|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:32 pm
CH1YO PrometheanSet CH1YO PrometheanSet I'll admit that there's ad hominem in my post - the way you fluff yourself up as though you were some authority who is beyond the need to back your info up with credible sources moves us beyond the "civilized discourse" of debate into a pedantic playground argument. Just saying "it's good because it's from me" is even more harmful to the discussion, especially given the outdated information you're using. I don't see how it follows that somehow "fat children" appear to have good communication skills to you. Is that some cultural idiom that I'm not aware of? It is rather difficult for me to argue without evidence if this fetish of source continues but quite necessary where my evidence is dismissed for little more reason than that I prefer to go to source with my academic exploits, rather than accepting the most recent and often most nonsense opinion. Well you likened me to a small child... And you want to relate the work of modern scholars with modern tools to fashion. While I understand that some times theories compete, and which is taken over the other is a matter of "what's in this decade". However, you would rather use theories that are completely outdated, refuted, and off the table for this debate. It comes off like you would try to use Phrenology to refute all of the Neuroscience that CT and MRI scans have helped to build. I have never heard of any sensible argument against Adler. Of course since Individual Psychology forms the basis of cognitive psychology it must have some merit to it, particularly as much of what is absurd in it are much more recent additions. I have not argued anything that is so academically unsound as you propose, rather out of no desire to be trendy it could be argued that my statements are even more robust. Whilst I can scarcely argue sensibly for phrenology it must be pointed out that a considerable swathe of literature relying upon imaging techniques such as these it truly absurd- making Freud at his most ridiculous appear to be a greater professor extroadinarious than even he at his best. I don't even remember Adler being in the context of this debate. I remember that in whatever debate you brought him in, you failed to give his work a context which made it relevant to the debate. And what does literature have to do with theories in the social sciences? You use either laughable sources or sources that seem non-sequitor to the topic at hand.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:46 pm
PrometheanSet CH1YO PrometheanSet CH1YO PrometheanSet I'll admit that there's ad hominem in my post - the way you fluff yourself up as though you were some authority who is beyond the need to back your info up with credible sources moves us beyond the "civilized discourse" of debate into a pedantic playground argument. Just saying "it's good because it's from me" is even more harmful to the discussion, especially given the outdated information you're using. I don't see how it follows that somehow "fat children" appear to have good communication skills to you. Is that some cultural idiom that I'm not aware of? It is rather difficult for me to argue without evidence if this fetish of source continues but quite necessary where my evidence is dismissed for little more reason than that I prefer to go to source with my academic exploits, rather than accepting the most recent and often most nonsense opinion. Well you likened me to a small child... And you want to relate the work of modern scholars with modern tools to fashion. While I understand that some times theories compete, and which is taken over the other is a matter of "what's in this decade". However, you would rather use theories that are completely outdated, refuted, and off the table for this debate. It comes off like you would try to use Phrenology to refute all of the Neuroscience that CT and MRI scans have helped to build. I have never heard of any sensible argument against Adler. Of course since Individual Psychology forms the basis of cognitive psychology it must have some merit to it, particularly as much of what is absurd in it are much more recent additions. I have not argued anything that is so academically unsound as you propose, rather out of no desire to be trendy it could be argued that my statements are even more robust. Whilst I can scarcely argue sensibly for phrenology it must be pointed out that a considerable swathe of literature relying upon imaging techniques such as these it truly absurd- making Freud at his most ridiculous appear to be a greater professor extroadinarious than even he at his best. I don't even remember Adler being in the context of this debate. I remember that in whatever debate you brought him in, you failed to give his work a context which made it relevant to the debate. And what does literature have to do with theories in the social sciences? You use either laughable sources or sources that seem non-sequitor to the topic at hand. I do apologise, he is my general all purpose source, I'm thinking more of the Adlerian; Schwarz in this instance. Academic literature? Quite a lot, sources tend to be written down. I tend to under elaborate where I expect poor reception regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:48 pm
brainnsoup CH1YO brainnsoup CH1YO PrometheanSet I'll admit that there's ad hominem in my post - the way you fluff yourself up as though you were some authority who is beyond the need to back your info up with credible sources moves us beyond the "civilized discourse" of debate into a pedantic playground argument. Just saying "it's good because it's from me" is even more harmful to the discussion, especially given the outdated information you're using. I don't see how it follows that somehow "fat children" appear to have good communication skills to you. Is that some cultural idiom that I'm not aware of? It is rather difficult for me to argue without evidence if this fetish of source continues but quite necessary where my evidence is dismissed for little more reason than that I prefer to go to source with my academic exploits, rather than accepting the most recent and often most nonsense opinion. Well you likened me to a small child...
Not to say that scientists don't make mistakes.
And it's always good to have a healthy skepticism about things.
But it would be plain stupid to accept the opinion of an anonymous person on the internet as fact with absolutely no evidence to support it.I offer the evidence of a number of professionals, once it is dismissed on principle I simply cease to take the needless effort. People can believe what they may but in all honesty it would be well advised to heed my words, for they are generally correct. These claims that I do not provide evidence are becoming monotonously tedious- I do, where requested, provide sources for the claims that I make. Whilst I do not feel that people should be required to read a library I see no reason that I should be required to find dubious arguments posted on the internet or that my sources need be from a given timespan where they would just as likely be wrong and doubly so dire.
If I did I would be no better than the idiots regurgitating the words of any conspiracy theorist on the street because his "facts" are more interesting.
And I've been asking for a source since I came to this thread...None at all, save your personal experience. It simply is the case and thus something to inform decision making. Not at all, the educated opinion is somewhat more plausible than the average demagogue. A source for what in particular? I'm sure I must have provided something at some point or another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:51 pm
CH1YO Raticiel CH1YO Raticiel No, no, please don't reject poor old Karl Raimund! I don't know/care much about his political views but what he added to methodology of science is valuable to me... in some sense. Actually about being "out-dated", ever heard how Zizek (I wonder if he's famous in other places like he is in my country) described Hegel? As a neo-marxist. I love that one. And about sources... The only good source to me is my own experience (yes, hit me for that, I'm waiting). Someone wrote those books, the printed word is just a sign of a real person's views. I do not wish to but he's not a name I recognise, sadly. Hegel as a neo-marxst? I actually LOL'd. Good Lord how sensible! Hats of to you! I think he's best known from the movie "The perverted history of kinematography" (That's my own translation of the title). You can only imagine how we all lol'd hearing this in the classroom. I'm going to upset myself by asking this but he supposes to be a serious figure doesn't he? No no, he's a philosphy joker more wink and the Hegel thing came up when we were having a lecture on his interpretation of Lacan. I'd have to search for the notes sweatdrop I probably will soon as I have to make a cleanup, so I find it I'll type in details. Besides that the movie is quite funny to watch, it should be on youtube somewhere ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:58 pm
CH1YO Raticiel I love this. CH1YO Monogamy is the natural state, one cannot love two fully- save by divine inspiration. I wish it could always work that way. In ideal world perhaps... Many people like to run away from their nature, and I can already see how stupid it sounds, as what else they have instead of their nature? My reason's pretty damn weak and got lost already ninja Thank you- it needs to be said. They try but no amount of running away lets you do more than you were able before. It 's no different from my view on this. But how come people neglect their nature so much? Is it in their nature? That's what bites me when I see people around me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:17 pm
Raticiel CH1YO Raticiel CH1YO Raticiel No, no, please don't reject poor old Karl Raimund! I don't know/care much about his political views but what he added to methodology of science is valuable to me... in some sense. Actually about being "out-dated", ever heard how Zizek (I wonder if he's famous in other places like he is in my country) described Hegel? As a neo-marxist. I love that one. And about sources... The only good source to me is my own experience (yes, hit me for that, I'm waiting). Someone wrote those books, the printed word is just a sign of a real person's views. I do not wish to but he's not a name I recognise, sadly. Hegel as a neo-marxst? I actually LOL'd. Good Lord how sensible! Hats of to you! I think he's best known from the movie "The perverted history of kinematography" (That's my own translation of the title). You can only imagine how we all lol'd hearing this in the classroom. I'm going to upset myself by asking this but he supposes to be a serious figure doesn't he? No no, he's a philosphy joker more wink and the Hegel thing came up when we were having a lecture on his interpretation of Lacan. I'd have to search for the notes sweatdrop I probably will soon as I have to make a cleanup, so I find it I'll type in details. Besides that the movie is quite funny to watch, it should be on youtube somewhere ninja It's all a bit confused- so long as no one is of such a conclusion all is well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:20 pm
Raticiel CH1YO Raticiel I love this. CH1YO Monogamy is the natural state, one cannot love two fully- save by divine inspiration. I wish it could always work that way. In ideal world perhaps... Many people like to run away from their nature, and I can already see how stupid it sounds, as what else they have instead of their nature? My reason's pretty damn weak and got lost already ninja Thank you- it needs to be said. They try but no amount of running away lets you do more than you were able before. It 's no different from my view on this. But how come people neglect their nature so much? Is it in their nature? That's what bites me when I see people around me. It's the human condition, both to focus on the negative and deny the rest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:36 pm
CH1YO Raticiel CH1YO Raticiel I love this. CH1YO Monogamy is the natural state, one cannot love two fully- save by divine inspiration. I wish it could always work that way. In ideal world perhaps... Many people like to run away from their nature, and I can already see how stupid it sounds, as what else they have instead of their nature? My reason's pretty damn weak and got lost already ninja Thank you- it needs to be said. They try but no amount of running away lets you do more than you were able before. It 's no different from my view on this. But how come people neglect their nature so much? Is it in their nature? That's what bites me when I see people around me. It's the human condition, both to focus on the negative and deny the rest. But then again, there are people that follow their nature. What might be the difference between them? Thank you for using the word "condition", it reminds me of my "homework" (as I call it, haha... ha.).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:47 pm
Raticiel CH1YO Raticiel CH1YO Raticiel I love this. I wish it could always work that way. In ideal world perhaps... Many people like to run away from their nature, and I can already see how stupid it sounds, as what else they have instead of their nature? My reason's pretty damn weak and got lost already ninja Thank you- it needs to be said. They try but no amount of running away lets you do more than you were able before. It 's no different from my view on this. But how come people neglect their nature so much? Is it in their nature? That's what bites me when I see people around me. It's the human condition, both to focus on the negative and deny the rest. But then again, there are people that follow their nature. What might be the difference between them? Thank you for using the word "condition", it reminds me of my "homework" (as I call it, haha... ha.). People tend to follow their natures, we're social creatures and possessed of Ego, most things we do are reasonable within those criteria. Truly it is people who deny or have a fault in their nature that we dub all manner of names. If only all my words were so well received! (^_^)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
