epete wrote:
Samsa is here with me in spirit
Cito too : The wisest mind on the inter web
Do not forget him : He the daddy : He the man
Ratskep on Atheism+
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
Re: Ratskep on Atheism+
#8121 
by surreptitious57 » May 24, 2013 10:56 am
Cito too : The wisest mind on the inter web
Do not forget him : He the daddy : He the man
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
- surreptitious57
- Posts: 10203
Re: Ratskep on Atheism+
#8122 by Scarlett » May 24, 2013 11:01 am
epete wrote:You know you care.
No really, this forum was functioning pretty well before you came, it'll go on as if you never existed once you're gone. It really is all the same to me.
I read on another thread that you're not feeling much 'joy' spending time on this forum (I can't remember where, you can correct me if I'm wrong), so one wonders why you're here so much? I mean you don't have much invested here, you are free to walk away.
Honest curiosity btw
-
Scarlett - Posts: 16046
Re: Ratskep on Atheism+
#8123 by epete » May 24, 2013 11:02 am
surreptitious57 wrote:epete wrote:
Samsa is here with me in spirit
Cito too : The wisest mind on the inter web
Do not forget him : He the daddy : He the man
One day, Samsa, Cito and I will have our own forum and we will spend all day and night arguing without interruption from all you other bothersome people.
High rise living is for communists and termites. - laklak
-
epete - Banned Sockpuppet
- Posts: 1539
Re: Ratskep on Atheism+
#8124 by epete » May 24, 2013 11:03 am
Scarlett wrote:epete wrote:You know you care.
No really, this forum was functioning pretty well before you came, it'll go on as if you never existed once you're gone. It really is all the same to me.
I read on another thread that you're not feeling much 'joy' spending time on this forum (I can't remember where, you can correct me if I'm wrong), so one wonders why you're here so much? I mean you don't have much invested here, you are free to walk away.
Honest curiosity btw
I have no free will. I need someone else to do it for me.
High rise living is for communists and termites. - laklak
-
epete - Banned Sockpuppet
- Posts: 1539
Re: Ratskep on Atheism+
#8125 by Doubtdispelled » May 24, 2013 11:07 am
Scarlett wrote:this forum was functioning pretty well before you came
*snork*
Wasn't it you who only a few days ago enquired plaintively about 'what is happening to our lovely forum'?
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
- Doubtdispelled
- Posts: 11848
Re: Ratskep on Atheism+
#8126 by epete » May 24, 2013 11:09 am
It must be my fault. 
High rise living is for communists and termites. - laklak
-
epete - Banned Sockpuppet
- Posts: 1539
Re: Ratskep on Atheism+
#8127 by Doubtdispelled » May 24, 2013 11:11 am
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
- Doubtdispelled
- Posts: 11848
Re: Ratskep on Atheism+
#8130 by Doubtdispelled » May 24, 2013 11:18 am
Ah, ok, gotcha! I guess it's all a matter of degree then.
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
- Doubtdispelled
- Posts: 11848
Re: Ratskep on Atheism+
#8131 by Scarlett » May 24, 2013 11:22 am
Absolutely. I'd be a fool to not acknowledge the 'issues' of late, but I'm still here, as are a good few others I like to spend virtual time with
-
Scarlett - Posts: 16046
-
Loren Michael - Name: Loren Michael
- Posts: 7411
- Country: China
Re: Ratskep on Atheism+
#8134 by Cito di Pense » May 24, 2013 12:54 pm
Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa!
[Landlord, please don' bin my post!]
[Landlord, please don' bin my post!]
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв
Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
-
Cito di Pense - Name: Amir Bagatelle
- Posts: 30795
- Age: 24
- Country: Nutbush City Limits
Re: Ratskep on Atheism+
#8135 by Scarlett » May 24, 2013 1:17 pm
And even I know what 'mea culpa' means
-
Scarlett - Posts: 16046
Re: Ratskep on Atheism+
#8136 by Doubtdispelled » May 24, 2013 1:32 pm
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
- Doubtdispelled
- Posts: 11848
Re: Ratskep on Atheism+
#8137 by Regina » May 24, 2013 1:39 pm
It means precisely what he's referring to: mea maxima culpa: my most grievous fault.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.
Kinky Friedman
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.
Kinky Friedman
- Regina
- Posts: 15713
Re: Ratskep on Atheism+
#8138 by Doubtdispelled » May 24, 2013 2:28 pm
Regina wrote:It means precisely what he's referring to: mea maxima culpa: my most grievous fault.
Yes, I know that.
But we can look at this two ways, can't we? Either he is literally truthfully admitting that the state of the forum is his fault, which I doubt but kudos if he is, or he is simply being his usual facetious self and claiming fault all the while believing he is not at fault when in fact it's the opinion of several here that he is at fault. I prefer to think that the latter pertains in this particular instance so his attempting to persuade us by this method into believing that he believes he is not at fault is disingenuous in the extreme and must give rise to a most excruciating cognitive dissonance when uttering such a phrase as mea culpa, which could be relieved if he were to realise that enlightenment would be his release from his self-incurred tutelage.
Between the self-understanding of the meanings of words (or in this case phrases) as they pertain to others, and the reality of the meanings of words as they pertain to ourselves, there yawns a veritable abyss, into which it is only too easy to tumble.
Meaning is wider in scope as well as more precious in value than truth, and Cito's philosophy is more usually occupied with meaning rather than truth to the detriment of all.
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
- Doubtdispelled
- Posts: 11848
Re: Ratskep on Atheism+
#8139 by scott1328 » May 24, 2013 2:53 pm
Doubtdispelled wrote:Regina wrote:It means precisely what he's referring to: mea maxima culpa: my most grievous fault.
Yes, I know that.
But we can look at this two ways, can't we? Either he is literally truthfully admitting that the state of the forum is his fault, which I doubt but kudos if he is, or he is simply being his usual facetious self and claiming fault all the while believing he is not at fault when in fact it's the opinion of several here that he is at fault. I prefer to think that the latter pertains in this particular instance so his attempting to persuade us by this method into believing that he believes he is not at fault is disingenuous in the extreme and must give rise to a most excruciating cognitive dissonance when uttering such a phrase as mea culpa, which could be relieved if he were to realise that enlightenment would be his release from his self-incurred tutelage.
Between the self-understanding of the meanings of words (or in this case phrases) as they pertain to others, and the reality of the meanings of words as they pertain to ourselves, there yawns a veritable abyss, into which it is only too easy to tumble.
Meaning is wider in scope as well as more precious in value than truth, and Cito's philosophy is more usually occupied with meaning rather than truth to the detriment of all.
Wow...
So...
that A+ forum. What a bunch of tossers...
-
scott1328 - Name: Some call me... Tim
- Posts: 8849
Re: Ratskep on Atheism+
#8140 by tolman » May 24, 2013 5:35 pm
Xaihe wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:Not really. It would be information about events. As soon as the woman wakes up from whatever traumatic event that wiped her memory, she would begin experiencing life from the perspective of a woman. Instantly and immediately she would have more knowledge of that experience than a man who had read every diary of every woman from the beginning of human diary writing.
Is this anything more than speculation on your part?
You are making the claim:
- It's impossible for a man to understand what it's like to be a woman.
And you're using the assumption:
- Since I know what I can experience after reading something a woman wrote, I know what every man can experience after reading something a woman wrote.
This seems like a very bold assumption. It also seems that you think that:
- There's some tremendous difference between men and women, such that a man experiencing eating an apple must be utterly incomparable to a woman experiencing eating an apple. Or else you draw the line at some other arbitrary point of your choosing.
- There is no significant difference in thinking between people, as long as they are of the same sex/gender.
If you don't, then you can't claim what I can or cannot experience.
It does rather seem like a claim that the [relevant] experiences of 'being a woman' are sufficiently distinct from experiences any man could have [or imagine] as to render the relevant experiences of all women beyond any male understanding, and to make men trying to understand women a complete waste of time.
Though the obvious flipside of that would be that no woman can really understand what it is like to be a man, and if men are supposed to shut up when women describe their experience of a situation, then the reverse of that is also true.
And the comment that a woman with a wiped memory would instantly and immediately become an expert on being a woman, with an understanding far outstripping anything a man could possibly have.
Seemingly it wouldn't matter if the man had spent a lifetime of study and conversation with all manner of women, or presumably if the woman concerned was actually as thick as two short planks.
Unless, of course, the comment was a deliberately bogus comparison, claiming that whatever the man's understanding, he couldn't know all the fine detail of the second-by-second sensory experience a specific woman was having at a particular point in time, bogus because exactly the same could be said whether the external person was a man or a woman.
It certainly seems like the comments are buying into the highly questionable idea of a 'sisterhood' in the sense propagated by a certain subset of self-described feminists, where it is seemingly assumed that there's essentially one way (or at least one right way) to be a woman, and that women can and should be lumped together into some kind of group quite distinct from men, with all kinds of natural differences. One-way natural differences, that is, which are accepted and promoted whenever they can be spun in a positive way, but where denial and criticism are the typical response to suggestions that there may be differences where women on average are at some natural disadvantage.
Hence ideas such as 'women as a whole are better than men at all kinds of things', typically things like people skills and multitasking, and it's perfectly OK to go on at length about how useless men are at such things, but woe betide anyone who suggests that maybe men, being less good at and/or less interested in such things might instead concentrate on other things, and be better as a whole on tasks which require single-mindedness and don't require effort expending on other people. If such a suggestion is made, often it is 'refuted' (by the people perfectly happy to talk about average group differences when it suits them) by anecdotal reference to one or two clearly unusual and unrepresentative individuals.
Last edited by tolman on May 24, 2013 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
- tolman
- Posts: 7106
- Country: UK
Who is online
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest