DDR Freak :: View topic - sup Pandemonium AAA'ed again

Forums FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

sup Pandemonium AAA'ed again
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This topic is locked you cannot edit posts or make replies

DDR Freak Forum Index -> In the Groove

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Dakota
Trick Member

Joined: 28 Feb 2006

160.

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject:

John Locke wrote:

I think you should re-read Socrates. Socrates, like Aristotle, believed man was at his most human when he was at his most rational. Socrates believed, as I believe, that the unexamined life was not worth living. He believed that when you truly become a man you will gain the perspective of the temporality of your life, and will come to see that most of the pursuits people care about are meaningless; especially quests for social status and money.

Might have been socrates, might not have been. I mix them up. My pursuits are for a wife, family, and a career.

I'm no expert, but Socrates would probably have said that you live your life as an intellectual coward,

I doubt Socrates would have said that. I know that's what YOU'RE saying, and you're wanting to believe that's what he would have said as well. You're just being egotistical thinking that living your life (in autism) is superior to living mine.

without the desire or the honesty to confront contradictions in your beliefs. He would have held that to be profoundly against his vision of human nature.

I admit when I'm wrong. I've already admitted I was wrong about 80 times when I mixed up Socrates, Thoreau and Aristotle and their teachings (which I do alot). Why do people find it so hard to believe that the reason I'm presenting my argument is because I sincerely BELIEVE my argument? I'm not just pointlessly rambling. I'll break it down into a simple, small thesis as to what I'm trying to say:

1) I started arguing with you because you called my post idiotic, indirectly calling me an idiot. You can explain for a hundred years how the two things don't correlate, but they do. Everyone knows that.

2) When I first started arguing with you, I didn't believe you were autistic because if I got a dime for every time someone laid a lame excuse of "Oh I have ADD...oh I have Aspergers...oh my parents are dead" I'd be a millionare. Of course I'm skeptical of lame online excuses.

3) So I thought you were just another cocky kid, disease free, who intentionally made big posts and started big argument to make himself feel good online.

4) Now I know you're not that. You're just a cocky kid with autism.

Feel free, however, to continue with the thesis that people who are born autistic don't count as being humans.

I'm 100% sure I never said that, or anything close to that. If that's how you percieved my argument, then you're wrong. I said I felt sorry for you. That's as far from indifference as someone can get.

_________________

...almost as cool as Cartoon Hero

Kilroy(ZTC)
Trick Member

Joined: 04 Mar 2005

161.

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:24 pm Post subject:

John Locke wrote:

No. Why would it? Just because a very small number of people can play black with competence in the Sveshnikov doesn't entail that we don't know how hard it is.

If among that very small number of people there is one person who doesn't find it hard, then perhaps it does.

Quote:

Yes.

If that uniqueness is the only thing allowing that relationship its meaning, I feel very sorry for you.

IHYD.Blake
Vivid Member

Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Location: Solar City, California

162.

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject:

Dakota wrote:

John Locke wrote:

Feel free, however, to continue with the thesis that people who are born autistic don't count as being humans.

I'm 100% sure I never said that, or anything close to that. If that's how you percieved my argument, then you're wrong. I said I felt sorry for you. That's as far from indifference as someone can get.

And indirectly, saying that you are talking to someone who takes it as a robot, sure does not count as talking to someone who isnt human.
_________________

toady007
Trick Member

Joined: 22 Nov 2002
Location: Mountain View, CA

163. Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:33 pm Post subject:

hey guys sorry to break up the debate or whatever but take this crap to like random chat or something because it stopped being relevant to ITG a lot time ago thx <3 <3 _________________

J. S. Mill
Maniac Member

Joined: 28 Apr 2003

164.

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject:

Dakota wrote:

Might have been socrates, might not have been

It's actually Montaigne you are thinking of, but Montaigne drew the idea from Socratic thought so it's possible to quote it either way.

Dakota wrote:

I doubt Socrates would have said that.

Do you know what intellectual cowardice is? Another way of asking that question: How familiar are you with Nietzsche? It's a very delicate concept, and it is central to Socratic thought.

Dakota wrote:

I know that's what YOU'RE saying

No, I'm not saying that. I lack the experience to justify that claim.

Dakota wrote:

and you're wanting to believe that's what he would have said as well.

Try reading, say, Notes from the Underground (by Dostoevsky) and you'll see the argument Socrates might have given you. Socrates comes very close to saying something like this explicitly in The Apology (his parable of the fly).

Dakota wrote:

You're just being egotistical thinking that living your life (in autism) is superior to living mine.

I don't think it's superior. I think it's different. I don't think there is such a thing as objective superiority in this issue.

Dakota wrote:

I admit when I'm wrong.

That's not what Intellectual Courage solely entails.

Dakota wrote:

1) I started arguing with you because you called my post idiotic, indirectly calling me an idiot. You can explain for a hundred years how the two things don't correlate, but they do. Everyone knows that.

I offered you a proof that they did not. Did you find my proof invalid or unsound? Why did you find it so?

As an example, Socrates would have considered you a coward and a liar if you think that I indirectly called you an idiot but you don't have a precise, measured refutation to my argument. This he does make explicit (Parmenides, second section).

Dakota wrote:

4) Now I know you're not that. You're just a cocky kid with autism.

I'm incredibly arrogant, but not in any way that I have shown on this thread. You generally have to begin talking about politics for me to start getting arrogant (I'm not a democrat).

Dakota wrote:

I'm 100% sure I never said that, or anything close to that.

J. S. Mill
Maniac Member

Joined: 28 Apr 2003

165.

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:42 pm Post subject:

Kilroy(ZTC) wrote:

If that uniqueness is the only thing allowing that relationship its meaning, I feel very sorry for you.

Don't criticize what you haven't experienced. Make sure you are aware of how I mean smarter (I mean it like better) and what finding someone I consider more perfect than myself means to someone who lives his life for self-perfection.

Dogswood
Trick Member

Joined: 22 Feb 2006

166.

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject:

toady007 wrote:

hey guys sorry to break up the debate or whatever but take this crap to like random chat or something because it stopped being relevant to ITG a lot time ago thx <3 <3

see that green foot under JL's name? It means he's the only guy (minus the other mods of this section) who tells people where to put their threads. not you.

toady007
Trick Member

Joined: 22 Nov 2002
Location: Mountain View, CA

167. Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject:

you are ugly whuaaaaaaah _________________

hurleyguyy
Trick Member

Joined: 13 Feb 2006

168. Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject:

lmao...what is this debate about haha I got lost a looooong time ago isn't this like a Pandy thread or wtf lmao _________________ http://groovestats.com/index.php?page=profile&view=detailedsongs&id=4261&gameid=3&modeid%5B1%5D=1&typeid%5B1%5D=1&lowblock=1&highblock=13&sortmode=name myspace.com/hurleyguyy

Dakota
Trick Member

Joined: 28 Feb 2006

169.

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject:

John Locke wrote:

I offered you a proof that they did not. Did you find my proof invalid or unsound? Why did you find it so?

Yes I did find your proof invalid because anyone with Social Skills (which you admited, you have very little) can tell that it's an insult. I think AA bob explained it best: I can call someone's kids losers, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm insulting the parents. However, try and find parents ANYWHERE that don't get offended when their kids are called losers. You may not have directly called me an idiot, but you called something which directly represents me (my post) idiotic. It's one and the same.

I'm incredibly arrogant, but not in any way that I have shown on this thread. You generally have to begin talking about politics for me to start getting arrogant (I'm not a democrat).

I think you've shown it to me in this thread, otherwise I wouldn't have called you cocky now would I have?

You said that my life as an autistic person was that of a content swine while yours was of a miserable human. You said that explicitly. My life, because I am autistic, is that of a content animal.

In other words, if you are autistic, you aren't a full human. That's so offensive that if I had any feelings on the matter, and you had said it in person, I would probably have slapped you.

Here is where you misconstrued what I said. I used the example of Socrates' (or whoevers') swine/human analogy because you told me that your train of thought was so much greater than mine, in which I disagreed (because I think mine is better). Neither of us have a correct train of thought, just a different one. This is one of those "agree to disagree" scenarios. I almost knew that you would take it the wrong way, but I was not calling you a pig.

_________________

...almost as cool as Cartoon Hero

J. S. Mill
Maniac Member

Joined: 28 Apr 2003

170.

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:25 pm Post subject:

Dakota wrote:

Yes I did find your proof invalid because anyone with Social Skills (which you admited, you have very little) can tell that it's an insult. I think AA bob explained it best: I can call someone's kids losers, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm insulting the parents. However, try and find parents ANYWHERE that don't get offended when their kids are called losers. You may not have directly called me an idiot, but you called something which directly represents me (my post) idiotic. It's one and the same.

You've given this argument before. I refuted it by saying that this objection depends on the fallacy of likelihood implying entailment. Do you find this refutation invalid or unsound?

Dakota wrote:

I think you've shown it to me in this thread, otherwise I wouldn't have called you cocky now would I have?

Maybe you, like many people, read autistic language as arrogant when it is not? Check the Wikipedia entry on HFA, you'll see that people misunderstanding comments from an autistic person as arrogant when they are not is a central social difficulty of the disorder.

Dakota wrote:

Here is where you misconstrued what I said. I used the example of Socrates' (or whoevers') swine/human analogy because you told me that your train of thought was so much greater than mine

I never said that. I said I, personally, prefer it. That doesn't mean that it's better - it means that it is better for me.

Dakota wrote:

I almost knew that you would take it the wrong way, but I was not calling you a pig

The problem is, you said that anyone who felt as I do (and that's all HFA people) have the same problem. If you called me less then human it would be an insult. If you call an entire group of people that, based on what you arrogantly perceive as a disability, it's bigoted and offensive.

I'll also note that earlier in this thread, you claim that "Kasparov played idiotically in Linares" means "Kasparov is an idiot" but now you claim that "people with Autism are like pigs and aren't human" means "people with autism are different and equal and I respect them for who they are."

You could be a politician.

In any event, your rationalization of this is probably worse then what you said originally, and even though it doesn't offend me, it's going to offend friends of mine who are reading this. Before the wave of "good lord you bigot how can you say something so cold-hearted" I think I'd better lock this.

The bottom line is: Ryan AAA'd Pandemonium.

Display posts from previous:

	DDR Freak Forum Index -> In the Groove	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Page 9 of 9

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum