(Untitled)
There is truly something poisonous in the one-upmanship of our society.
Some examples:
lishd had an amazing portrait of a hawk carved into her side over the course of five hours ( Read more... )
Some examples:
lishd had an amazing portrait of a hawk carved into her side over the course of five hours ( Read more... )
Because it's completely missing the point.
It was the last shuttle launch. If you wanted to see a shuttle launch, you had to be in Titusville (AKA "Hickville") during the launch window. 30% is not 0%, after all.
It turned out to be a good thing. You would have missed it. I did not.
I also don't get what's so wrong with the brands answer.
I'm convinced that you don't get what my objection is, so we'll ignore your comment about hypocrisy for the time being. I actually find that comment somewhat odious as it implies that from your viewpoint, I don't value what other people have to say.
Branding was not related in any way, short of being something else that people do to make a mark on themselves. It does not in any way, shape, or form address what I shared or why I shared it.
Simply put, it is not a continuance of conversation, but a change of subject.
Reply
I'm not sure if I would exactly say that you don't value what others say, I think that you may value it in some way, but whatever anyone says is completely irrelevant to you because you are incredibly dogmatic ,actually possible the MOST dogmatic person I have ever met in my life, and that's no compliment. So you may acknowledge what they say in some regard, but it doesn't matter because you are set in your ways and will not change your mind. I don't really know you so well, so maybe there have been occasions where others have changed your mind, but I know of none.
Reply
It is surprising that you could attend game night for as long as you have and come away with that impression.
It is, of course, folly to attempt to dissuade you of that notion, but this thread in which I argue devil's advocate strikes me as being a direct rejection of a dogmatic outlook.
All that I can conclude is that you mistake the certainty with which I will express an opinion as being dogmatic. In truth, I do not disagree with people on the basis of dogma. Rather, I disagree with them because I reason that they are wrong.
Generally, I'm happy to elucidate on that reasoning roughly until hell freezes over. That's not a trait of dogmatic reasoning.
I'm inclined to suggest the possibility that you're using the word "dogmatic" incorrectly.
Reply
Dogmatic
Second definition- fits you to a T.
Reply
Would if I could. LJ doesn't allow one to edit comments that have been replied to.
Second definition- fits you to a T.
That is not at all what "dogmatic" means to me -- especially in as much as it doesn't relate to dogma. Perhaps in that opinions are expressed with the same certainty as one would express dogma? Hard to say -- I shall have to borrow an OED and see if they have an opinion on when that definition began as it's quite an unheard of usage to me.
In any event, if expressing conclusions as certainties is something that you object to, then I'm happily guilty as charged. I do not believe it a crime to dispense with hand wringing and hedging bets with respect to logical conclusions. Ahh -- but that's another post of a similar format to this one waiting to be written.
Anyway, if it's not complimentary in your view to respect one's own intellect, then I'd really have to question which virtues you find admirable. It must be quite unsettling to you to read things like the Bohr-Einstein debates given that they discussed things -- which, by definition, are uncertain -- with absolute certainty.
Reply
Wow! You're right, that's totally new. I will have to test it on other things. wtf :|.
Phil, if the definition is in the dictionary, you can't really argue with it, sorry. DOGMA AT WORK LULZ.
I find a lot of your personality traits undesirable and offensive (but then again, I'm sure you're completely used to that given how often you like to argue with people). If you really want to know what I find admirable I guess I can give you a list.
I don't think that what you find logical and certain is really logical and certain at all in many cases.
Reply
It isn't, actually. Ever since they introduced that capability, that's always been the rule. They claim it's for reasons with their database, but I've wondered if that's not just an excuse to do what they consider the right thing.
After all, if you could edit a comment that someone's already replied to, you could do some rather decidedly unpleasant things to their words.
Phil, if the definition is in the dictionary, you can't really argue with it, sorry. DOGMA AT WORK LULZ.
Quite the opposite -- it's dogmatic to assume that a dictionary is unquestionably correct. Just as much as it is to assume that any particular text is.
It also happens to be a logical fallacy --- argument by authority.
Have a little respect for etymology and you'll realize that you'd do well to doubt dictionaries. Note, for example, that there are well established differences between Noah Webster's dictionary and the OED. That is, after all, why we spell "honor" and the Brits spell "honour" -- it turns out that Webster was a spelling reformer.
But this is a side point -- The fact is that I didn't argue with the dictionary. I merely said that I do not associate that meaning with the word "dogmatic" and I expressed an interest in seeing how that meaning is derived in the OED.
If you really want to know what I find admirable I guess I can give you a list.
Don't misread me and don't flatter yourself. As you should find entirely unsurprising, I couldn't care less what your opinions of me are.
I don't particularly care about others' opinions of me and this is why I feel perfectly free to pay no mind to political correctness and argue with folks who come to the game night group and try to get us to fill out a survey.
What I said was that if you consider the traits of being logical and certain to be failings, then I'd wonder what traits you believe to be virtuous.
In other words, it is surprising that traits which can be established as valuable (and, indeed, have been established as valuable in popular fiction) are ones which you consider odious.
Your opinions are strange and I'm always curious to learn about the strange, illogical ways in which people act.
Reply
I never noticed this until now. Oh well, maybe it is the right thing.
Don't misread me and don't flatter yourself.
I wasn't. I didn't think you cared about what I find admirable. YOU I certainly don't find admirable in many ways. I also think it's funny that you said for me not to flatter myself when you are also one of the biggest egoists I have ever met, but whatever.
I think that there is no such thing as certainty in basically everything. It's certain that 3+3=6, but with the vast majority of things, there is no such thing. I find logic to be a highly desirable trait. What I said was that I don't find your logic logical in most of your inflammatory posts.
Yeah I think it's pretty pointless for me to continue this. You just said you don't really care of peoples' opinions of you which is very clear, which is also why it's kind of pointless to argue with you. You obviously like saying really inflammatory things to gain peoples' reactions. I used to think this was fun about... 10 years ago. And I guess it kind of is still fun. Look how many replies you got to this short post and mine was the only bitchy one. Kind of shocking, but ok.
Also, you probably don't know that I also don't care about peoples opinions of me overall. I have more self-confidence than most girls and I think pretty damn highly of myself too. I don't care if people think I'm a giant bitch or whatever negative thing they think of me. They should all think I'm awesome because I think I'm awesome but if they don't, then that's ok, it's their problem. The only difference between you and me in that respect, I suppose, is that I don't like showing people what an arrogant asshole I am : ).
Reply
I think this is the difference between you and me.
You think you're awesome.
I know I am.
Reply
you're joking, right? the emoticon was to represent "eheh just kidding", yeah?
this is not to defend phil in the slightest, as he doesn't need anyone to defend him, but... seriously?
Reply
Leave a comment