If you insist on repeating something over and over again because you refuse to acknowledge the part that proved you wrong the first time you said the thing you are repeating, then you are an enemy of logic.
If you insist on getting in to debate, then believe that you don't need any reliable source of information to prove your point when your point is being challenged, then you are an enemy of logic.
If you insist of saying facts out of things such as a dictionary definition (You know who you are), then you're an enemy of logic.
If you say something is wrong due to an offensive matter, then say something is right when the situation is the exact same as the one that had the offensive part in it, and that you put your emotions over logic, then you are an enemy of logic.
If you're an enemy to logic, you're not an enemy of me, you're just too unbarable to even consider an enemy, so logic will have to do the hating for me.
You:
Took five times for you to acknowledge the dictionary quote I took that I quoted from the dictionary. Number one.
You thought that in order to prove "your" point, the person that you're saying is wrong and is challenging your point has to do the research. You think you have no need to show reliable sources of information. Number two. -EDIT- And it wasn't that you could do it, you tried and failed, then when you realized there was nothing that supports your claim, you thought simply not having to try again covered that up. Number two.
Easy one. Eugenics. Number three.
Number four. You are offended that you run under these things, and you know you run under this list, so you try to reply to say that I do the exact same thing, regardless of people able to tell you that when I have been "proven" wrong, I accept it, unlike you.
Yes, I have issues. I tried to have a logical debate with someone that says that the dictionary isn't a reliable source of information for word definitions. What was I thinking. You're right, I do have issues, trying to have a logical debate with such a person is just terrible.
-EDIT-
Once again, I give examples that show my point. What do you have? Nothing so far.
You claim that I "just described myself". I will assume you "think" I do this all the time, so give me an example of where I have done this, at all.
(Waits for the "I can state anything, I don't need proof, I said it, that means it must be true)
Again. You love to state things, yet lack any logic to back up what it is you claim.
Pathetic. I would assume you have a brain, using it is pretty handy. If you can't back something, don't state it.
you are a bag of sewage. don't forget that. I will prosper. you will lay on the sidelines crying about your waste of a life.
I know: I KNOW things that you have not the capacity to inquire for.
Life isn't about semantics. I find it UTTERLY laughable and wholly despicable that you do not have the sense to realize that you do not hold yourself to the same standard as others. YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. STOP ACTING LIKE YOU'VE EVER CITED OR "BACK[ED]" A WORD OF WHAT YOU'VE SAID. YOU ARE IN FACT DESCRIBING YOURSELF in your attempts to describe me.
you are a like a stubborn hemorrhoid. tah tah bitch---at least until the next time you say something stupid.
I am actually pitying you right now. "I" make guesses?
Ok. I can accept that...If you prove it. Like I said, give examples, otherwise you're just stating things with no value, which is what you're good at.
Oh, boohoo. Incase you haven't realized, schoolyard insults aren't that insulting to me. So please, have some dignity and act your age?
Oh you do, do you? Once again "Woe is me, woe is me". Listen, you can brag about yourself all you want, but to me you're still that fool that can only state things, then has no evidence to back them up. Once again, do I? Yep...Like I keep stating, in our previous debate I used a reliable source of information (the internet), and poor little Thinkingaboutit stil thought she was right when it proved her wrong.
Not to mention, very predictable, and for even being online, easily manipulated. I knew exactly how to get you to reply, easily, just insult you and your credibility (which you have none of).
Do I not? PLease, give examples. Again, if you think "your word" is reliable information, well that just proves everything I have said so far.
What? So, I didn't quote the dictionary and backed what I said up?
My, you're pathetic, truelly. "I am better than you, I am better than you. You haven't ever backed anything you have said up. I am better than you".
Oh, would you like proof of me backing up my claims? Sure, I'll back up both.
http://isitnormal.com/story/is-it-normal-that-eugenics-makes-me-sick-128151/#comment-1172157
There's my evidence, now where's yours?
Aha, my "ateempts" to describe you? You're easily described. Hey, remember this part? "Again. You love to state things, yet lack any logic to back up what it is you claim."
...I think that part was just proven.
The irony..."I'm" stubborn? Little miss "dictionary is wrong, I'm right", is calling "me" stubborn? Ha.
You know, the funny thing is here, is that you're trying to convince me you're so much better than me, that it actually shows you're pretty lacking in a lot of areas, far more than me.
"Tah, tah, bitch", at least until next time I want to pretty much control you and make you reply. Like putty in my fingers.
Remember, I just proved my point there. I stated you don't give examples to prove you right, you gave none. Shocker! Haha.
I'm not going to try to argue with you. You make some good points, but when put together, they just made you seem like (as thinkingaboutit said) you have issues. You replied in a way that made you seem insecure, and for the record, you really don't need to address the people who thumbed you down by replying to yourself. They didn't agree with you, and so they gave you a thumbs down. That's why the button is there. I'm not saying that you're wrong in any way, I'm just saying that your facts could be better presented to suit the topic of discussion.
Don't argue then, just converse with me. You think that if we differ in opinions and want to talk about why we differ in opinion to try come to which conclusion is the accurate one an argument, I see it as debate, which can be calm and respectful.
I don't have "issues". I make good points, and then put them all together to come to a conclusion, which is what people do to find things out.
I have no problem with people not agreeing with me "logically", I have a problem with them disliking it just for the sake of them "not liking it", when it shows if you dissagree, then you are seen as quite idiotic.
If they didn't agfree with me, they should explain why. I gave no reason for them not to agree. Everything I said is logical. I explained how it isn't logical to go in to a certain activity, then refuse to do the things that is needed to make the activity active...How is that at all wrong? It isn't, which is why I had to address that these Emotion>logic people are being pointless.
If people can't handle facts, and need it watered down to please their little cotton socks, then they need to grow up. Boohoo to those people, a fact doesn't make you pleased? That doesn't make it any less true.
Firstly- thank you. Conversation sounds much nicer than fighting.
Secondly, while you do make good points, the way they are delivered is just as important as actual content. The way you ordered them made you sound rather like an extremist. I saw you mention in one of your polls that many people see you as self-centered, and arrogant, and I think that your presentation of facts is responsible for this, in part. Saying that enemies of logic were too unbearable for you to argue with was true, but it made you sound condescending. It's alright to be sure of yourself, confidence is a good thing on a site like this- but you can't see yourself as being above anyone on here. The best thing about the Internet is that it puts everyone on the same level. I see you as my equal. That is why we're having a conversation as opposed to a blatant argument. I know that you have enough respect to partake in this conversation. But your comment implied that you were the pinnacle of logic, that you therefore cannot be wrong, and that you are above the "unbarable" users on here.
I suppose that is true, how I deliver something is why I get the reatcion. Maybe this sounds arrogant and bigheaded, but maybe I should just accept that 98% of users on here can't handle full blown, cold facts and need it watered down for them. Again, that may sound big headed of me, but I have tried the way of just giving out full fact without watering it down, and look at the reactions I get.
I am above many people on certain subjects of debate on here, just like there are people above me in other areas of debates, or maybe in the same debates. I do see myself as a valuable piece to contribute to debates due to seeing it from a different side of things. (That is my personal belief, you may dissagree)
No, no. I am not always right. I have admitted to being wrong a lot. I would even go as far to say that I have admitted to being wrong more than most people on this site have. I am not the pinnacle of logic, far from it. Although, I value logic over emotion, so if there is a topic I am familair on, then I believe I will comment on logic rather than let emotion get involved.
When I say the "illogical" people, I mean the people that "know" they are wrong, yet still fight against something. People that have been proven wrong, asked to (respectfully) to give me a reason to take their argument seriously (reliable sources of information that back up their claim), and some can't, yet think they are still right, regardless of me giving reliable sources of information.
I think the real problem in both of our attitudes is our definitions of "truth." It's not the fact that you tell your truth that makes you seem bigheaded, it's the fact that you're convinced that you're telling only the truth. Often times, you think that you are, but your truth is different to other peoples'. You can't deny the fact that you make many generalizations, and you can't deny the fact that generalizations are only the truth some of the time.
Let me explain this through an old folktale. The leader of a land was keeping slaves, which is wrong. Someone stood up to him, bringing a number of plagues down on the land. The final plague was the murdering of an entire generation. The first plagues were warnings to the leader, but since the leader was convinced that his truth was the final truth, he hardened his heart and refused free the slaves. His pride and closed-mindedness was his downfall, leading to the death of his only son. Had be been more open about what he considered to be the "truth," then maybe he would have had the chance to save his child.
Judging from your stubborn hatred of women, I doubt that you have a child. You are probably also an atheist, which means that this folktale (which you've undoubtedly identified as the Passover story) may seem irrelevant to you. But it's very relevant. If you were willing to stop making generalizations about gender and race, and open your mind to what other people consider the truth, then maybe you could learn something.
I direct you back to your hatred of women- one reason that you have the reputation that you do is because you bring your views into topics that are barely applicable. On a poll about age and generational differences, you tried to use the situation to justify your hatred of literally half of the world's population. The reason that your comment got so many thumbs down was not because people could not take "the truth," it was because their truth was different to yours. They did not make generalizations, so they saw your comment as being closed-minded and self-centered. Your reputation is yet strengthened by how defensive you get when you get a thumbs down, or when someone contradicts you. You're almost constantly trying to make yourself the victim (you comment a lot on how heterosexual white men have fewer rights than everyone else) which is simply not true. It may seem like the truth to you, but to other people, it is not. Different versions of the truth are credible in different situations.
Don't we all believe what we see as truth as the truth? It is the reason why we see it as the truth, because we believe it to be. It would be quite weird for someone to say "This is true, but I don't believe it's true". I do know that you can see something as true yet be open to being shown wrong, which I am open to and encourage people speaking up if I am wrong. LIke I have said before, I debate to prove my point and progress if my point is wrong so that I know the actual truth.
I agree, I make generalizations. I understand that. I have a problem with mixing "alot" with most. In my experience, the things I say are true, which is why I state them. I do realize that what I experience does not equal to every other individuals actions aswell. Although, the fact that I have moved a lot is something that brings me back to the "hold on, I have moved to a lot of places, yet these generalizations I make seem to be true with the group of people I am generalizing in this area".
Personally, I don't believe I can be linked to the slave-owner in that example. I don't make the things I see as truth up due to my own pride and thought, they are encouraged through the actions of others. These beliefs I have are due to observations, not blind assumptions.
I don't hate women at all. Just because I see their gender as a group inferior to the male gender as a group does not mean I hate them. The majority of people I grew up with were females, and I liked them very much. If anything, I have been the victim of males far more than the victim of females, which is why I don't see myself as very emotional on the subject, because if I was emotional about it, I would brand the male gender evil for how many times I have been their victim since a young child.
To be honest, I'm not sure on athiesm, religion, etc. I believed in God at a young age, but I came to realize that I couldn't know life's secret, nobody can, so I don't choose to have any belief. I started to not be so sure about God's existance when I realized that the only information I have to believe he exists is the word of other people, and a book that has been changed a lot. So I don't have any belief other than I simply can't know.
There isn't more than one truth. There is the truthm then there are opinions we believe to be truth. We debate and talk about our opinions of what the truth is, and the one with more logical reasons of truth are more than likely the real truth, not just an opinion.
How was it obnoxious?
The second part was needed. Read over the comment she replied that to...Now look at the dislikes on that comment...Now ask yourself, would a logical person do any of those things that I listed? Ofcourse not, yet they dislike the comment, showing they dissagree with the message, which means they don't find it illogical, which in turn shows how illogical they are.
Every person has the choice to perceive things their own way. I perceived that second sentence to simply mean "Someone agrees with me, that means that they are logical because I am the pinnacle of logic."
You make good points, Itduz, when you stay on topic but you have a way of turning a debate into an attack on a person's emotional stability. Questioning their logical. In turn by doing this, I just get the vibe that you're a little hurt by what other people say about you. Thus, you're not emotionally stable yourself, cause if you were I would think you'd be smart enough to know not to waste your time with some users and just not reply at all.
But I don't think I'm the pinnacle of logic. I just know at this particular time, there was no logical reason to thumb it down, because the things I listed were things that you need to do in certain activities, and engaging in an activity then not doing what the activity requires is just illogical.
I only question their emotion over logic when they do things such as insult but not stay on topic, or thumb down for no reason. If they stick on topic, I stick on topic.
I am not emotionally hurt, I am irritated because I can't understand why they would choose to do something, then "choose" to be illogical.
Unfortunatly, I am not like that. If someone replies to me, I have to reply back to them, unless we have reached a conclusion in which we both agree on. Usually now, if people do this, I just reply to them saying something on repeat until they want to engage in debnate logically instead of just plain insults.
And to the people that thumbed the comment down...So you dissagree that these things aren't illogical to do?
This community...Really. By thumbing down that comment you indirectly stated that these things aren't illogical to do...Well done, IIN community, you get an A+ for stupidity.
What's funny is that if I ever done this (which I haven't despite you thumbing up the comment that says I do), yet if I did do it, you'd see it as illogical, yet indirectly imply that it's not illogical here.
-Sigh- I wish this generation of IIN would pass real soon, this is just irritating now.
...Oh no. You gave up on me. Watch me cry. In all honesty, if you think it is a bad thing "you gave up on me", you lack understanding, far more than I thought you did already. If anything, it is a relief. I don't have to deal with "My word is right, the dictionary is wrong if it states anything other than my opinion. I don't need to give reliable information to support my points in debate", all the time.
Nice! You avoid logic, yet you reply on an emotional level that actually has no accuracy to my life. Welldone. Instead of sticking to the topic that you can reply to and know about, you decide to assume on a person's personal life...You go girl.
What's funny is that my original comment that you originally commented to had about four to five lines more...Not much, yet you were willing to read that, just not the one that puts you on the spot to give an example of why anyone should take you seriously...Again. You go girl.
Reply to me when you have something reliable to say.
Do you have IIN enemies?
← View full post
If you insist on repeating something over and over again because you refuse to acknowledge the part that proved you wrong the first time you said the thing you are repeating, then you are an enemy of logic.
If you insist on getting in to debate, then believe that you don't need any reliable source of information to prove your point when your point is being challenged, then you are an enemy of logic.
If you insist of saying facts out of things such as a dictionary definition (You know who you are), then you're an enemy of logic.
If you say something is wrong due to an offensive matter, then say something is right when the situation is the exact same as the one that had the offensive part in it, and that you put your emotions over logic, then you are an enemy of logic.
If you're an enemy to logic, you're not an enemy of me, you're just too unbarable to even consider an enemy, so logic will have to do the hating for me.
--
thinkingaboutit
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
6
6
-
nAt2017
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
myboyfriendsbitch
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
-
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
you just described yourself ass wipe.
haha you. have. ISSUES.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-Facepalm-
You:
Took five times for you to acknowledge the dictionary quote I took that I quoted from the dictionary. Number one.
You thought that in order to prove "your" point, the person that you're saying is wrong and is challenging your point has to do the research. You think you have no need to show reliable sources of information. Number two. -EDIT- And it wasn't that you could do it, you tried and failed, then when you realized there was nothing that supports your claim, you thought simply not having to try again covered that up. Number two.
Easy one. Eugenics. Number three.
Number four. You are offended that you run under these things, and you know you run under this list, so you try to reply to say that I do the exact same thing, regardless of people able to tell you that when I have been "proven" wrong, I accept it, unlike you.
Yes, I have issues. I tried to have a logical debate with someone that says that the dictionary isn't a reliable source of information for word definitions. What was I thinking. You're right, I do have issues, trying to have a logical debate with such a person is just terrible.
-EDIT-
Once again, I give examples that show my point. What do you have? Nothing so far.
You claim that I "just described myself". I will assume you "think" I do this all the time, so give me an example of where I have done this, at all.
(Waits for the "I can state anything, I don't need proof, I said it, that means it must be true)
--
Allistalla
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
You always write a ton.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
That's because I have a ton of things to talk about. I state my argument and explain why I believe those arguments are true. I also give examples.
Most people here just state their opinion without giving any reason or example to show why it should be seen as reliable information, where as I do.
It's not that I write a ton, it's that they write too little.
--
Allistalla
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
well backing up your detail is important. Good you put such thought into your posts.
Again. You love to state things, yet lack any logic to back up what it is you claim.
Pathetic. I would assume you have a brain, using it is pretty handy. If you can't back something, don't state it.
--
thinkingaboutit
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Oh, I make claims?
You make GUESSES.
you are a bag of sewage. don't forget that. I will prosper. you will lay on the sidelines crying about your waste of a life.
I know: I KNOW things that you have not the capacity to inquire for.
Life isn't about semantics. I find it UTTERLY laughable and wholly despicable that you do not have the sense to realize that you do not hold yourself to the same standard as others. YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. STOP ACTING LIKE YOU'VE EVER CITED OR "BACK[ED]" A WORD OF WHAT YOU'VE SAID. YOU ARE IN FACT DESCRIBING YOURSELF in your attempts to describe me.
you are a like a stubborn hemorrhoid. tah tah bitch---at least until the next time you say something stupid.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-Sigh-
I am actually pitying you right now. "I" make guesses?
Ok. I can accept that...If you prove it. Like I said, give examples, otherwise you're just stating things with no value, which is what you're good at.
Oh, boohoo. Incase you haven't realized, schoolyard insults aren't that insulting to me. So please, have some dignity and act your age?
Oh you do, do you? Once again "Woe is me, woe is me". Listen, you can brag about yourself all you want, but to me you're still that fool that can only state things, then has no evidence to back them up. Once again, do I? Yep...Like I keep stating, in our previous debate I used a reliable source of information (the internet), and poor little Thinkingaboutit stil thought she was right when it proved her wrong.
Not to mention, very predictable, and for even being online, easily manipulated. I knew exactly how to get you to reply, easily, just insult you and your credibility (which you have none of).
Do I not? PLease, give examples. Again, if you think "your word" is reliable information, well that just proves everything I have said so far.
What? So, I didn't quote the dictionary and backed what I said up?
My, you're pathetic, truelly. "I am better than you, I am better than you. You haven't ever backed anything you have said up. I am better than you".
Oh, would you like proof of me backing up my claims? Sure, I'll back up both.
http://isitnormal.com/story/is-it-normal-that-eugenics-makes-me-sick-128151/#comment-1172157
There's my evidence, now where's yours?
Aha, my "ateempts" to describe you? You're easily described. Hey, remember this part? "Again. You love to state things, yet lack any logic to back up what it is you claim."
...I think that part was just proven.
The irony..."I'm" stubborn? Little miss "dictionary is wrong, I'm right", is calling "me" stubborn? Ha.
You know, the funny thing is here, is that you're trying to convince me you're so much better than me, that it actually shows you're pretty lacking in a lot of areas, far more than me.
"Tah, tah, bitch", at least until next time I want to pretty much control you and make you reply. Like putty in my fingers.
Remember, I just proved my point there. I stated you don't give examples to prove you right, you gave none. Shocker! Haha.
Also, you will "prosper"? Will you live long aswell? Thanks for your insight, Spock.
I love how I can accuratly prove you wrong and make you look stupid, it's pretty fun.
I'm not going to try to argue with you. You make some good points, but when put together, they just made you seem like (as thinkingaboutit said) you have issues. You replied in a way that made you seem insecure, and for the record, you really don't need to address the people who thumbed you down by replying to yourself. They didn't agree with you, and so they gave you a thumbs down. That's why the button is there. I'm not saying that you're wrong in any way, I'm just saying that your facts could be better presented to suit the topic of discussion.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Don't argue then, just converse with me. You think that if we differ in opinions and want to talk about why we differ in opinion to try come to which conclusion is the accurate one an argument, I see it as debate, which can be calm and respectful.
I don't have "issues". I make good points, and then put them all together to come to a conclusion, which is what people do to find things out.
I have no problem with people not agreeing with me "logically", I have a problem with them disliking it just for the sake of them "not liking it", when it shows if you dissagree, then you are seen as quite idiotic.
If they didn't agfree with me, they should explain why. I gave no reason for them not to agree. Everything I said is logical. I explained how it isn't logical to go in to a certain activity, then refuse to do the things that is needed to make the activity active...How is that at all wrong? It isn't, which is why I had to address that these Emotion>logic people are being pointless.
If people can't handle facts, and need it watered down to please their little cotton socks, then they need to grow up. Boohoo to those people, a fact doesn't make you pleased? That doesn't make it any less true.
--
nAt2017
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Firstly- thank you. Conversation sounds much nicer than fighting.
Secondly, while you do make good points, the way they are delivered is just as important as actual content. The way you ordered them made you sound rather like an extremist. I saw you mention in one of your polls that many people see you as self-centered, and arrogant, and I think that your presentation of facts is responsible for this, in part. Saying that enemies of logic were too unbearable for you to argue with was true, but it made you sound condescending. It's alright to be sure of yourself, confidence is a good thing on a site like this- but you can't see yourself as being above anyone on here. The best thing about the Internet is that it puts everyone on the same level. I see you as my equal. That is why we're having a conversation as opposed to a blatant argument. I know that you have enough respect to partake in this conversation. But your comment implied that you were the pinnacle of logic, that you therefore cannot be wrong, and that you are above the "unbarable" users on here.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I suppose that is true, how I deliver something is why I get the reatcion. Maybe this sounds arrogant and bigheaded, but maybe I should just accept that 98% of users on here can't handle full blown, cold facts and need it watered down for them. Again, that may sound big headed of me, but I have tried the way of just giving out full fact without watering it down, and look at the reactions I get.
I am above many people on certain subjects of debate on here, just like there are people above me in other areas of debates, or maybe in the same debates. I do see myself as a valuable piece to contribute to debates due to seeing it from a different side of things. (That is my personal belief, you may dissagree)
No, no. I am not always right. I have admitted to being wrong a lot. I would even go as far to say that I have admitted to being wrong more than most people on this site have. I am not the pinnacle of logic, far from it. Although, I value logic over emotion, so if there is a topic I am familair on, then I believe I will comment on logic rather than let emotion get involved.
When I say the "illogical" people, I mean the people that "know" they are wrong, yet still fight against something. People that have been proven wrong, asked to (respectfully) to give me a reason to take their argument seriously (reliable sources of information that back up their claim), and some can't, yet think they are still right, regardless of me giving reliable sources of information.
--
nAt2017
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I think the real problem in both of our attitudes is our definitions of "truth." It's not the fact that you tell your truth that makes you seem bigheaded, it's the fact that you're convinced that you're telling only the truth. Often times, you think that you are, but your truth is different to other peoples'. You can't deny the fact that you make many generalizations, and you can't deny the fact that generalizations are only the truth some of the time.
Let me explain this through an old folktale. The leader of a land was keeping slaves, which is wrong. Someone stood up to him, bringing a number of plagues down on the land. The final plague was the murdering of an entire generation. The first plagues were warnings to the leader, but since the leader was convinced that his truth was the final truth, he hardened his heart and refused free the slaves. His pride and closed-mindedness was his downfall, leading to the death of his only son. Had be been more open about what he considered to be the "truth," then maybe he would have had the chance to save his child.
Judging from your stubborn hatred of women, I doubt that you have a child. You are probably also an atheist, which means that this folktale (which you've undoubtedly identified as the Passover story) may seem irrelevant to you. But it's very relevant. If you were willing to stop making generalizations about gender and race, and open your mind to what other people consider the truth, then maybe you could learn something.
I direct you back to your hatred of women- one reason that you have the reputation that you do is because you bring your views into topics that are barely applicable. On a poll about age and generational differences, you tried to use the situation to justify your hatred of literally half of the world's population. The reason that your comment got so many thumbs down was not because people could not take "the truth," it was because their truth was different to yours. They did not make generalizations, so they saw your comment as being closed-minded and self-centered. Your reputation is yet strengthened by how defensive you get when you get a thumbs down, or when someone contradicts you. You're almost constantly trying to make yourself the victim (you comment a lot on how heterosexual white men have fewer rights than everyone else) which is simply not true. It may seem like the truth to you, but to other people, it is not. Different versions of the truth are credible in different situations.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Don't we all believe what we see as truth as the truth? It is the reason why we see it as the truth, because we believe it to be. It would be quite weird for someone to say "This is true, but I don't believe it's true". I do know that you can see something as true yet be open to being shown wrong, which I am open to and encourage people speaking up if I am wrong. LIke I have said before, I debate to prove my point and progress if my point is wrong so that I know the actual truth.
I agree, I make generalizations. I understand that. I have a problem with mixing "alot" with most. In my experience, the things I say are true, which is why I state them. I do realize that what I experience does not equal to every other individuals actions aswell. Although, the fact that I have moved a lot is something that brings me back to the "hold on, I have moved to a lot of places, yet these generalizations I make seem to be true with the group of people I am generalizing in this area".
Personally, I don't believe I can be linked to the slave-owner in that example. I don't make the things I see as truth up due to my own pride and thought, they are encouraged through the actions of others. These beliefs I have are due to observations, not blind assumptions.
I don't hate women at all. Just because I see their gender as a group inferior to the male gender as a group does not mean I hate them. The majority of people I grew up with were females, and I liked them very much. If anything, I have been the victim of males far more than the victim of females, which is why I don't see myself as very emotional on the subject, because if I was emotional about it, I would brand the male gender evil for how many times I have been their victim since a young child.
To be honest, I'm not sure on athiesm, religion, etc. I believed in God at a young age, but I came to realize that I couldn't know life's secret, nobody can, so I don't choose to have any belief. I started to not be so sure about God's existance when I realized that the only information I have to believe he exists is the word of other people, and a book that has been changed a lot. So I don't have any belief other than I simply can't know.
There isn't more than one truth. There is the truthm then there are opinions we believe to be truth. We debate and talk about our opinions of what the truth is, and the one with more logical reasons of truth are more than likely the real truth, not just an opinion.
Well, I thought you made some good points.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Thanks. Someone with some logic in their brain.
--
Anime7
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
You have to admit, that thank you to Myboyfriendsbitch did sound pretty obnoxious. That second sentence was unnecessary.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-2
-2
How was it obnoxious?
The second part was needed. Read over the comment she replied that to...Now look at the dislikes on that comment...Now ask yourself, would a logical person do any of those things that I listed? Ofcourse not, yet they dislike the comment, showing they dissagree with the message, which means they don't find it illogical, which in turn shows how illogical they are.
--
Anime7
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
Every person has the choice to perceive things their own way. I perceived that second sentence to simply mean "Someone agrees with me, that means that they are logical because I am the pinnacle of logic."
You make good points, Itduz, when you stay on topic but you have a way of turning a debate into an attack on a person's emotional stability. Questioning their logical. In turn by doing this, I just get the vibe that you're a little hurt by what other people say about you. Thus, you're not emotionally stable yourself, cause if you were I would think you'd be smart enough to know not to waste your time with some users and just not reply at all.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
But I don't think I'm the pinnacle of logic. I just know at this particular time, there was no logical reason to thumb it down, because the things I listed were things that you need to do in certain activities, and engaging in an activity then not doing what the activity requires is just illogical.
I only question their emotion over logic when they do things such as insult but not stay on topic, or thumb down for no reason. If they stick on topic, I stick on topic.
I am not emotionally hurt, I am irritated because I can't understand why they would choose to do something, then "choose" to be illogical.
Unfortunatly, I am not like that. If someone replies to me, I have to reply back to them, unless we have reached a conclusion in which we both agree on. Usually now, if people do this, I just reply to them saying something on repeat until they want to engage in debnate logically instead of just plain insults.
And to the people that thumbed the comment down...So you dissagree that these things aren't illogical to do?
This community...Really. By thumbing down that comment you indirectly stated that these things aren't illogical to do...Well done, IIN community, you get an A+ for stupidity.
What's funny is that if I ever done this (which I haven't despite you thumbing up the comment that says I do), yet if I did do it, you'd see it as illogical, yet indirectly imply that it's not illogical here.
-Sigh- I wish this generation of IIN would pass real soon, this is just irritating now.
--
thinkingaboutit
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
haha ! you know I won't be reading this. i gave up on you a long time ago. Like, I'm sure, most of the other people in your life did.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
...Oh no. You gave up on me. Watch me cry. In all honesty, if you think it is a bad thing "you gave up on me", you lack understanding, far more than I thought you did already. If anything, it is a relief. I don't have to deal with "My word is right, the dictionary is wrong if it states anything other than my opinion. I don't need to give reliable information to support my points in debate", all the time.
Nice! You avoid logic, yet you reply on an emotional level that actually has no accuracy to my life. Welldone. Instead of sticking to the topic that you can reply to and know about, you decide to assume on a person's personal life...You go girl.
What's funny is that my original comment that you originally commented to had about four to five lines more...Not much, yet you were willing to read that, just not the one that puts you on the spot to give an example of why anyone should take you seriously...Again. You go girl.
Reply to me when you have something reliable to say.
*Vulcan Salute* \V/
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I don't get the comment, although I get what the Vulcan salute is. \V/
Live long and prosper. (I think that's what he says).