Why You Believe

[Recursive Paradox]

Ishtar Shakti

You really just don't Get it

Quote:

You don't actually argue at all.
You would rather hide behind your beliefs and cat call others then actually proffer up any counter.

Really? Are you confused? Cuz I thought that was exactly what you were doing. Maybe it's opposite day or something.

Quote:

I was raped I know my rapist lied when he raped me because I KNOW I was there. Do you think you saying that makes it true? Me listening to you say that doesn't make it true. Doesn't mean I know its true. I have to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't making it up to prove a point. Words don't create truth, they are just a parody of it. If I saw it happen then I would have to believe you because the only thing I have to automatically believe is my senses.

...are you illiterate? She never referenced you and her and determining truth. She referenced herself, the person who hurt her and determining the truth. That was the counterexample to your claim that no one can know if someone is lying.

Quote:

Are you completely objective? Are you biased and led astray by your emotions hells to the ******** ya. Have you looked at the massive studies of eye witness reports.

Not a single person has made a single claim regarding perfect objectivity. It would really help if you actually read what people wrote instead of creating a fantasy land.

Quote:

Have you seen all the Errors there.

I don't think Error would appreciate there being clones of him nor you referencing said clones. Leave him alone.

Quote:

Have you closely observed and reported on your own observations and paid close attention to detail writing everything down.

I can't speak for Tea here but I sure as ******** have.

Quote:

Have you participated in studies concerning memory?

This is not a requirement to make observations.

Quote:

Do you understand any of this. When will you start wanting to think instead of playing a station of automatic superiority because I just joined this guild and you've been here longer.

If you think this is based on time inside the guild, instead of you making abhorrently inaccurate blanket statements regarding the function of observation and knowledge, then you really have absolutely no grasp on reality.

Even if you had been here for 5 years and a bunch of us just came in, we'd still call you on this s**t. Hell, I've called guildmates out on things the day of entry to a guild.

Quote:

You ask for data you ask for answers and then you mock them. You mock information and pretend it isn't relevant because you don't want to believe anything I have to say.

Countering, refuting and applying rebuttals is not mocking.

Quote:

You want to play pretend because you have some Issue and I'm not sure that its with the information itself or with me. As I'm fairly sure other people have said things which are very similar and yet you only attack mock and parody my responses in multiple threads.

It's always funny when people who have absolutely no grasp what's going on try to psychoanalyze someone else. Funny in a sad, pathetic, sort of annoying way.

Actually pretty much anyone who's made the ridiculous blanket statements you have has received similar blunt and to the point rebuttals on every point. And anyone who's applied similarly offensive bullshit, personal strikes, projecting and a complete inability to comprehend the arguments and discussion posited to you, has received the same level of anger, depending on who's addressing them.

You're lucky you didn't piss off Wing here. You'd be lying in pieces right now.

Quote:

You haven't provided any links you haven't actually debated the subject within any of the contexts.

One does not require sources where suitable shredding of one's opponent's logic will suffice. Your logic has more holes than swiss cheese. I could have taken it apart 5 years ago when I knew nothing of debate.

Quote:

Definitions are very Personal things

Bullshit. Definitions are structural meanings attributed to words to enable them to be used as a tool for communicate abstract and concrete concepts. There is nothing personal about that. It's entirely about how you pass concepts to others and how they pass concepts to you.

If you make up whatever the ******** definition you want for a word (a personal definition) you will fail to communicate, eliminating any use for the word.

How about instead of whining about how personal it all is (when it's not) you try to logically justify your definitions. Why are they better then the already present ones? Are they?

Quote:

and just because you have a different definition then me doesn't mean I "made up" my definition. I defined the words that I used while I was using them in many instances. Because My definitions don't fit Your views and doesn't fit your little game of everything I say is wrong doesn't make you any more right. Its a different perspective and it fits the definitions in the dictionary etc.

You just said you made them up. Literally the sentence after you said you didn't. Which is it?

Quote:

You can't put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head and whatever meanings you try to impose on what I'm saying Doesn't change what I Mean by it. It might work for whatever you feel like Interpreting it as. Thats your choice and you can destroy whatever little foundation talking to you may have and thats Your choice.

The sky means: "a big wall made of brick"

Every time you say the sky is blue, you're wrong, because definitions are personal and the sky means a big wall made of brick.

I'm sure talking with you about anything is a barrel of fun.

Quote:

*more bullshit "psychoanalysis"*

It's starting to get less funny and just annoying now.

Quote:

You'd be about as bad as a fluffy then... they are too flexible you, too rigid.

You've really got no idea what you're talking about, do you? Fluffies are intensely rigid. They refuse to admit what they're stealing from cultures and how they are engaging in appropriation. They refuse to adjust their methods to make them more ethical. It's complete blind rigidity.

Quote:

I'm sorry you were raped and I'm sorry you were hurt but thats You and it really had nothing to do with the conversation.

It was used as a counter example. For your truly stupid claim that you can never tell if someone is lying. That's plenty relevant.

Quote:

Using the easy out that my logic is too flawed to actually argue it is a BS move and you know it.

Your logic is too incoherent to argue against. I'm still making the effort but reading this delusional word vomit is giving me a headache.

Quote:

I use generalities because I don't like to make any sort of claim which is unjustifiable.

Funny how many generalities are actually unjustifiable because they break too far from the actual complexity of reality.

Quote:

I stick to logical proofs that rely on preset definitions which should be agreed upon at the beginning of any conversation because without those definitions conversation is pointless.

Too bad you try to use definitions that no one else agrees on (because they're wrong or inconsistent or flawed, depending) and then whine when we refuse them in the convo.

Quote:

Stay in your bubble.

More projection?

Quote:

I never Said you dissociated and just because I did doesn't mean that I am delusional. It doesn't mean that I didn't Feel everything it means I realized that it doesn't have to AFFECT me. You choose your own misery you choose how you see the world You choose how you process events.

Your feelings are your responsibility. You can't blame others for the hurt you feel. You are still deciding to feel it as hurt. It does you no good. Why not get rid of it?

You have absolutely no concept of how the human mind works if you think people can choose how their minds process trauma.

Are you one of those positive thought ******** who believes if you have a positive attitude you can change the function of your mind or even heal diseases? People like that are a poison of ignorance on our society.

It is deeply offensive to claim that one can just let go of their pain. Not everyone's minds work the same and healing processes don't function the same way for everyone. How ******** dare you, you void touching ignorant. You deeply insult anyone still hurting from trauma and you deeply insult psychology with your ignorant pseudoscience peddling.

Quote:

If the definitions you use to view the world don't fit the world change your definitions. Change your perspective to something that actually fits it.
I believe continuing to believe something when faced with proof to the contrary is the definition of delusion.

It's funny because you are faced with proof against your views and your definitions don't fit the world. You are, by your own words, delusional.  

[Fiddlers Green]

Recursive Paradox

Actually you can easily know when someone is lying if the lie is a distinct one given in a situation where you already know the truth beyond any reasonable doubt.

What constitutes reasonable doubt?
How much of any given person's reasonable doubt is a result of cultural constructs given from thru repeated acceptances amongst a majority?
Your mileage may vary.
The point at which reasonable doubt is dispelled for some people is divorced from that of others... and the assumption that a person is lying because they do not meet the standard of reason for the consensus is not knowledge, merely accepted givens.
Bereft of the immediate experience itself, we can only believe and conjecture.

Quote:

You can also easily know when someone is lying if they aren't an excellent liar and you are a social engineer or a people watcher (and possess skills related to comprehending subtle bodily signals)

Nearly everyone has a tell. Or more likely, many tells.

Some people are poor liars, seem that way, or have constructed themselves a persona to seem so as a distraction.
There are some standard tells that our useful in broad sweeping strokes, however, they do not work in every instance. Constructing a propper understanding of another person's psyche is not always possible within the time leading up to an interaction.
There are some... expedients. Certain chemicals to violate portions of a person's mind. There are also techniques that, if used on the correct person, will lead to more truthful responses.

Before going further on this line...
What is a lie?
Is it dependent upon the perspective of the person speaking it or is it a matter of "objective" truth?

Continuing on.... are not emotional responses the causal effects of stimulation? Would then, it not be fair to say that all emotion is a joint effort of all contributing agencies? If everything is connected, all things in a causal web, as I believe, and I think some other people may believe, then are not feelings equally so?

Finally, what constitutes proof? Is it subjective to the person receiving it or is it a matter of appeal to popularity consensus amongst interested parties? Knowing we are not omniscient, can we truly accept anything we perceive at face value? Projecting/Assuming that our non-omniscience is endemic to our species, can we accept the perspectives of others, even a consensus thereof?

I operate under a very large series of givens which are causally possible and probable as I understand the matter. I theorize that other people also operate under a network of givens which are matters of generalized assumption which stand what the individual considers reasonable scrutiny and which are causally possible, if not always probable. Does anyone operate otherwise?  

[Recursive Paradox]

Fiddlers Green

Recursive Paradox

Actually you can easily know when someone is lying if the lie is a distinct one given in a situation where you already know the truth beyond any reasonable doubt.

What constitutes reasonable doubt?

Reasonable doubt ranges among anything that would make you doubt your senses (i.e. delusions, psychosis, confusion) when you've experienced the event in question.

That's the only time you can really know. Any other time is more inference based on trustworthy sources or something hard to fake like video feed.

Quote:

How much of any given person's reasonable doubt is a result of cultural constructs given from thru repeated acceptances amongst a majority?

It depends on the culture. I'm more referring to: You experience event A, someone tells you event A was actually event B, you know that they are lying due to your experiences.

Quote:

The point at which reasonable doubt is dispelled for some people is divorced from that of others... and the assumption that a person is lying because they do not meet the standard of reason for the consensus is not knowledge, merely accepted givens.
Bereft of the immediate experience itself, we can only believe and conjecture.

This is true but I was actually referencing immediate experience. Everything else is inference.

Quote:

Quote:

You can also easily know when someone is lying if they aren't an excellent liar and you are a social engineer or a people watcher (and possess skills related to comprehending subtle bodily signals)

Nearly everyone has a tell. Or more likely, many tells.

Some people are poor liars, seem that way, or have constructed themselves a persona to seem so as a distraction.
There are some standard tells that our useful in broad sweeping strokes, however, they do not work in every instance. Constructing a propper understanding of another person's psyche is not always possible within the time leading up to an interaction.

Also true, although enough experience in social engineering especially can give one tools of social manipulation to expose more tells.

Quote:

There are some... expedients. Certain chemicals to violate portions of a person's mind. There are also techniques that, if used on the correct person, will lead to more truthful responses.

Yep.

Quote:

Before going further on this line...
What is a lie?
Is it dependent upon the perspective of the person speaking it or is it a matter of "objective" truth?

Any intentional misrepresentation of a reasonably objective reality. Lies are not invariably bad. We often protect ourselves with small ones from individuals of damaging intent.

Unintentional misrepresentation (like delusions or simply being wrong yet possessing strong conviction) is not lying.

Quote:

Continuing on.... are not emotional responses the causal effects of stimulation? Would then, it not be fair to say that all emotion is a joint effort of all contributing agencies? If everything is connected, all things in a causal web, as I believe, and I think some other people may believe, then are not feelings equally so?

I would think so. I'm not sure how this hooks into what we were talking about though. Could you explain the connection? Or is this just musing?

Quote:

Finally, what constitutes proof? Is it subjective to the person receiving it or is it a matter of appeal to popularity consensus amongst interested parties? Knowing we are not omniscient, can we truly accept anything we perceive at face value? Projecting/Assuming that our non-omniscience is endemic to our species, can we accept the perspectives of others, even a consensus thereof?

Proof is merely structural logic used to extend from more concrete or accepted givens regarding the metaphysics of existence that often arise from either established CPG and Lore or from the functionality of specialized philosophies designed to reduce inaccuracies in metaphysical study. Empiricism being the most noted example currently.

Proof can also be evidence gained through observation within empiricism, although really, that is sort of a miswording.

Quote:

I operate under a very large series of givens which are causally possible and probable as I understand the matter. I theorize that other people also operate under a network of givens which are matters of generalized assumption which stand what the individual considers reasonable scrutiny and which are causally possible, if not always probable. Does anyone operate otherwise?

I operate similarly with the exception that I assume that there are at least a given amount of individuals who operate under a network of givens created from willful ignorance or self delusion. But that's mostly from what I've been exposed to in the realm of fluffies and whatnot poisoning my optimism about people's worldviews.  

[Fiddlers Green]

Recursive Paradox

This is true but I was actually referencing immediate experience. Everything else is inference.

Gotcha.

Quote:

Also true, although enough experience in social engineering especially can give one tools of social manipulation to expose more tells.

Indeed, however, they are not guaranteed to net results, and may, if you are caught manipulating, lead to rather nasty side effects...

Quote:

Any intentional misrepresentation of a reasonably objective reality. Lies are not invariably bad. We often protect ourselves with small ones from individuals of damaging intent.

Unintentional misrepresentation (like delusions or simply being wrong yet possessing strong conviction) is not lying.

Gotcha.

Quote:

Quote:

Continuing on.... are not emotional responses the causal effects of stimulation? Would then, it not be fair to say that all emotion is a joint effort of all contributing agencies? If everything is connected, all things in a causal web, as I believe, and I think some other people may believe, then are not feelings equally so?

I would think so. I'm not sure how this hooks into what we were talking about though. Could you explain the connection? Or is this just musing?

That was actually for Ishtar in response to:

Ishtar Shakti

Your feelings are your responsibility. You can't blame others for the hurt you feel. You are still deciding to feel it as hurt. It does you no good. Why not get rid of it? If the definitions you use to view the world don't fit the world change your definitions. Change your perspective to something that actually fits it.
I believe continuing to believe something when faced with proof to the contrary is the definition of delusion.

I was responding from two tabs and missed the paste part of that... sweatdrop

Quote:

Proof is merely structural logic used to extend from more concrete or accepted givens regarding the metaphysics of existence that often arise from either established CPG and Lore or from the functionality of specialized philosophies designed to reduce inaccuracies in metaphysical study. Empiricism being the most noted example currently.

Proof can also be evidence gained through observation within empiricism, although really, that is sort of a miswording.

I've clarified my... opinion... of CPG elsewhere.
However, I am feeling remarkably un-pedantic today, and won't go thru the normal we take too many givens for granted and place too much emphasis on established consensus speely. Mostly I do that to get people to explain themselves more fully, often as much for the others reading as myself. Right now, I'm feeling up to the show. So I'll just posit that I believe I understand where you are coming from. 3nodding

Quote:

I operate similarly with the exception that I assume that there are at least a given amount of individuals who operate under a network of givens created from willful ignorance or self delusion. But that's mostly from what I've been exposed to in the realm of fluffies and whatnot poisoning my optimism about people's worldviews.

I wonder if, to their perceptions, their givens seem perfectly reasonable and causally consistent...
Or if they are just running from the rake.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

Fiddlers Green

Recursive Paradox

Actually you can easily know when someone is lying if the lie is a distinct one given in a situation where you already know the truth beyond any reasonable doubt.

What constitutes reasonable doubt?
How much of any given person's reasonable doubt is a result of cultural constructs given from thru repeated acceptances amongst a majority?
Your mileage may vary.
The point at which reasonable doubt is dispelled for some people is divorced from that of others... and the assumption that a person is lying because they do not meet the standard of reason for the consensus is not knowledge, merely accepted givens.
Bereft of the immediate experience itself, we can only believe and conjecture.

Quote:

You can also easily know when someone is lying if they aren't an excellent liar and you are a social engineer or a people watcher (and possess skills related to comprehending subtle bodily signals)

Nearly everyone has a tell. Or more likely, many tells.

Some people are poor liars, seem that way, or have constructed themselves a persona to seem so as a distraction.
There are some standard tells that our useful in broad sweeping strokes, however, they do not work in every instance. Constructing a propper understanding of another person's psyche is not always possible within the time leading up to an interaction.
There are some... expedients. Certain chemicals to violate portions of a person's mind. There are also techniques that, if used on the correct person, will lead to more truthful responses.

Before going further on this line...
What is a lie?
Is it dependent upon the perspective of the person speaking it or is it a matter of "objective" truth?

Continuing on.... are not emotional responses the causal effects of stimulation? Would then, it not be fair to say that all emotion is a joint effort of all contributing agencies? If everything is connected, all things in a causal web, as I believe, and I think some other people may believe, then are not feelings equally so?

Finally, what constitutes proof? Is it subjective to the person receiving it or is it a matter of appeal to popularity consensus amongst interested parties? Knowing we are not omniscient, can we truly accept anything we perceive at face value? Projecting/Assuming that our non-omniscience is endemic to our species, can we accept the perspectives of others, even a consensus thereof?

I operate under a very large series of givens which are causally possible and probable as I understand the matter. I theorize that other people also operate under a network of givens which are matters of generalized assumption which stand what the individual considers reasonable scrutiny and which are causally possible, if not always probable. Does anyone operate otherwise?

I'm pretty sure this was my point.. that I stated several of these points several times so far in various ways and yet my rendition is met with general attack
neutral

"Countering, refuting and applying rebuttals is not mocking."
Definitions are very personal things. What one person may consider a valid rebuttal may not be considered valid to another person. What one person may consider mocking may not be considered mocking to another person.

Such as me saying I talk the way I do because I went to college is mostly referencing that many of the term and definitions are so ingrained into me and are such a consistent subject that I tend to use them frequently when talking about things which other people may not include them in.

This though was not taken the way I intended it and neither has most of what I wrote. People seem to make there own definitions... such personal things Right? Once they have them they don't like to let them go. I haven't seen one person even give credence to the possiblity that They Might have been wrong. Instead I've met with people telling me what I said.

This... might make me stoop to some low assertion that someone might be deluded and as bad as a fluffy.

Positive thought a*****e XD no I don't agree with them either they don't take very much into consideration. Years and years of conditioning I mean @_@ out the door just because you want something. Sheesh... that doesn't take into account very many variables.

It doesn't mean that its not possible just because it isn't likely though. I will give them that.

I actually expected to come here and find myself banned. But then I am a bit stubborn and I will call people on s**t. I mean... its give and take right?

The insults of course were expected as they were pretty much there from the start. not from you though... but then your protecting your friend right? Which is a good thing and I won't condemn you for it. I'm probably more irritated then anything else and lashing out in some ways because this just reminds me of other people who have reacted the same ways and given the same trite arguments that go no where.

It upsets me when people can't re-examine traditional values. I usually don't press the envelope because I don't expect people to...

The definitions are in the dictionary. Go argue with a dictionary. Then tell me that they are wrong inconsistent or flawed.

I haven't seen Anyone At all actually you know post any links or anything XD I mean articles actual sources... I mean if your going to tell me a definition I use is just wrong then at least have the courtesy to Cite me the proper definition

I mean even the definition of god which I used is still in the dictionary (god as a creator vs. god as an omnipotent being) the original argument was about god which is mostly where the preassertion concerning knowledge and omniscience comes in and that whole discussion. I mean it was pretty much a travesty from the begining.

Think of a generality as a metaphor if that helps you.
Its a representation of a concept. I don't like to name individual incidence because it would take too long. Such as this and that church and this gospel and those people in my class and this lady on the bus all told me that god was all knowing.

Delusional word vomit XD

You perceive something, someone else says that your perception is wrong thus you think they are lying because it goes against your perception.

You are still Percieving the lie. My entire argument stemmed from the invalidity of the concept of knowing. If she wanted to argue definition of knowledge she could easily have cited that knowledge is that which you perceive and I would have agreed with her within that context. Instead she threw in I know because I Perceive and made it a highly personal emotionally charged statement and lashed out with it.

In response I was actually trying to be more sympathetic by saying I know where she's coming from and that it would be very difficult to experience a trauma and Still hold that paradigm but I did.

So this is taken and twisted to be me saying that Everyone can do this. No... I never said this.

And everything I say is thoroughly taken out of whatever semblance of a context I put it in.

Thus... yah I'm going to say you have a inflexibility of thought because you can't seem too allow for anything that I'm saying to be right.
I kind of know what I would need to consider what your saying is right. You'd have to not do anything that you are saying I'm doing.

But yah... it doesn't really matter what I say, now does it?

As to fluffies, there are multiple types of fluffies. Sometimes there are ones who are overly influenced by others. This is the type where if you tell them something is true they believe it without ever trying to verify it themselves. They tend to retract more into there particular chosen belief system when attacked. Much of the time they are just ignorant.

I don't consider delusional people to be fluffies. I put them into a different category entirely.

Some people actually Don't believe much of what they are saying but find the thought of it fun. Thats a different category of fluffy... they don't want to give up the new toy they found because they want to play with it a little longer and just pretend. That might be considered blind rigidity but because from what I gather if you talk to them they don't actually believe any of the things they say they believe does it really count? Its like playing holloween year round.

As to ethics I would argue personal definitions there too. Cultural bias' etc.

@ making up definitions
I made my own definition for god in the context that I used pre-existing definitions and recombined them in a new way that didn't contradict that which I knew about existence.

A definition isn't accurate if it doesn't actually fit that which its trying to define. In such cases you need to alter your definitions to fit a situation
If I said the sky was blue... but its really just the reflection of light off the ocean that gives it that color and the sky without interaction with this affect would most likely be clear (or is it white?) then when I learn this new information I would adjust my definition accordingly to fit the new data.

The definitions which I use do not go against those found in the dictionary, though there are always multiple meanings to any words and I might use certain meanings more then others or agree with other uses more then others.

Like with the term Gay... I would most likely not use it to mean happy, though sometimes I choose to.

Other words I might use slang definitions or generally accepted societal definitions. Or I might use a definition which is particular to the fields of study of which I am a part of.

Like there are multiple definitions for the word projection... which I'm pretty sure I cited while using the proper psychological definition

I generally when defining god I stick with god as a creator rather then god as an omnipotent being. I stick with Deity as any being that is worshiped.

A creator isn't necessarily worshiped, while something which is worshiped doesn't necessarily even serve a purpose much less create anything.

I rejected the definition which other people gave me, a creator god which was omnipotent... though I ended up having the same discussion with a good friend of mine and they added in that the god would also have to be caring.

So if a god is caring omnipotent... and provides people with free will that provides a bit of a contradiction

Though a non-caring apathetic omnipotent god could provide people with free will

Or you could have a caring omnipotent god and no free will
Or you could have no singular god and have everything rely on the forces of probability with the start of creation being that the possiblity of creation created itself

Of course I lean towards this definition... because it clears up any sort of paradox concerning the creation of god (the possibility of god created god)

But thats besides the point

As to me being a joy to talk to... I usually don't bother going into meticulous details with people but this is providing a distraction for me

I don't have time to address anything else.

Definitions are personal because while they may be constructed in a social context they are internalized differently. Your internal world is something which you create. While you may learn and have guidance in creating it and it may be a product of you interacting with your surroundings you are still ultimately the decider in all things that happen within you.

Its the only thing you really control ... your thoughts and your actions.

A person either makes a choice to accept or not accept any given situation, I'm pretty sure this is why binary code is soo useful.

Most of our definitions are ingrained in us from youth and thus they remain unquestioned because we build all further definitions on them. Some of our definitions are built because we are in such close proximity to ourselves. We accept our sight because we use it constantly it is constantly there. Many people don't question there sight because its such a constant ever present condition that they don't think twice about it.

some bias' are soo ingrained that we aren't really aware of there existence. There are tests that rely on miniscule difference in the time it takes you to sort words to tell what subtle bias' you may have. Its an interesting study. In anycase it shows how subtle associations are created in individuals which they may remain completely unaware of.

Also... words are only a representation of meaning. It doesn't actually capture what it means to You. The touch of a breeze isn't captured in those words... but it can inspire the reminiscence of the feel of it on your skin.

Word association games are also very useful in this regard...

We use the sort of generalized definitions found in the dictionary to form a common ground or basis for all our word usage yet arguments exist concerning the dictionary what should be kept in and what should be taken out. The evolution of language is really quite facinating
In anycase... language is an evolving and in many cases very personal process. The definitions which we are given don't necessarily comply with the implied definitions and connotations that other people give words.

Like if I used the word niger... OMG the implications the connotations the subtle references and the enter schematic is shaped by whose saying it why they are saying it and how they are saying it.

Each person internalizes the words differently. For me... I usually can strip the words of all meaning accept sound or build them back up again in my head. I can say a word and I play with it lyrically to alter the definition and implication of my speech. I could probably spend hours just playing with the variation and sound if I wanted. I can say things which would horrify some people and it would have no meaning...

Like the word spider might horrify someone with arachnophobia.

So... there are alot of facets that give a word its meaning. Many of which rely on presumptions on the part of both persons in a conversation and most successful conversations as far as I can tell don't necessarily rely on very much concerning the persons themselves but on the definitions with which the people speak.

Many times people will assume the other person is interpreting what they are saying in the same way they mean it... and sometimes this isn't rectified for months.

There was this one time someone had been making a joke at my expense for a long period of time because I didn't catch on that they were using a double entendre the entire time.

In anycase when I am communicating I generally try to Define the words I'm using in any instance which the person doesn't seem to be catching onto what I'm saying Just in case this is happening. This doesn't mean my definitions are contrary to what is in the dictionary... though if I am using a more obscure definition I will also try to track down an article or a larger explanation of the topic which I have done on several occassions through out my responces which just seem to be ignored in favor of trying to tell me I'm saying something other then what I am.

"As I'm fairly sure other people have said things which are very similar and yet you only attack mock and parody my responses in multiple threads."

I said this incorrectly
As I'm fairly sure other people have said things which are very similar to what I've said and yet you only attack mock and parody my responses in multiple threads.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

And I'm pretty much done with this topic. I might be stubborn and I may be stupid for even trying sometimes... but I always try to hold out some level of hope in metaphysical forums as usually those people have met with soo much derision throughout there own lives they aren't always soo quick to met it out before understanding what someone else is saying.

I'm pretty sure I came to the wrong place to find open minded people but this isn't nearly as bad as the issues I've had with grammar nazi's so what ev

I don't suggest reading it... its long enough and well I mean. Why try to read something when you've already formed an opinion about it anyways? Whats the point but to try to pick out whatever flaws you can have... rip things out of context... just so you can say the other persons wrong.

I mean... whoa bias

This is of course a back handed way of asking you to reassess your own thoughts on the matter and review why exactly you feel the way you do and what exactly may have caused it. Also to reassess what the other person has said, why they may have said it, without interjection your assumptions as to why they said it.
Open invitation here to do Just That

To reread the conversation instead of that last post and figure out Just where the issue is stemming from and addressing it. I already tried it but it was seen as a hostile act on my part and was attacked instead of having any hope of follow through.

My perception isn't invalid just because Hey I'm perceiving it. I have reasons which have developed through this conversation. I have had things that I have said taken out of context several times. From the first response to the last... Every Single Response has taken something I said out of context

This of course would require work...

It would also require a strong desire to try to understand why people interact the way they do.

You've given me some interesting, hmm would data be the right word, at least soo thank you and provided a decent distraction  

[Recursive Paradox]

Fiddlers Green

Indeed, however, they are not guaranteed to net results, and may, if you are caught manipulating, lead to rather nasty side effects...

No one ever said there wasn't risk. XD Although it really does seem like most people are completely unarmed in an S.E. fight.

It actually raises a host of serious ethical issues about using those skills because so many people can't identify them much less defend themselves against them.

Quote:

I was responding from two tabs and missed the paste part of that... sweatdrop

XD I've done that before.

Quote:

I've clarified my... opinion... of CPG elsewhere.

Linky?

Quote:

However, I am feeling remarkably un-pedantic today, and won't go thru the normal we take too many givens for granted and place too much emphasis on established consensus speely. Mostly I do that to get people to explain themselves more fully, often as much for the others reading as myself. Right now, I'm feeling up to the show. So I'll just posit that I believe I understand where you are coming from. 3nodding

Yeah, definitely.

Quote:

I wonder if, to their perceptions, their givens seem perfectly reasonable and causally consistent...
Or if they are just running from the rake.

To most, self delusion creates the perception that the givens are perfectly reasonable and causally consistent. It's partially why it's so dangerous a tool of coping. Because if you create a reality that possesses dangerous unreasonable elements or a dangerous lack of consistency, you will be hard pressed to escape from your own world because it quite literally becomes a naturalistic reality in your head.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Ishtar Shakti

I'm pretty sure this was my point..

That one can know things using evidence and structural logic but that one should account for issues with assuming too many givens?

No, you literally said that things can not be truly known. Actually read before you talk.

Quote:

"Countering, refuting and applying rebuttals is not mocking."
Definitions are very personal things. What one person may consider a valid rebuttal may not be considered valid to another person. What one person may consider mocking may not be considered mocking to another person.

Definitions are not very personal things. In fact it is the height of delusion, arrogance and foolhardiness to redefine everything in the world for your comfort.

If you really want to play this game, how about this: My definition of "worthless stupid wire chewer" is you. Nope, not anyone else. Just you. And if you complain you're being a jerk because definitions are personal.

Quote:

Such as me saying I talk the way I do because I went to college is mostly referencing that many of the term and definitions are so ingrained into me and are such a consistent subject that I tend to use them frequently when talking about things which other people may not include them in.

I went to college and nothing about how you talk resembles education terminology and language. It resembles entitlement, arrogance and irrationality.

Quote:

People seem to make there own definitions... such personal things Right? Once they have them they don't like to let them go. I haven't seen one person even give credence to the possiblity that They Might have been wrong. Instead I've met with people telling me what I said.

Um. Didn't you just say that people ought to make their own definitions and that they can't be wrong cuz it's personal?

You are so painfully inconsistent that I truly wonder whether you even read your own posts before you write more of them.

Quote:

This... might make me stoop to some low assertion that someone might be deluded and as bad as a fluffy.

I already made the assertion that you're deluded and a fluffy.

Quote:

Positive thought a*****e XD no I don't agree with them either they don't take very much into consideration. Years and years of conditioning I mean @_@ out the door just because you want something. Sheesh... that doesn't take into account very many variables.

Believing that everyone can invariably change their responses to pain (responses created by mental structure and psychological makeup, two things you can't change on your own) is a hallmark of those ********. So it was only natural to wonder if you were a similar ******** really, I guess you're your own brand of ******** class="quote">

Quote:

I actually expected to come here and find myself banned. But then I am a bit stubborn and I will call people on s**t. I mean... its give and take right?

[Recursive Paradox]

Ishtar Shakti

And I'm pretty much done with this topic.

I'm not surprised.

Quote:

I might be stubborn and I may be stupid for even trying sometimes... but I always try to hold out some level of hope in metaphysical forums as usually those people have met with soo much derision throughout there own lives they aren't always soo quick to met it out before understanding what someone else is saying.

You are not met with derision. You are met with rage.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure I came to the wrong place to find open minded people but this isn't nearly as bad as the issues I've had with grammar nazi's so what ev

Open minded does not mean I am stupid, nor does it mean I will blindly accept what you say without analysis. That analysis did not go your way. Oh well, stop whining about it and adapt.

Quote:

I don't suggest reading it...

Reading what? I'm not even sure what you're bringing up here.

Quote:

This is of course a back handed way of asking you to reassess your own thoughts on the matter and review why exactly you feel the way you do and what exactly may have caused it.

Logical analysis and personal offense at you making a claim regarding healing processes that basically tells all of us who have faced trauma that we're causing our own pain to remain.

That's some epic victim blaming.

Quote:

Also to reassess what the other person has said, why they may have said it, without interjection your assumptions as to why they said it.
Open invitation here to do Just That

You have not seen me do the analysis. I read your words, analyzed the logic, even wrote notes. Then I posted.

Quote:

To reread the conversation instead of that last post and figure out Just where the issue is stemming from and addressing it. I already tried it but it was seen as a hostile act on my part and was attacked instead of having any hope of follow through.

The issue is your flawed logic and attempts to blame us catching your flawed logic on a personal issue. And your victim blaming.

Quote:

My perception isn't invalid just because Hey I'm perceiving it.

Perceiving something doesn't mean you comprehend it.

Quote:

This of course would require work...

I already sank a day's worth of work into you. Stop being so delusional.

Quote:

It would also require a strong desire to try to understand why people interact the way they do.

I'm far more aware of how these interactions function then you realize.

Quote:

You've given me some interesting, hmm would data be the right word, at least soo thank you and provided a decent distraction

Good riddance is the only words that come to mind.  

[Fiddlers Green]

Ishtar Shakti

I'm pretty sure this was my point.. that I stated several of these points several times so far in various ways and yet my rendition is met with general attack
neutral

I can venture only two points on this.
1. I get a fair amount of private booing and hissing for my positions.
2. Even the most subtle difference in message can change how it is received. This supports a condemnation of relativistic interpretations of objective truths, insomuch as it shows that the perceiving agencies, when faced with the same message in different context/format/point of origin may react differently. On a fallacy ridden aside, if this were not so, there would be little market for negotiators and counselors. ninja

Recursive Paradox

Linky?

It's in the Gnosis thread which is still on the first page in this very guild. wink

Recursive Paradox

To most, self delusion creates the perception that the givens are perfectly reasonable and causally consistent. It's partially why it's so dangerous a tool of coping. Because if you create a reality that possesses dangerous unreasonable elements or a dangerous lack of consistency, you will be hard pressed to escape from your own world because it quite literally becomes a naturalistic reality in your head.

What happens when the consensus engages in this?
What if institutionalized delusion created the standard of reasonability?
Or is delusion defined by deviation from the consensus, regardless of how deviant they are from an object, external, standard?  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

1. I get a fair amount of private booing and hissing for my positions.

Hit them with a tuna. Yellow fin perhaps?

Quote:

What happens when the consensus engages in this?

As in mass hysteria?

Quote:

What if institutionalized delusion created the standard of reasonability?

Delusion isn't just a standard of deviation. It's a function of demonstrable psychosis- loosing touch with reality.

There are instances wherein there is widespread ignorance and perpetuated misinformation, but these are not in and of themselves delusions.

Quote:

Or is delusion defined by deviation from the consensus, regardless of how deviant they are from an object, external, standard?

It's not the consensus, there are other standards in play.

For example, Dr. Palmer wasn't deluded merely for having an alternative theory about human biology and function. His theory was incomplete, yes. If the masses had adopted his theory to the exclusion of the immune system, he and others would have been perpetuating a false model. But there is no psychotic break with reality.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Fiddlers Green

1. I get a fair amount of private booing and hissing for my positions.

Even when I don't agree with your positions, you still put them in a way that is intensely respectful and very well explained. For instance, you tend to operate very carefully when you're dealing with sensitive subject matter.

Quote:

2. Even the most subtle difference in message can change how it is received. This supports a condemnation of relativistic interpretations of objective truths, insomuch as it shows that the perceiving agencies, when faced with the same message in different context/format/point of origin may react differently. On a fallacy ridden aside, if this were not so, there would be little market for negotiators and counselors. ninja

That and it's so damn hard to comprehend full meaning from just text. Misunderstandings are so potently easy to attain.

Quote:

It's in the Gnosis thread which is still on the first page in this very guild. wink

*goes on a quest to find*

Quote:

What happens when the consensus engages in this?

Usually very bad things.

For the rest of it, Tea said everything I was going to say so just read her post. XD  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

Hit them with a tuna. Yellow fin perhaps?

They are entitled to their positions.
I cannot enlighten anyone else. Violencing them will rarely solve the over-arching issue or further my goals... alhto I am terribly good at violence.
Tho I might disagree, I must protest their right to hate, deride, and disregard my position. I cannot fully comprehend their reasoning for doing so and that leaves them largely outside my judgement.
Largely.

Quote:

As in mass hysteria?

As in lies being accepted as truth on an institutionalized level.

Quote:

Delusion isn't just a standard of deviation. It's a function of demonstrable psychosis- loosing touch with reality.

With who's version of reality?
Who's expressed perception of reality is accurate and what makes it so?

Quote:

There are instances wherein there is widespread ignorance and perpetuated misinformation, but these are not in and of themselves delusions.

What are they then?

Quote:

not the consensus, there are other standards in play.

Such as?

Quote:

For example, Dr. Palmer wasn't deluded merely for having an alternative theory about human biology and function. His theory was incomplete, yes. If the masses had adopted his theory to the exclusion of the immune system, he and others would have been perpetuating a false model. But there is no psychotic break with reality.

At what point does it become psychotic?

Recursive Paradox

Even when I don't agree with your positions, you still put them in a way that is intensely respectful and very well explained. For instance, you tend to operate very carefully when you're dealing with sensitive subject matter.

I try, however, success is not assured, to many variables in this medium of interaction... confused
I appreciate that others show me the courtesy of taking my typings as well as they do and (at least publicly) endure my failings. Privately, I am much criticized for my point, rather than presentation, as near as I can tell.

Quote:

That and it's so damn hard to comprehend full meaning from just text. Misunderstandings are so potently easy to attain.

By stripping an already painfully incomplete system of many of it's supports for communication... well. That may be another thread entirely.

Quote:

*goes on a quest to find*

If you do need a link, I can make one, but I confident you will come to it without. 3nodding

Quote:

Usually very bad things.

On a scale of 0-10...
0 being a thing of negligible consequence and 9 being the eradication of life on this planet in a very painful and permanent way where would you place it?  

[Recursive Paradox]

Fiddlers Green

Recursive Paradox

Even when I don't agree with your positions, you still put them in a way that is intensely respectful and very well explained. For instance, you tend to operate very carefully when you're dealing with sensitive subject matter.

I try, however, success is not assured, to many variables in this medium of interaction... confused
I appreciate that others show me the courtesy of taking my typings as well as they do and (at least publicly) endure my failings. Privately, I am much criticized for my point, rather than presentation, as near as I can tell.

Disagreement ought to go that way. Not attacking presentation or person but point.

Quote:

By stripping an already painfully incomplete system of many of it's supports for communication... well. That may be another thread entirely.

It may indeed XD

Quote:

If you do need a link, I can make one, but I confident you will come to it without. 3nodding

No worries, I'm a researcher at heart.

Quote:

On a scale of 0-10...
0 being a thing of negligible consequence and 9 being the eradication of life on this planet in a very painful and permanent way where would you place it?

5, sometimes 6. Occasionally 2. Very very rarely 8.  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

Tho I might disagree, I must protest their right to hate, deride, and disregard my position.

I'm curious as to why you protest their right to hate, deride and disregard.

Quote:

As in lies being accepted as truth on an institutionalized level.

An example of this please?

Quote:

With who's version of reality?

Objective reality. Not a version thereof- which would rely on Relativism.

Quote:

What are they then?

Just what I said, misinformation or ignorance.

Quote:

Such as?

Demonstrable fact for a start.

Quote:

At what point does it become psychotic?

When it is demonstrably wrong.

That which falls outside of the realm of falsifiability isn't commented upon.
That which is within what we can empirically examine and demonstrate that it contradicts the offered position- upon clinging to the false position, it becomes indisputably wrong through evidence.

Quote:

Privately, I am much criticized for my point, rather than presentation, as near as I can tell.

Is it a criticism of you, or your position I would wonder.