I thought everyone knew about nimp. Nimp links are the Internet equivalent of asking the new guy to bring you a form ID10T or a left handed monkey wrench.
Well I'm glad you're having fun. Most monkeys quite enjoy flinging poo. But you obviously assume that I care when you fling poo. Or maybe you assume someone, anyone else cares, and that you are winning some kind of points over me. You know, I bet if you ask your mom, she'll put a printout of your posts on the fridge, maybe even with a gold star on them!
You should just give up. I have much more experience being a dick on the intertubes than you do, and I'm much, much better at it.
That's a great way to win an argument. I'm sure you've won many converts with that approach. I'm perfectly capable of presenting a good argument without being a dick. As I did in your case. But when someone is a dick and doesn't present a good argument, I assume they've come for the abuse. As in your case. Transitive property of the golden rule, you dish it out, I assume you're engaged in some sort of abuse trading scheme and I do what I can to help out.
I know I'm a dick. I pretty much advertise that fact in my sig. Don't like it, tough. I was saying, no need for you to be a dick. I've got that covered. But you were. Let's look, shall we?
"I'm glad you think I'm right about this, it's nice to see someone come around. Have a nice day.'
Who fucking says shit like this? A dick, that's who. Have a nice day, indeed. I've really 'come around.' Come around to thinking you don't know how to think through a logical argument and present it, nor how to refute or answer another's points. You lost, and you're trying to distract from that fact. You don't refute or even answer anything I say, you just go off on a tangent. So not just a dick, but a moron as well. I shall call you, "doron." Or maybe "morick."
Even if God created the world 6,000 years ago exactly as it was 6,000 years ago, and let evolutionary processes take it from there The indiginous people of the whole planet Earth gracefully disagree with you. Yeah, well, their Gods couldn't protect them from us so they don't count./joke
You are thinking of too small a sample size over too short a time span. And you are thinking in absolutes, that the gene has to come to be in every single member of the species for evolution to be true and functional. Evolution doesn't work like that. You should read about ring species. The whole concept of 'separate species' is flawed.
Furthermore, evolution isn't a linear process like you described. Maybe that 1% change towards a more leaf-like appearance also carries other advantages, like better mandibles (that happen to look more like the twig at the end of a leaf) that make it easier to eat an abundant food. It's not simply "change X happens that makes the species better at Y." Even good changes don't necessarily propagate to all members of a species. Do you have all the good genes in the human genome? Impossible, no one person can embody all the genes in a genome. But even bad changes can spread, if they happen to have other good effects, or they just aren't bad enough. A bad change would propagate to a smaller percentage of the population.
And you haven't considered the complex interaction between changes. Say a species develops a mutation that creates a poisonous variant of a common biochemical. Bad thing, right? It's poisoning itself. But not badly enough to guarantee death, so that change is still propagated to a small group. Now, another mutation happens. A slight change in another biochemical leads to increased efficiency in, say, digestion. But it also combines with the first mutation to make it really, really poisonous. So no the second mutation gets spread all over the gene pool,because its good, and the first one starts to die out, because now it's really, really bad.
But then a third mutation happens. It's just neutral by itself, neither good nor bad. But what it does do is make the animal immune to its own poison, and now when all three combine, wow! That animal is really poisonous and predators stop eating it. And a completely new major trait emerges from the combination within the gene pool of a bad, a good, and a neutral mutation.
So you see, evolution is a much more complex and non linear process than you envision it.
Is it the kind with the round or the square headlights? I like the round kind. Series III maybe? Man those V12s sound nice, don't they? Very authoritative. Like a good car analogy!
"Not reading the summary" is the new "Not reading TFA"./. shall have crossed the event horizon when people no longer even read the headline, and just offer random noise disguised as comments, which will then be modded insightful. Oh, wait... Fixed that for ya.
You can use a stove and a pan to boil water. Hope that helps.
I don't think the bicycle analogy is very good. I agree. This is Slashdot; we only use car analogies here. Of course we do. A good car analogy is like a finely tuned race car. It gets you where you need to go faster. Although it's loud. And it's probably not street legal. And sometimes your car analogy crashes into someone else's car analogy and there's a big wreck but the fans love that anyway. And you need a lot of gas, did I mention the gas?
Well, there are two things about ego. First and foremost it is dualistic. It sees the world as "I" having "experiences." But look closer and you will see this is not so. There is no I there. What there is, is just another type of experience, that comes when the ego needs to calculate who all this is happening to. Experiences just happen, they don't need an outside observer. The sense of self is just another sense, another track in the movie. So, ego in the sense of dualism must die. Sure it can come back, and you can then see things dualistically or not as you choose, but it really must die in order to see clearly.
Second, there is the social ego, the sum of experiences and judgments acting in the social sphere. The part that is constantly calculating, "What will they think of me if I do this?" and like all attachments, it must die if one is to be completely free. But there is the obvious paradox, "It must die" is an attachment too.
Spirit is not separate from material. It's all one interconnected system. I mean, you can say, "air is separate from water," and this looks on the surface to be true. But water vapor makes up a part of the air, and water has air dissolved in it. When one looks closely at any distinction one sees that it is arbitrary. Self vs. Other, Internal vs. external, life and death, spirit and matter: these are human distinctions, not bright dividing lines that exist outside our own head.
Oh, what a great analogy. Comparing my breathing to pollution, ha ha ha, oh, that's rich, my sides are splitting. And the colorful patois, it adds so much to this gem. "You'd best not," heheh, "Clem," What kind of a hick, redneck name is Clem? That's GENIUS, sir, my hat's off to you. Yes, if we do ANYTHING to prevent pollution, that is tantamount to letting "Clem" whack us with a board.
Well, you have a point there. But you know to ask partly because of those 2000 times, and all the times you heard someone else go through the same thing. I'm guessing mind you, but I think the clever Hans incident is to animal psychology as 'is it plugged in?' is to the field of computer science: basic.
Oh yeah, THAT was what I was saying, boy, you sure nailed that one. Or rather, you did not. How about this, greater and lesser evil both exist, and we shouldn't confuse the two any more than we should ignore either one. Whoah, can you wrap your mind around that? I know, its complicated...
I had a realization while driving home, and had to reply again. Why do I care that you're trying to give me spiritual advice? Because you don't recognize that I don't need it, what with my awesome spirituality and all. Man, ego is like a hydra. You cut off its head and it grows two more.;)
You are so earnest. I know you mean well. It's just that, well, you do know you aren't telling me anything new, right? I mean, here I was talking honestly about my experiences in the past regarding depression, and you assumed that I must need your help now. Which is noble. But misplaced. Not that I turn down anyone's help, mind you, but I want to test anyone looking to 'help' me like you want to because there are a lot of misguided fools out there and letting them 'help' you is like giving a maniac a knife and turning your back on him. You may not get hurt, but why chance it?
No need to be a dick, because we didn't disagree on that point. And we might agree on more. Do you think that these people have a right to protect their livelihood from destruction? Mostly, when people are afraid of their culture being destroyed, it is their livelihood they are worried about. Like fishing and hunting. If we destroy the environment that sustains their way of life, we have destroyed their livelihood. Would you be okay if I destroyed your place of employment, maybe by dumping toxic waste there?
Of course culture is a function of the people in it. And each one of those people, for instance, wants to fish. But a huge multinational corporation is catching all the fish, or polluting the water. Is there anything those individuals can do to protect their way of life? Do they have a right to?
Now, if a few people are saying, "Our way of life is tribal dances and not TV," but the majority of the people actually want to watch TV and think the dances are boring, well, that's their choice and they are defining their culture as one of TV watching, which is fine.
People have a right to be free from the unwanted impact of other people. I don't have a right to hit you in the face, or pollute your land, or fuck up the atmosphere we all breath. Destroying someone's culture impacts them personally, in a way that is not right or just.
Ah, but I have disproved them as much as they have proved them. The site does not present facts, it presents opinions it claims are facts. Anybody can make shit up and call it fact. The thing is, they won't get many people to agree with them, because they are wrong. There is a reason that only a few people are denying global warming, and that most people agree that it is a problem.
You have not answered my objection. The creationists have sites just like the one you point to, presenting their version of the facts. Do you believe them? If not, why not?
Nah, your silence made me sad. I was having so much fun, dharma combat is one of my favorite pastimes. I'm the only one who can confirm the 'righteousness' of anything. Even if I choose to let others confirm or deny it, it's still me making that choice.
Fundamentally, there is no mirror to clean. "Mirror" indicates a separation that does not in fact exist.
You pointing out your pot of gold is making the assumption that others don't see it plain as day, and that they want to find it. Don't be surprised when they laugh at you for pointing out the obvious, or tell you they simply aren't interested in gold. If someone asks you, "Hey, have you seen a pot of gold?" no one will fault you for telling them what you've seen. Otherwise, you'll find it's better to listen first and talk about pots of gold second. Don't worry though, I was once like you. The Buddhists call the phase you're in 'stinking of dharma." Everyone who finds the pot of gold goes through it, it's fucking pot of gold that no one seems to notice sitting right under their nose, who wouldn't want to shout about that?
The thing is, it does matter what angle you are looking at the truth, if you want to communicate that truth to others. Because trust me, you say 'pot of gold' and everyone who hasn't seen it is GOING to misinterpret what you mean.
The center of an infinite circle is EVERYWHERE, dude. You can't 'face away' from it.
I don't need God to give me a script, you see, he's authorized me to ad lib.
I don't need for love to be everywhere, that's a human-centric, ego-centric point of view. What is, is. I don't need to put human labels on it to feel all warm and fuzzy. I get all the warm fuzzies I need just from knowing that 'I' and 'One' don't make two, unless I want it to.
There is no 'finish line.' What a linear thing to say. Man, you keep lobbing them to me and I'll keep hitting them out of the park.
As for the rest of it, I reserve judgment at this time. You got enough right that you may just be real, we'll see. But in any case, you finally made me smile, and that's worth a lot:)
Look, anyone with enough money can find a wingnut or crackpot to say whatever they want said. Congratulations, You've found a "Consensus" consisting of two guys who work for a fricken' oil company. Why should we trust what they say? I say its a fact that these two guys are from Venus, and they are trying to make the earth warmer because that's what Venusians like. And I'm an expert, so you should believe me. Come on, man, you'll have to do better than that. The creationists have a site just like the one you pointed to 'debunking' evolution. Do you believe them? Hey, timecube guy has a site presenting the 'facts' about physiscs, I suppose you believe him?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, heh. Me can read good, for reals!
That was actually fairly witty. My tutelage has paid off, young asshopper. You have achieved mastery of dick-fu.
I thought everyone knew about nimp. Nimp links are the Internet equivalent of asking the new guy to bring you a form ID10T or a left handed monkey wrench.
Well I'm glad you're having fun. Most monkeys quite enjoy flinging poo. But you obviously assume that I care when you fling poo. Or maybe you assume someone, anyone else cares, and that you are winning some kind of points over me. You know, I bet if you ask your mom, she'll put a printout of your posts on the fridge, maybe even with a gold star on them!
You should just give up. I have much more experience being a dick on the intertubes than you do, and I'm much, much better at it.
That's a great way to win an argument. I'm sure you've won many converts with that approach. I'm perfectly capable of presenting a good argument without being a dick. As I did in your case. But when someone is a dick and doesn't present a good argument, I assume they've come for the abuse. As in your case. Transitive property of the golden rule, you dish it out, I assume you're engaged in some sort of abuse trading scheme and I do what I can to help out.
I know I'm a dick. I pretty much advertise that fact in my sig. Don't like it, tough. I was saying, no need for you to be a dick. I've got that covered. But you were. Let's look, shall we?
"I'm glad you think I'm right about this, it's nice to see someone come around.
Have a nice day.'
Who fucking says shit like this? A dick, that's who. Have a nice day, indeed. I've really 'come around.' Come around to thinking you don't know how to think through a logical argument and present it, nor how to refute or answer another's points. You lost, and you're trying to distract from that fact. You don't refute or even answer anything I say, you just go off on a tangent. So not just a dick, but a moron as well. I shall call you, "doron." Or maybe "morick."
You are thinking of too small a sample size over too short a time span. And you are thinking in absolutes, that the gene has to come to be in every single member of the species for evolution to be true and functional. Evolution doesn't work like that. You should read about ring species. The whole concept of 'separate species' is flawed.
Furthermore, evolution isn't a linear process like you described. Maybe that 1% change towards a more leaf-like appearance also carries other advantages, like better mandibles (that happen to look more like the twig at the end of a leaf) that make it easier to eat an abundant food. It's not simply "change X happens that makes the species better at Y." Even good changes don't necessarily propagate to all members of a species. Do you have all the good genes in the human genome? Impossible, no one person can embody all the genes in a genome. But even bad changes can spread, if they happen to have other good effects, or they just aren't bad enough. A bad change would propagate to a smaller percentage of the population.
And you haven't considered the complex interaction between changes. Say a species develops a mutation that creates a poisonous variant of a common biochemical. Bad thing, right? It's poisoning itself. But not badly enough to guarantee death, so that change is still propagated to a small group. Now, another mutation happens. A slight change in another biochemical leads to increased efficiency in, say, digestion. But it also combines with the first mutation to make it really, really poisonous. So no the second mutation gets spread all over the gene pool,because its good, and the first one starts to die out, because now it's really, really bad.
But then a third mutation happens. It's just neutral by itself, neither good nor bad. But what it does do is make the animal immune to its own poison, and now when all three combine, wow! That animal is really poisonous and predators stop eating it. And a completely new major trait emerges from the combination within the gene pool of a bad, a good, and a neutral mutation.
So you see, evolution is a much more complex and non linear process than you envision it.
Is it the kind with the round or the square headlights? I like the round kind. Series III maybe? Man those V12s sound nice, don't they? Very authoritative. Like a good car analogy!
Well, there are two things about ego. First and foremost it is dualistic. It sees the world as "I" having "experiences." But look closer and you will see this is not so. There is no I there. What there is, is just another type of experience, that comes when the ego needs to calculate who all this is happening to. Experiences just happen, they don't need an outside observer. The sense of self is just another sense, another track in the movie. So, ego in the sense of dualism must die. Sure it can come back, and you can then see things dualistically or not as you choose, but it really must die in order to see clearly.
Second, there is the social ego, the sum of experiences and judgments acting in the social sphere. The part that is constantly calculating, "What will they think of me if I do this?" and like all attachments, it must die if one is to be completely free. But there is the obvious paradox, "It must die" is an attachment too.
Spirit is not separate from material. It's all one interconnected system. I mean, you can say, "air is separate from water," and this looks on the surface to be true. But water vapor makes up a part of the air, and water has air dissolved in it. When one looks closely at any distinction one sees that it is arbitrary. Self vs. Other, Internal vs. external, life and death, spirit and matter: these are human distinctions, not bright dividing lines that exist outside our own head.
Oh, what a great analogy. Comparing my breathing to pollution, ha ha ha, oh, that's rich, my sides are splitting. And the colorful patois, it adds so much to this gem. "You'd best not," heheh, "Clem," What kind of a hick, redneck name is Clem? That's GENIUS, sir, my hat's off to you. Yes, if we do ANYTHING to prevent pollution, that is tantamount to letting "Clem" whack us with a board.
Well, you have a point there. But you know to ask partly because of those 2000 times, and all the times you heard someone else go through the same thing. I'm guessing mind you, but I think the clever Hans incident is to animal psychology as 'is it plugged in?' is to the field of computer science: basic.
Oh yeah, THAT was what I was saying, boy, you sure nailed that one. Or rather, you did not. How about this, greater and lesser evil both exist, and we shouldn't confuse the two any more than we should ignore either one. Whoah, can you wrap your mind around that? I know, its complicated...
I had a realization while driving home, and had to reply again. Why do I care that you're trying to give me spiritual advice? Because you don't recognize that I don't need it, what with my awesome spirituality and all. Man, ego is like a hydra. You cut off its head and it grows two more. ;)
I tried to resist. I really did.
You are so earnest. I know you mean well. It's just that, well, you do know you aren't telling me anything new, right? I mean, here I was talking honestly about my experiences in the past regarding depression, and you assumed that I must need your help now. Which is noble. But misplaced. Not that I turn down anyone's help, mind you, but I want to test anyone looking to 'help' me like you want to because there are a lot of misguided fools out there and letting them 'help' you is like giving a maniac a knife and turning your back on him. You may not get hurt, but why chance it?
No need to be a dick, because we didn't disagree on that point. And we might agree on more. Do you think that these people have a right to protect their livelihood from destruction? Mostly, when people are afraid of their culture being destroyed, it is their livelihood they are worried about. Like fishing and hunting. If we destroy the environment that sustains their way of life, we have destroyed their livelihood. Would you be okay if I destroyed your place of employment, maybe by dumping toxic waste there?
Of course culture is a function of the people in it. And each one of those people, for instance, wants to fish. But a huge multinational corporation is catching all the fish, or polluting the water. Is there anything those individuals can do to protect their way of life? Do they have a right to?
Now, if a few people are saying, "Our way of life is tribal dances and not TV," but the majority of the people actually want to watch TV and think the dances are boring, well, that's their choice and they are defining their culture as one of TV watching, which is fine.
People have a right to be free from the unwanted impact of other people. I don't have a right to hit you in the face, or pollute your land, or fuck up the atmosphere we all breath. Destroying someone's culture impacts them personally, in a way that is not right or just.
Ah, but I have disproved them as much as they have proved them. The site does not present facts, it presents opinions it claims are facts. Anybody can make shit up and call it fact. The thing is, they won't get many people to agree with them, because they are wrong. There is a reason that only a few people are denying global warming, and that most people agree that it is a problem.
You have not answered my objection. The creationists have sites just like the one you point to, presenting their version of the facts. Do you believe them? If not, why not?
Nah, your silence made me sad. I was having so much fun, dharma combat is one of my favorite pastimes. I'm the only one who can confirm the 'righteousness' of anything. Even if I choose to let others confirm or deny it, it's still me making that choice.
:)
Fundamentally, there is no mirror to clean. "Mirror" indicates a separation that does not in fact exist.
You pointing out your pot of gold is making the assumption that others don't see it plain as day, and that they want to find it. Don't be surprised when they laugh at you for pointing out the obvious, or tell you they simply aren't interested in gold. If someone asks you, "Hey, have you seen a pot of gold?" no one will fault you for telling them what you've seen. Otherwise, you'll find it's better to listen first and talk about pots of gold second. Don't worry though, I was once like you. The Buddhists call the phase you're in 'stinking of dharma." Everyone who finds the pot of gold goes through it, it's fucking pot of gold that no one seems to notice sitting right under their nose, who wouldn't want to shout about that?
The thing is, it does matter what angle you are looking at the truth, if you want to communicate that truth to others. Because trust me, you say 'pot of gold' and everyone who hasn't seen it is GOING to misinterpret what you mean.
The center of an infinite circle is EVERYWHERE, dude. You can't 'face away' from it.
I don't need God to give me a script, you see, he's authorized me to ad lib.
I don't need for love to be everywhere, that's a human-centric, ego-centric point of view. What is, is. I don't need to put human labels on it to feel all warm and fuzzy. I get all the warm fuzzies I need just from knowing that 'I' and 'One' don't make two, unless I want it to.
There is no 'finish line.' What a linear thing to say. Man, you keep lobbing them to me and I'll keep hitting them out of the park.
As for the rest of it, I reserve judgment at this time. You got enough right that you may just be real, we'll see. But in any case, you finally made me smile, and that's worth a lot
Look, anyone with enough money can find a wingnut or crackpot to say whatever they want said. Congratulations, You've found a "Consensus" consisting of two guys who work for a fricken' oil company. Why should we trust what they say? I say its a fact that these two guys are from Venus, and they are trying to make the earth warmer because that's what Venusians like. And I'm an expert, so you should believe me. Come on, man, you'll have to do better than that. The creationists have a site just like the one you pointed to 'debunking' evolution. Do you believe them? Hey, timecube guy has a site presenting the 'facts' about physiscs, I suppose you believe him?
You've proven nothing.