What is it? Is it true? Is belief in it bad for the forum?
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
Bernoulli wrote:Nothing exists for any reason. It just exists.
Bernoulli wrote:Bad ideas exist because they exist.
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.
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.
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.
Bernoulli wrote:There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Swearing can be used (at least) two ways. One, for humour; and two, for aggression.
Bernoulli wrote: When it's the latter, then it is carrying on like a drunken twat.
Bernoulli wrote: Particularly if one is abusing an idea.
Bernoulli wrote:What's the point of getting angry at an idea? That's not rational.
Bernoulli wrote:It's actually the most rational thing to do, given that is the primary purpose of swearing. Occam's Razor.
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.
Bernoulli wrote: When you read and respond one sentence at a time, you wind up looking disingenuous and rude.
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.
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?
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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.
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.
Bernoulli wrote: Pairing the word "destroy" with swearing (which is primarily used as a tool of aggression) makes a compelling link.
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.
Bernoulli wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest