And this is why we have a seemingly endless stream of Jackass movies

Bernoulli wrote:Nothing exists for any reason. It just exists.

We believe in nos'sing, Lebowski, nos'sing!

Bernoulli wrote:Bad ideas exist because they exist.

Tautological tautology is is tautological.

laklak wrote:Well, most bad ideas. I've seen some "hold my beer and watch this" moments that you wouldn't want to destroy, and in fact you'd want to post on youtube.

Those bad ideas are awesome. And then there are the bad ideas that turn out to be good ideas. I like those ones, too. I think we should try to avoid falling into the trap of automatically dismissing apparently bad ideas as bad ideas. Creativity often looks just like having a series of bad ideas until one of them winds up being brilliant.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

thaesofereode wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:Bad ideas exist because they exist.

I would tend to concur on this. Bad ideas exist as much as good ideas do. It's a nice sentiment that the "bad" ones could be destroyed in some way, or are somehow destined to fail. But life experience and a small acquaintance with history has me thinking that all ideas, good or bad, are essentially indestructible in that they can have a life of their own for so long as there is wetware to acquire and carry them. Kind of like you "can't un-ring that bell." What's more, as I'm sure the folks who spend a lot of time in the philosophy threads could tell us, "good" and "bad" are rather subjective.

So. Seems to me that all ideas are simply there --- good, bad, or otherwise. What matters is what we DO WITH them, n'est-ce pas?

Which is what is meant by 'bad ideas exist to be destroyed'; that they should always be challenged.

It seems to me that that's not what it is saying, particularly in light of this third rule. "Challenged" is perfectly rational. Attacking an idea and calling it names and basically carrying on like a drunken twat isn't.

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

thaesofereode wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:Bad ideas exist because they exist.

I would tend to concur on this. Bad ideas exist as much as good ideas do. It's a nice sentiment that the "bad" ones could be destroyed in some way, or are somehow destined to fail. But life experience and a small acquaintance with history has me thinking that all ideas, good or bad, are essentially indestructible in that they can have a life of their own for so long as there is wetware to acquire and carry them. Kind of like you "can't un-ring that bell." What's more, as I'm sure the folks who spend a lot of time in the philosophy threads could tell us, "good" and "bad" are rather subjective.

So. Seems to me that all ideas are simply there --- good, bad, or otherwise. What matters is what we DO WITH them, n'est-ce pas?

Which is what is meant by 'bad ideas exist to be destroyed'; that they should always be challenged.

It seems to me that that's not what it is saying, particularly in light of this third rule. "Challenged" is perfectly rational. Attacking an idea and calling it names and basically carrying on like a drunken twat isn't.

What's the significant diffence between attacking an idea and challenging an idea?
Also using 'bad' words =/= carrying on like a drunken twat.
What does it matter that 'bad' words are used to describe an idea?

There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Swearing can be used (at least) two ways. One, for humour; and two, for aggression. When it's the latter, then it is carrying on like a drunken twat. Particularly if one is abusing an idea. What's the point of getting angry at an idea? That's not rational.

Bernoulli wrote:There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Swearing can be used (at least) two ways. One, for humour; and two, for aggression.

Or for variety.
Or because it's custom where your from and there's not necessarily much emotion behind it.
Or to express how extremely silly you find a particular claim.

Bernoulli wrote: When it's the latter, then it is carrying on like a drunken twat.

But you'd have to demonstrate, not just blindly assume a person is using swear words for agression.

Bernoulli wrote: Particularly if one is abusing an idea.

Again, what's bad about that?

Bernoulli wrote:What's the point of getting angry at an idea? That's not rational.

What's not rational is assuming without any evidence whatsoever, that someone using swear words is angry.

It's actually the most rational thing to do, given that is the primary purpose of swearing. Occam's Razor.

When you pair the word "destroy" with swearing, then it's pretty easy to make the link of aggression. That's my point.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote: Particularly if one is abusing an idea.

Again, what's bad about that?

Bernoulli wrote:What's the point of getting angry at an idea? That's not rational.

This is a great example of your ridiculous posting style. When you read and respond one sentence at a time, you wind up looking disingenuous and rude. "Again, what's bad about that?" How about you read the next fucking sentence and you'd find out what I think is bad about that.

Bernoulli wrote:It's actually the most rational thing to do, given that is the primary purpose of swearing. Occam's Razor.

Irish people, among others, would disagree with you.

Bernoulli wrote:When you pair the word "destroy" with swearing, then it's pretty easy to make the link of aggression. That's my point.

Didn't I already point out that 'destroy' is hyperbole?

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote: Particularly if one is abusing an idea.

Again, what's bad about that?

Bernoulli wrote:What's the point of getting angry at an idea? That's not rational.

This is a great example of your ridiculous posting style.

I have explained why I post like this Bernoulli. That you don't like it, does not make it ridiculous.

Bernoulli wrote: When you read and respond one sentence at a time, you wind up looking disingenuous and rude.

I am not responsible for other people making unsupported assumptions about my motivations.
I tend to respond to individual sentences because I like to address any and all points I find lacking. It's for clarity, not some nefarious motive.
Nor is it rude, as responding to each point seperately is far more legible than responding with walls of text addressing multiple points all after another.
I'm not the only one who posts like this btw.

Bernoulli wrote: "Again, what's bad about that?" How about you read the next fucking sentence and you'd find out what I think is bad about that.

Why are you so angry?
And you have not actually explained what's so bad about it. You've asserted that it's irrational to abuse, ie use negative language to criticise an idea.
You have not actually demonstrated how it is irrational.

I'd like you to remind you again that I'm not trying to have an honest discussion with you and request that you stop accusing me of nefarious motives when there are none present.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:It's actually the most rational thing to do, given that is the primary purpose of swearing. Occam's Razor.

Irish people, among others, would disagree with you.

And the forum is composed of much more than just Irish people.

Bernoulli wrote:When you pair the word "destroy" with swearing, then it's pretty easy to make the link of aggression. That's my point.

Didn't I already point out that 'destroy' is hyperbole?

Goldenmane included it as one of the justifications of his third law. Pairing the word "destroy" with swearing (which is primarily used as a tool of aggression) makes a compelling link.

Also why should the word "destroy" imply anger? There's something really satisfying about ripping weeds out of a space where you want to dig up a new flowerbed, and whacking away at them while making very satisfying ninja sounds. That's not "angry" destruction, that's very pleasurable. Just as destroying stupid ideas with "profane" language is very satisfying.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote: Particularly if one is abusing an idea.

Again, what's bad about that?

Bernoulli wrote:What's the point of getting angry at an idea? That's not rational.

This is a great example of your ridiculous posting style.

I have explained why I post like this Bernoulli. That you don't like it, does not make it ridiculous.

Bernoulli wrote: When you read and respond one sentence at a time, you wind up looking disingenuous and rude.

I am not responsible for other people making unsupported assumptions about my motivations.

You've just done it again. I support my contention in the next sentence!

I tend to respond to individual sentences because I like to address any and all points I find lacking. It's for clarity, not some nefarious motive.

People make points in more than single sentences. Just because there's a full stop, doesn't mean that a point has finished being made.

Nor is it rude, as responding to each point seperately is far more legible than responding with walls of text addressing multiple points all after another.

It may or may not be far more legible, but it certainly makes you appear to be disingenuous and rude for the reason I explained.

Bernoulli wrote: "Again, what's bad about that?" How about you read the next fucking sentence and you'd find out what I think is bad about that.

Why are you so angry?

You couldn't fucking script this shit. You've just been pontificating how irrational it is to assume that because someone is swearing they are angry. Then I swear one time and you accuse me of being angry.

And you have not actually explained what's so bad about it. You've asserted that it's irrational to abuse, ie use negative language to criticise an idea.
You have not actually demonstrated how it is irrational.

Because it has zero effect. An idea isn't a sentient being, so it can't change it's mind. It's about as useful as punching rocks.

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:It's actually the most rational thing to do, given that is the primary purpose of swearing. Occam's Razor.

Irish people, among others, would disagree with you.

And the forum is composed of much more than just Irish people.

Irrelevant. You made a universal claim, ie that the primary function fo swearing is agression.
I only have to provide one counterexample to refute that.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:When you pair the word "destroy" with swearing, then it's pretty easy to make the link of aggression. That's my point.

Didn't I already point out that 'destroy' is hyperbole?

Goldenmane included it as one of the justifications of his third law.

Yes, as a hyperbolic way of saying bad ideas should always be challenged.
Not that you can actually erase ideas from existence.

Bernoulli wrote: Pairing the word "destroy" with swearing (which is primarily used as a tool of aggression) makes a compelling link.

Except it's not necessarily, primarily a tool of agression.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I'd like you to remind you again that I'm not trying to have an honest discussion with you and request that you stop accusing me of nefarious motives when there are none present.

Again, words have meanings. I didn't accuse you of nefarious motives. I said your posting style gives the appearance of it.

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Again, what's bad about that?

This is a great example of your ridiculous posting style.

I have explained why I post like this Bernoulli. That you don't like it, does not make it ridiculous.

Bernoulli wrote: When you read and respond one sentence at a time, you wind up looking disingenuous and rude.

I am not responsible for other people making unsupported assumptions about my motivations.

You've just done it again. I support my contention in the next sentence!

I tend to respond to individual sentences because I like to address any and all points I find lacking. It's for clarity, not some nefarious motive.

People make points in more than single sentences. Just because there's a full stop, doesn't mean that a point has finished being made.

But if that part of the point itself is questionable, it's perfectly valid to criticise or question it in and of itself.
Either way, even if I missed the point, that doesn't mean I did so intentionally with nefarious motives.

Bernoulli wrote:

Nor is it rude, as responding to each point seperately is far more legible than responding with walls of text addressing multiple points all after another.

It may or may not be far more legible, but it certainly makes you appear to be disingenuous and rude for the reason I explained.

Correction you asserted it appears disengenuous, when it could just as well as simply not realised you made your point in the next sentence, or as in this particular case, your next sentence did not make your point at all.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote: "Again, what's bad about that?" How about you read the next fucking sentence and you'd find out what I think is bad about that.

Why are you so angry?

You couldn't fucking script this shit. You've just been pontificating how irrational it is to assume that because someone is swearing they are angry. Then I swear one time and you accuse me of being angry.

To hopefully make you realise that using swear words doesn't necessarily mean anger.
I'd hoped that would be obvious, but apperently it either isn't or you really are angry and aggressive.

Bernoulli wrote:

And you have not actually explained what's so bad about it. You've asserted that it's irrational to abuse, ie use negative language to criticise an idea.
You have not actually demonstrated how it is irrational.

Because it has zero effect.

That's a false assertion.
It has the effect of making it extra clear that you consider an idea to be flawed.

Bernoulli wrote:
An idea isn't a sentient being, so it can't change it's mind. It's about as useful as punching rocks.

Only if you operate under the misunderstanding that the descriptors applied to an idea are an attempt to get the idea to change it's mind rather than the person making it.
Why you would think that, I don't know.

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I'd like you to remind you again that I'm not trying to have an honest discussion with you and request that you stop accusing me of nefarious motives when there are none present.

Again, words have meanings. I didn't accuse you of nefarious motives. I said your posting style gives the appearance of it.

It only does if you assume the only explanation can be dishonesty and not misunderstanding by you and/or me.