someone who would treat physical symptoms, aka, a doctor. If they were referred by a GP, they would ignore it, as you said, they wouldn't seek help on their own. Unless, if for some ungodly reason, it became court-mandated, they would never speak with a psychologist. The only thing that cheapens our "conversation" is your mulish obstinate (and obvious) belief that you always have to be right, even when you clearly aren't.

3. Have you ever seen a sausage survive a lightning strike? The answer is no because it would not happen.
4. There is no protection against foolishness.
5. No one is suggesting that they do that though.
6. As soon as you started attaching unnecessary details to their person they just became pretend.
7. Point seven in the first quote of my previous post.
8. As a rule ad-hominim tactics only occur when a person is well and truly beat, you are not painting yourself in glory here.
9. Yep. I had a point.

3. That was what I had been saying.

Quote:

It would not happen, because the lightning would not hit it

4. Yes, I see that, as your foolishness is currently making my eyes figuratively bleed.
5. Do what? Help the patient or throw them out with a "people can breathe fire". Because you are the one who suggested the latter.
6. You are the one who made such details necessary through unrelated questions.
7.

you

You've already explained why my knowledge exceeds the base level

me

I never said that your knowledge exceeded base level. I very clearly stated that it barely reached base level

No, no it's not.
8. Not ad hominem. Simple truth.
9. Would your point be that you can ignore all criticism and logic to the point of sounding like an obstinate fool who assumes that being able to spell American English correctly is the pinnacle of intelligence?

[CH1YO]

Aeldra Jayden

CH1YO

Aeldra Jayden

CH1YO

Aeldra Jayden

2) The pacemaker creates the electrical current. And no, I simply stated that the thing people usually refer to when saying "pacemaker" is the one given by doctors. You will never take a CPR class and have the instructor warn you to not place the AED pads directly over a person's natural pacemaker.
3) People have defenses warning them of lightning strikes. (<-- was my point)And unless said sausage was on very , very high ground, it would be nigh impossible for it to get hit by lightening.
4) A person would benefit from internal protection from fire, as well as the physical protection of being able to produce fire.
5) Never said it said. I just said it happens. And if a doctor actually did that, as you are suggesting, they would be sued at the very least.
6) So now you're saying that uneducated people with complaints of burning sensation are only imaginary? Nice.
7) I never said you had any grasp anything more than the most very basic of biology. It's rather clear you don't. And you did previously mention that you would benefit from such a class.
8. It's the point of the thread, and the ability to remain relevant to the main idea is the entire basis upon which a solid argument is based. If you can't even remember what you were trying to say (your thesis, btw), then you have no argument. You have rambling, whiny, drivel.
9) The fact that you commented the person in question would go to a doctor and not a psychologist/psychiatrist means that you personally made it a physical condition, not a psychological one.

2. That's not quite what you said, no. There is no shame in making an oversight.
3. Sausages do not occur in nature.
4. A person would not benefit from internal protection from fire, that just came out of nowhere.
5. Doctors usually get paid, not sued, for holding medical knowledge.
6. We are discussing imaginary people, yes. Although that is not what our imaginary people are complaining of.
7. You've already explained why my knowledge exceeds the base level. You will embarrass yourself if you push this further.
8. I am indeed having to contend with rambling, whiny, drivel but I'll continue to indulge you as to the direction of the conversation.
9. No. One traditionally visits a physician upon detection of a presumed physical problem. The very function of delusion is that one does not recognise that it is an imagination. Also people very rarely self-refer to specialists, a general practitioner of medicine is the first line of care in most instances. Don't try to catch me out on silly little points, it s not going to work but it cheapens our exchange.

2) Then my apologies for the wording I used.
3) Have you even seen a sausage get annihilated by lightening? It would not happen, because the lightning would not hit it. And, sausages are smaller and not living, so it is natural that lightning would be more effective, however, that is because lighting can get up around 54000 F.
4) Try swallowing something on fire and then say you wouldn't benefit from protection.
5) If a doctor chucked someone out with a "go away, that's impossible" and no actual exam, you can safely bet that the patient will sue. To kick someone out without examination (in the ER; if they don't have the money, then it is allowed in regular clinics, i believe) goes against the codes and vows that all doctors must follow. So an almost guaranteed lawsuit would be the least of their problems.
6) HYPOTHETICAL. This is a HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION, THEY ARE NOT IMAGINARY, THE ARE HYPOTHETICAL. There is a difference, and your lack of attention to such details is appalling.
7) I never said that your knowledge exceeded base level. I very clearly stated that it barely reached base level. Stop reading what you wish to, and start reading what I actually wrote.
8. You are terrible at arguing. I am beginning to suspect that everything you write is actually just an elaborate troll, because I would like to believe, for the sake of the species, that no one could be as stupid as you are currently behaving.
9) You are the one you said they were contacting a doctor. No one would go to a psychologist if they thought they could breathe fire. A psychologist would do nothing to help them with their perceived MEDICAL condition. IF they sought help at all, it would be with someone who would treat physical symptoms, aka, a doctor. If they were referred by a GP, they would ignore it, as you said, they wouldn't seek help on their own. Unless, if for some ungodly reason, it became court-mandated, they would never speak with a psychologist. The only thing that cheapens our "conversation" is your mulish obstinate (and obvious) belief that you always have to be right, even when you clearly aren't.

3. Have you ever seen a sausage survive a lightning strike? The answer is no because it would not happen.
4. There is no protection against foolishness.
5. No one is suggesting that they do that though.
6. As soon as you started attaching unnecessary details to their person they just became pretend.
7. Point seven in the first quote of my previous post.
8. As a rule ad-hominim tactics only occur when a person is well and truly beat, you are not painting yourself in glory here.
9. Yep. I had a point.

3. That was what I had been saying.

Quote:

It would not happen, because the lightning would not hit it

4. Yes, I see that, as your foolishness is currently making my eyes figuratively bleed.
5. Do what? Help the patient or throw them out with a "people can breathe fire". Because you are the one who suggested the latter.
6. You are the one who made such details necessary through unrelated questions.
7.

you

You've already explained why my knowledge exceeds the base level

me

I never said that your knowledge exceeded base level. I very clearly stated that it barely reached base level

No, no it's not.
8. Not ad hominem. Simple truth.
9. Would your point be that you can ignore all criticism and logic to the point of sounding like an obstinate fool who assumes that being able to spell American English correctly is the pinnacle of intelligence?

3. In the event that a sausage is struck by lightning what its the chance of it's survival?
4. No.
5. Be rude. There really is no need for it.
6. By virtue of their being designated unnecessary that is not the case.
7. No, that's no right. Go back to the post and try again.
8. Do you understand how your ad-hominem strategies work or are you really flailing?
9. No. If you're going to be purposefully absurd then just stop inflicting yourself upon this forum.

[Aeldra Jayden]

CH1YO

Aeldra Jayden

CH1YO

Aeldra Jayden

CH1YO

2. That's not quite what you said, no. There is no shame in making an oversight.
3. Sausages do not occur in nature.
4. A person would not benefit from internal protection from fire, that just came out of nowhere.
5. Doctors usually get paid, not sued, for holding medical knowledge.
6. We are discussing imaginary people, yes. Although that is not what our imaginary people are complaining of.
7. You've already explained why my knowledge exceeds the base level. You will embarrass yourself if you push this further.
8. I am indeed having to contend with rambling, whiny, drivel but I'll continue to indulge you as to the direction of the conversation.
9. No. One traditionally visits a physician upon detection of a presumed physical problem. The very function of delusion is that one does not recognise that it is an imagination. Also people very rarely self-refer to specialists, a general practitioner of medicine is the first line of care in most instances. Don't try to catch me out on silly little points, it s not going to work but it cheapens our exchange.

2) Then my apologies for the wording I used.
3) Have you even seen a sausage get annihilated by lightening? It would not happen, because the lightning would not hit it. And, sausages are smaller and not living, so it is natural that lightning would be more effective, however, that is because lighting can get up around 54000 F.
4) Try swallowing something on fire and then say you wouldn't benefit from protection.
5) If a doctor chucked someone out with a "go away, that's impossible" and no actual exam, you can safely bet that the patient will sue. To kick someone out without examination (in the ER; if they don't have the money, then it is allowed in regular clinics, i believe) goes against the codes and vows that all doctors must follow. So an almost guaranteed lawsuit would be the least of their problems.
6) HYPOTHETICAL. This is a HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION, THEY ARE NOT IMAGINARY, THE ARE HYPOTHETICAL. There is a difference, and your lack of attention to such details is appalling.
7) I never said that your knowledge exceeded base level. I very clearly stated that it barely reached base level. Stop reading what you wish to, and start reading what I actually wrote.
8. You are terrible at arguing. I am beginning to suspect that everything you write is actually just an elaborate troll, because I would like to believe, for the sake of the species, that no one could be as stupid as you are currently behaving.
9) You are the one you said they were contacting a doctor. No one would go to a psychologist if they thought they could breathe fire. A psychologist would do nothing to help them with their perceived MEDICAL condition. IF they sought help at all, it would be with someone who would treat physical symptoms, aka, a doctor. If they were referred by a GP, they would ignore it, as you said, they wouldn't seek help on their own. Unless, if for some ungodly reason, it became court-mandated, they would never speak with a psychologist. The only thing that cheapens our "conversation" is your mulish obstinate (and obvious) belief that you always have to be right, even when you clearly aren't.

3. Have you ever seen a sausage survive a lightning strike? The answer is no because it would not happen.
4. There is no protection against foolishness.
5. No one is suggesting that they do that though.
6. As soon as you started attaching unnecessary details to their person they just became pretend.
7. Point seven in the first quote of my previous post.
8. As a rule ad-hominim tactics only occur when a person is well and truly beat, you are not painting yourself in glory here.
9. Yep. I had a point.

3. That was what I had been saying.

Quote:

It would not happen, because the lightning would not hit it

4. Yes, I see that, as your foolishness is currently making my eyes figuratively bleed.
5. Do what? Help the patient or throw them out with a "people can breathe fire". Because you are the one who suggested the latter.
6. You are the one who made such details necessary through unrelated questions.
7.

you

You've already explained why my knowledge exceeds the base level

me

I never said that your knowledge exceeded base level. I very clearly stated that it barely reached base level

No, no it's not.
8. Not ad hominem. Simple truth.
9. Would your point be that you can ignore all criticism and logic to the point of sounding like an obstinate fool who assumes that being able to spell American English correctly is the pinnacle of intelligence?

3. In the event that a sausage is struck by lightning what its the chance of it's survival?
4. No.
5. Be rude. There really is no need for it.
6. By virtue of their being designated unnecessary that is not the case.
7. No, that's no right. Go back to the post and try again.
8. Do you understand how your ad-hominem strategies work or are you really flailing?
9. No. If you're going to be purposefully absurd then just stop inflicting yourself upon this forum.

3. 0. The heat would incinerate it.
4. Your reply makes no sense. "No" what?
5. I'm not. I'm being honest. As they say, "there's being right, and there's being nice".
6. It was a hypothetical situation that you created. You then expanded the hypothetical situation after I pointed out that it was stupid and that you were incorrect regardless. That does not change the fact that everything about it was hypothetical.
7. I don't need to. I cut & pasted it word-for-word.
8. Yes, I do, and I can accurately inform you that you have been using such logic from the begining.

Quote:

No one, yourself included, wonders constantly.

Quote:

I'm a psychologist, it's the kind of thing that we know.

And for fun: What you said there is generally interpreted as, "no, you're not a psychologist, so there is no way you are correct about your own thought process".
9. "Inflicting"? You are the one going around informing people that you know what's going on in their head better than they do. I am simply correcting you on the manner, and based on the reaction of many other people in this thread, and others you've posted in, if any one is "inflicting" themselves on the forum, it's you.

[CH1YO]

Aeldra Jayden

CH1YO

Aeldra Jayden

CH1YO

Aeldra Jayden

2) Then my apologies for the wording I used.
3) Have you even seen a sausage get annihilated by lightening? It would not happen, because the lightning would not hit it. And, sausages are smaller and not living, so it is natural that lightning would be more effective, however, that is because lighting can get up around 54000 F.
4) Try swallowing something on fire and then say you wouldn't benefit from protection.
5) If a doctor chucked someone out with a "go away, that's impossible" and no actual exam, you can safely bet that the patient will sue. To kick someone out without examination (in the ER; if they don't have the money, then it is allowed in regular clinics, i believe) goes against the codes and vows that all doctors must follow. So an almost guaranteed lawsuit would be the least of their problems.
6) HYPOTHETICAL. This is a HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION, THEY ARE NOT IMAGINARY, THE ARE HYPOTHETICAL. There is a difference, and your lack of attention to such details is appalling.
7) I never said that your knowledge exceeded base level. I very clearly stated that it barely reached base level. Stop reading what you wish to, and start reading what I actually wrote.
8. You are terrible at arguing. I am beginning to suspect that everything you write is actually just an elaborate troll, because I would like to believe, for the sake of the species, that no one could be as stupid as you are currently behaving.
9) You are the one you said they were contacting a doctor. No one would go to a psychologist if they thought they could breathe fire. A psychologist would do nothing to help them with their perceived MEDICAL condition. IF they sought help at all, it would be with someone who would treat physical symptoms, aka, a doctor. If they were referred by a GP, they would ignore it, as you said, they wouldn't seek help on their own. Unless, if for some ungodly reason, it became court-mandated, they would never speak with a psychologist. The only thing that cheapens our "conversation" is your mulish obstinate (and obvious) belief that you always have to be right, even when you clearly aren't.

3. Have you ever seen a sausage survive a lightning strike? The answer is no because it would not happen.
4. There is no protection against foolishness.
5. No one is suggesting that they do that though.
6. As soon as you started attaching unnecessary details to their person they just became pretend.
7. Point seven in the first quote of my previous post.
8. As a rule ad-hominim tactics only occur when a person is well and truly beat, you are not painting yourself in glory here.
9. Yep. I had a point.

3. That was what I had been saying.

Quote:

It would not happen, because the lightning would not hit it

4. Yes, I see that, as your foolishness is currently making my eyes figuratively bleed.
5. Do what? Help the patient or throw them out with a "people can breathe fire". Because you are the one who suggested the latter.
6. You are the one who made such details necessary through unrelated questions.
7.

you

You've already explained why my knowledge exceeds the base level

me

I never said that your knowledge exceeded base level. I very clearly stated that it barely reached base level

No, no it's not.
8. Not ad hominem. Simple truth.
9. Would your point be that you can ignore all criticism and logic to the point of sounding like an obstinate fool who assumes that being able to spell American English correctly is the pinnacle of intelligence?

3. In the event that a sausage is struck by lightning what its the chance of it's survival?
4. No.
5. Be rude. There really is no need for it.
6. By virtue of their being designated unnecessary that is not the case.
7. No, that's no right. Go back to the post and try again.
8. Do you understand how your ad-hominem strategies work or are you really flailing?
9. No. If you're going to be purposefully absurd then just stop inflicting yourself upon this forum.

3. 0. The heat would incinerate it.
4. Your reply makes no sense. "No" what?
5. I'm not. I'm being honest. As they say, "there's being right, and there's being nice".
6. It was a hypothetical situation that you created. You then expanded the hypothetical situation after I pointed out that it was stupid and that you were incorrect regardless. That does not change the fact that everything about it was hypothetical.
7. I don't need to. I cut & pasted it word-for-word.
8. Yes, I do, and I can accurately inform you that you have been using such logic from the begining.

Quote:

No one, yourself included, wonders constantly.

Quote:

I'm a psychologist, it's the kind of thing that we know.

And for fun: What you said there is generally interpreted as, "no, you're not a psychologist, so there is no way you are correct about your own thought process".
9. "Inflicting"? You are the one going around informing people that you know what's going on in their head better than they do. I am simply correcting you on the manner, and based on the reaction of many other people in this thread, and others you've posted in, if any one is "inflicting" themselves on the forum, it's you.

3. See? That wasn't so hard.
4. Just no. It was too silly.
5. I was referring to the pretend doctor, he has no need to be rude.
6. Hypothetical or otherwise necessity continues to function.
7. True but you selected the wrong material to duplicate.
8. If you truly understand your ad-hom' strategy you should refrain from it's use.
8b. General interpretations are not always correct.
9. I don't claim to know what is going on in people's heads, I just have an unusually good understanding of how they do whatever it is that they happen to be doing. Nor do I make a point of being absurd, as was your folly.

[Aeldra Jayden]

CH1YO

Aeldra Jayden

CH1YO

Aeldra Jayden

CH1YO

3. Have you ever seen a sausage survive a lightning strike? The answer is no because it would not happen.
4. There is no protection against foolishness.
5. No one is suggesting that they do that though.
6. As soon as you started attaching unnecessary details to their person they just became pretend.
7. Point seven in the first quote of my previous post.
8. As a rule ad-hominim tactics only occur when a person is well and truly beat, you are not painting yourself in glory here.
9. Yep. I had a point.

3. That was what I had been saying.

Quote:

It would not happen, because the lightning would not hit it

4. Yes, I see that, as your foolishness is currently making my eyes figuratively bleed.
5. Do what? Help the patient or throw them out with a "people can breathe fire". Because you are the one who suggested the latter.
6. You are the one who made such details necessary through unrelated questions.
7.

you

You've already explained why my knowledge exceeds the base level

me

I never said that your knowledge exceeded base level. I very clearly stated that it barely reached base level

No, no it's not.
8. Not ad hominem. Simple truth.
9. Would your point be that you can ignore all criticism and logic to the point of sounding like an obstinate fool who assumes that being able to spell American English correctly is the pinnacle of intelligence?

3. In the event that a sausage is struck by lightning what its the chance of it's survival?
4. No.
5. Be rude. There really is no need for it.
6. By virtue of their being designated unnecessary that is not the case.
7. No, that's no right. Go back to the post and try again.
8. Do you understand how your ad-hominem strategies work or are you really flailing?
9. No. If you're going to be purposefully absurd then just stop inflicting yourself upon this forum.

3. 0. The heat would incinerate it.
4. Your reply makes no sense. "No" what?
5. I'm not. I'm being honest. As they say, "there's being right, and there's being nice".
6. It was a hypothetical situation that you created. You then expanded the hypothetical situation after I pointed out that it was stupid and that you were incorrect regardless. That does not change the fact that everything about it was hypothetical.
7. I don't need to. I cut & pasted it word-for-word.
8. Yes, I do, and I can accurately inform you that you have been using such logic from the begining.

Quote:

No one, yourself included, wonders constantly.

Quote:

I'm a psychologist, it's the kind of thing that we know.

And for fun: What you said there is generally interpreted as, "no, you're not a psychologist, so there is no way you are correct about your own thought process".
9. "Inflicting"? You are the one going around informing people that you know what's going on in their head better than they do. I am simply correcting you on the manner, and based on the reaction of many other people in this thread, and others you've posted in, if any one is "inflicting" themselves on the forum, it's you.

3. See? That wasn't so hard.
4. Just no. It was too silly.
5. I was referring to the pretend doctor, he has no need to be rude.
6. Hypothetical or otherwise necessity continues to function.
7. True but you selected the wrong material to duplicate.
8. If you truly understand your ad-hom' strategy you should refrain from it's use.
8b. General interpretations are not always correct.
9. I don't claim to know what is going on in people's heads, I just have an unusually good understanding of how they do whatever it is that they happen to be doing. Nor do I make a point of being absurd, as was your folly.

3. See what, the fact that I just proved my own point? I told you sausage has no defense against lightening. I also told you from the beginning that it's next to impossible for lightening to strike sausage. So see what? The fact that I was right from the beginning? Or see that I was right on my other point that you don't even read what anyone- yourself included- writes?
4. Pardon? I was saying that no, there is no defense against foolishness. That's why I had to take a several day brake to recover from yours.
5. Then why did your original scenario include him throwing out the patient with a "people can't breathe fire"?
6. They became unnecessary the moment that you- the create of the hypothetical situation- were proved wrong using actual logic, and labelled them unnecessary. Really. Do you ever read what you write?
7. No, I did not. You referred to your previous message and my rebuttal to it. That is what I copied.
8. Well, ad hominem was used from your first post, so I assumed that all points of logic were thrown out the door and no longer matter. I, however, at least admit that my informing you of your lack of logic and reasonable argument could be construed as ad hominem. You however, are still ignoring every fault pointed out to you, instead of taking it in to consideration and learning from it. That's some major hubris there- the fact that you could simply have taken the suggestions for better logical debate and improved it so that any correct point you do make has logic behind it instead of seeming to be entirely accidental.
8b. Then don't use the vernacular that would lead to such assumptions. It's all in the wording, and that is the exact message you sent with yours.
9.

Quote:

No one, yourself included, wonders constantly.

Quote:

Well you wouldn't know that since you arent in my head lol \


I don't need to be. I'm a psychologist, it's the kind of thing that we know.

Quote:

I do know for a fact.

Quote:

. I don't claim to know what is going on in people's heads

Yes, you do. Often.

Quote:

Nor do I make a point of being absurd

Quote:

doctor told someone that they did not have fire breath?

You are the one who brought up fire breathing, the fist absurd idea.

Quote:

Invisibility would have offensive, defensive and reproductive advantages

Then you brought invisibility up.

Quote:

A lightning strike being more than enough to effective annihilate a sausage

And you are also the one who brought up lightening striking a sausage, despite the fact that lightening would not hit a sausage under any circumstances labelled 'normal' by anyone, while completely ignoring the fact that a sausage has less mass than the average human hand.

My only "folly", as you put it, was humoring you in the hopes that you would stop being an idiot and actually learn something instead of passing stupid messages to people that are completely off base and continuing to type as if there were actually people who wanted to read what you write.

[CH1YO]

Aeldra Jayden

CH1YO

Aeldra Jayden

CH1YO

Aeldra Jayden

3. That was what I had been saying.
4. Yes, I see that, as your foolishness is currently making my eyes figuratively bleed.
5. Do what? Help the patient or throw them out with a "people can breathe fire". Because you are the one who suggested the latter.
6. You are the one who made such details necessary through unrelated questions.
7. No, no it's not.
8. Not ad hominem. Simple truth.
9. Would your point be that you can ignore all criticism and logic to the point of sounding like an obstinate fool who assumes that being able to spell American English correctly is the pinnacle of intelligence?

3. In the event that a sausage is struck by lightning what its the chance of it's survival?
4. No.
5. Be rude. There really is no need for it.
6. By virtue of their being designated unnecessary that is not the case.
7. No, that's no right. Go back to the post and try again.
8. Do you understand how your ad-hominem strategies work or are you really flailing?
9. No. If you're going to be purposefully absurd then just stop inflicting yourself upon this forum.

3. 0. The heat would incinerate it.
4. Your reply makes no sense. "No" what?
5. I'm not. I'm being honest. As they say, "there's being right, and there's being nice".
6. It was a hypothetical situation that you created. You then expanded the hypothetical situation after I pointed out that it was stupid and that you were incorrect regardless. That does not change the fact that everything about it was hypothetical.
7. I don't need to. I cut & pasted it word-for-word.
8. Yes, I do, and I can accurately inform you that you have been using such logic from the begining.

Quote:

No one, yourself included, wonders constantly.

Quote:

I'm a psychologist, it's the kind of thing that we know.

And for fun: What you said there is generally interpreted as, "no, you're not a psychologist, so there is no way you are correct about your own thought process".
9. "Inflicting"? You are the one going around informing people that you know what's going on in their head better than they do. I am simply correcting you on the manner, and based on the reaction of many other people in this thread, and others you've posted in, if any one is "inflicting" themselves on the forum, it's you.

3. See? That wasn't so hard.
4. Just no. It was too silly.
5. I was referring to the pretend doctor, he has no need to be rude.
6. Hypothetical or otherwise necessity continues to function.
7. True but you selected the wrong material to duplicate.
8. If you truly understand your ad-hom' strategy you should refrain from it's use.
8b. General interpretations are not always correct.
9. I don't claim to know what is going on in people's heads, I just have an unusually good understanding of how they do whatever it is that they happen to be doing. Nor do I make a point of being absurd, as was your folly.

3. See what, the fact that I just proved my own point? I told you sausage has no defense against lightening. I also told you from the beginning that it's next to impossible for lightening to strike sausage. So see what? The fact that I was right from the beginning? Or see that I was right on my other point that you don't even read what anyone- yourself included- writes?
4. Pardon? I was saying that no, there is no defense against foolishness. That's why I had to take a several day brake to recover from yours.
5. Then why did your original scenario include him throwing out the patient with a "people can't breathe fire"?
6. They became unnecessary the moment that you- the create of the hypothetical situation- were proved wrong using actual logic, and labelled them unnecessary. Really. Do you ever read what you write?
7. No, I did not. You referred to your previous message and my rebuttal to it. That is what I copied.
8. Well, ad hominem was used from your first post, so I assumed that all points of logic were thrown out the door and no longer matter. I, however, at least admit that my informing you of your lack of logic and reasonable argument could be construed as ad hominem. You however, are still ignoring every fault pointed out to you, instead of taking it in to consideration and learning from it. That's some major hubris there- the fact that you could simply have taken the suggestions for better logical debate and improved it so that any correct point you do make has logic behind it instead of seeming to be entirely accidental.
8b. Then don't use the vernacular that would lead to such assumptions. It's all in the wording, and that is the exact message you sent with yours.
9.

Quote:

No one, yourself included, wonders constantly.

Quote:

Well you wouldn't know that since you arent in my head lol


I don't need to be. I'm a psychologist, it's the kind of thing that we know.

Quote:

I do know for a fact.

Quote:

. I don't claim to know what is going on in people's heads

Yes, you do. Often.

Quote:

Nor do I make a point of being absurd

Quote:

doctor told someone that they did not have fire breath?

You are the one who brought up fire breathing, the fist absurd idea.

Quote:

Invisibility would have offensive, defensive and reproductive advantages

Then you brought invisibility up.

Quote:

A lightning strike being more than enough to effective annihilate a sausage

And you are also the one who brought up lightening striking a sausage, despite the fact that lightening would not hit a sausage under any circumstances labelled 'normal' by anyone, while completely ignoring the fact that a sausage has less mass than the average human hand.

My only "folly", as you put it, was humoring you in the hopes that you would stop being an idiot and actually learn something instead of passing stupid messages to people that are completely off base and continuing to type as if there were actually people who wanted to read what you write.

3. You did not prove anything, that is not the issue. I have no idea why you made such a song and dance of simply agreeing.
4. I hope you have returned with a head free of foolishness.
5. At the point which you decided that the patient - who naturally cannot breathe fire - should be thrown out.
6. I can assure you that there has been very little actual logic on display in this conversation. They were unnecessary because they did not contribute anything useful to the situation.
7. I referred to the quote above it. I apologise if I was unclear on this point.
8. That's a better quality argument ad hominem.
8b. I will use specialist language where appropriate, it is a tightrope walk between the pitfalls of over-familiarity and obscurity. It is however not my obligation to filter my words for other people's misunderstandings.

9. I do not claim to know what is going on in people's heads. I make a point of not doing so.
9b. A doctor knowing that fire breath does not occur is not at all absurd. Neither is invisibility any more absurd an occurrence than the actual fire-breath which you proposed. I never suggested that it was a frequent occurrence that sausages were struck by lightning either.
9c. Indeed, if you want to save face it is best to quit while you are ahead. At this juncture you might as well, I appreciate, continue in the hope that I make a mistake to succour your striving for superiority. It is, however, unlikely.

[CH1YO]

Solar Void

Madam Kagu

Gloom Star

Madam Kagu

Gloom Star

Lack of brightness isn't equivalent to lack of intelligence. But saying the subconscious just plain doesn't exist isn't very bright either so I guess we each get a tally.

What you said isnt worded right. Rephrase?

Just because you can't look at a puzzle from a different angle doesn't mean it was worded incorrectly.

Are you gonna answer my question or what? But you also put words into my mouth since I never said subconsciousness didn't exists.

Actually that was a mix up. I mostly wanted to rage at the stupid "psychologist" cuz she said that. So I apologize for that. Actually I don't have much of a problem with you honestly, i guess I thought you were the psychologist I wanted to rage against. She seems overly presumptuous just because she claims to be a psychologist. Although she is right about it being impossible to constantly wonder. There's always gaps.

Agreeing with me on some things is a good start.

It really is no shame to know less than me, don't be scared.

[GoldenAnima]

CH1YO

Solar Void

Madam Kagu

Gloom Star

Madam Kagu

Gloom Star

Lack of brightness isn't equivalent to lack of intelligence. But saying the subconscious just plain doesn't exist isn't very bright either so I guess we each get a tally.

What you said isnt worded right. Rephrase?

Just because you can't look at a puzzle from a different angle doesn't mean it was worded incorrectly.

Are you gonna answer my question or what? But you also put words into my mouth since I never said subconsciousness didn't exists.

Actually that was a mix up. I mostly wanted to rage at the stupid "psychologist" cuz she said that. So I apologize for that. Actually I don't have much of a problem with you honestly, i guess I thought you were the psychologist I wanted to rage against. She seems overly presumptuous just because she claims to be a psychologist. Although she is right about it being impossible to constantly wonder. There's always gaps.

Agreeing with me on some things is a good start.

It really is no shame to know less than me, don't be scared.

For a psychologist your quite stupid. But I forgot, Psychologists are presumptious assholes who believe they are god just because they got some piece of paper for going to college and paying attention in a classroom.

Saying the subconscious doesn't exist is going too far. How the ******** would a mind even function without a subconscious?

[CH1YO]

Solar Void

CH1YO

Solar Void

Madam Kagu

Gloom Star

Just because you can't look at a puzzle from a different angle doesn't mean it was worded incorrectly.

Are you gonna answer my question or what? But you also put words into my mouth since I never said subconsciousness didn't exists.

Actually that was a mix up. I mostly wanted to rage at the stupid "psychologist" cuz she said that. So I apologize for that. Actually I don't have much of a problem with you honestly, i guess I thought you were the psychologist I wanted to rage against. She seems overly presumptuous just because she claims to be a psychologist. Although she is right about it being impossible to constantly wonder. There's always gaps.

Agreeing with me on some things is a good start.

It really is no shame to know less than me, don't be scared.

For a psychologist your quite stupid. But I forgot, Psychologists are presumptious assholes who believe they are god just because they got some piece of paper for going to college and paying attention in a classroom.

Saying the subconscious doesn't exist is going too far. How the ******** would a mind even function without a subconscious?

Am I correct in assuming, from what you have written, that you are willing to accept that you have basically no knowledge in this area?

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Solar Void

Saying the subconscious doesn't exist is going too far. How the ******** would a mind even function without a subconscious?

Is there a super-consciousness? You know, since there's consciousness and unconsciousness. If there's a sub-consciousness, surely there's a super-consciousness.

[GoldenAnima]

Pseudo-Onkelos

Solar Void

Saying the subconscious doesn't exist is going too far. How the ******** would a mind even function without a subconscious?

Is there a super-consciousness? You know, since there's consciousness and unconsciousness. If there's a sub-consciousness, surely there's a super-consciousness.

Just because there can be pink pigs and black pigs, does not mean there is a vibrantly green pig.

[GoldenAnima]

CH1YO

Solar Void

CH1YO

Solar Void

Madam Kagu

Gloom Star

Just because you can't look at a puzzle from a different angle doesn't mean it was worded incorrectly.

Are you gonna answer my question or what? But you also put words into my mouth since I never said subconsciousness didn't exists.

Actually that was a mix up. I mostly wanted to rage at the stupid "psychologist" cuz she said that. So I apologize for that. Actually I don't have much of a problem with you honestly, i guess I thought you were the psychologist I wanted to rage against. She seems overly presumptuous just because she claims to be a psychologist. Although she is right about it being impossible to constantly wonder. There's always gaps.

Agreeing with me on some things is a good start.

It really is no shame to know less than me, don't be scared.

For a psychologist your quite stupid. But I forgot, Psychologists are presumptious assholes who believe they are god just because they got some piece of paper for going to college and paying attention in a classroom.

Saying the subconscious doesn't exist is going too far. How the ******** would a mind even function without a subconscious?

Am I correct in assuming, from what you have written, that you are willing to accept that you have basically no knowledge in this area?

I'm willing to believe you are horribly wrong in assuming ANYTHING.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Solar Void

Pseudo-Onkelos

Solar Void

Saying the subconscious doesn't exist is going too far. How the ******** would a mind even function without a subconscious?

Is there a super-consciousness? You know, since there's consciousness and unconsciousness. If there's a sub-consciousness, surely there's a super-consciousness.

Just because there can be pink pigs and black pigs, does not mean there is a vibrantly green pig.

That's not the same thing.

[AvenirLegacy]

How long until a Jungian Analysis shows up?