Do people really believe in Angels?

[futuremd]

You implore me to do what? One of my favs in existentialism is a fellow who stated this, Without religion, man is condemned to his freedoms.

So? 

I don't have a problem with that because then we get to a point where we dont have to make grandiose claims and rampant assertions about things beyond our scope.

There is nothing wrong with trying to learn, but making claims and not backing them up is NOT a valid means to learn more if you can't confirm the conclusions you assert. 

 

[longstroke]

So? 

I don't have a problem with that because then we get to a point where we dont have to make grandiose claims and rampant assertions about things beyond our scope.

There is nothing wrong with trying to learn, but making claims and not backing them up is NOT a valid means to learn more if you can't confirm the conclusions you assert. 

That comment wasn't directed to you.

 

[futuremd]

What result are you talking about?

I just told you in very layman's terms how color perception works. 

I'm talking about a thought. If I tell you to think about a ice cream. You can feel the texture of the ice cream itself and the cone. You can see it. You can smell the waffle cone and the vanilla. You can even see it melt over time if your imagination is good enough. But you can't prove it to anybody else but yourself. You can tell me what parts of the brain are working to produce that result, but you can't prove the result itself.

Congrats.

Thats because there is no result. 

Everything you observe is the result of stimuli coming together to give you the a representation of the extent of the things you're observing.

You can only perceive as much as your senses allow you to. 

You can't see UV light. You can't see IR light.

You can't detect sound waves below or above 20 - 20K Hz.

You can't detect shifts in magnetic fields.

You can't feel things beyond a certain range of acuity with your hands as you can with your elbows. 

You can't detect a certain range of chemicals with your nose.

That ice cream is only representative in a manner that you can recall it only to the extent that you're capable of doing so...

HOWEVER, if you were to assert some quality of that ice cream beyond which you could understand it or perceive it, then you're responsible for determining how that thing works and what it is.

THIS is why speculation does not work and you must prove your assertions.

We discovered microwaves when this guy had chocolate in his pocket and walked in front of a machine and noticed that it melted. 

He couldn't see them. He couldn't taste them. He couldn't smell them.

But he knew that through some other modality that was heretofore working, allowed him to witness something that he was previously not aware of. That modality allowed him to get in touch with another realm of observation that was previously unknown to us. HE PROVED that such a medium existed.

Now, if you assert that this "soul" exists and that its present somewhere in the body, i'm not even going to say you're wrong. I'm going to instead hold you accountable for showing us WHAT it is, and WHERE it is.

Otherwise, until you do that, your claim remains unsupported and unsubstantiated.

Do you finally get where I'm going with this?  

We can prove thoughts exist because we come to an understanding that based on the methods that we use to gather stimuli, we all share the same essential standards to recreate these notions within a reliable degree of certainty.

Thats my point.  

 

[brainwashed21]

it makes no sense? science has nothing to do with religion. you dont need it to be able to have the piece of mind that a person gets. true they might be delusional and cant back it up but hey, thats their reality.science shouldnt have anything to do with government actions. when they do put science nd government together they mess up... we dont need science to tell us something is real just to have a hope nd belief in something. just like you dont need science to believe obama/romney can change things.. just gotta let time run its course, nd let belief nd hope create our realities

 

[Master Zik]

You implore me to do what? One of my favs in existentialism is a fellow who stated this,

Without religion, man is condemned to his freedoms.

Albert Camus

Also, I've had conversations with Miles Davis when I was a kid, and he told me of discussions he had with Jean Paul Sartre in Paris, which at the time, I didn't know who the hell he was, nor did I care, but I did much later.

The main issue that I have with pompous and presumptuous individuals such as yourself, is just because people disagree with you, that they must not be aware of what you are supposedly aware of.

I implore YOU to read more Dr. Seuss.

If what you're saying has any truth to it (at least the pertinent parts to this discussion, cuz talking to a person sure as hell doesn't guarantee to make you smarter or wiser. I'll also ignore some of the hypocrisy given your previous comments about philosophers when you went off on multiple tangents about baths and a flat world) I find it startling how you refuse to explain or support your stance. It's not about disagreeing with me. It's your lack of argument. Your ignorance on the multiple other options that can drive humanity.

You brought up slavery saying it was hope that led them out of it. When I can say it was there sense of justice that led them out of it. Not so much hoping to be free but making sure their oppressors faced justice for their crimes. The will to live is something you can have without hope. Revenge can easily also be a motivator. There's a plethora of other arguments when we're talking about humanity's survival like I said, the survival instinct which leans more on neuroscience and neurology since it exists in all creatures.

Funny you bring up Sarte when he was influenced by Kant among other philosophers. How can you dismiss past philosophers then talk about an alleged conversation with Miles Davis and him bringing up a philosopher that have learned and studied past ones?

One example, does not make your statement true for all instances. I could easily say it wasn't taking away hope that led to the continued enslavement of Africans or any ppl at any time but that it was taking away knowledge that led to it.

Hope, comes before knowledge. You've got to take that first step. With that first step, you HOPE that you don't fall on your ***. That next step is what gives you the knowledge that you can do it.

Listen, you saying no, then giving one rationalized example is not conductive to this discussion. Especially when the examples are poorly put together, structured and executed.The pursuit of knowledge doesn't need hope as a component. Hope is not the prerequisite for all things. Just cuz you believe this to be true does not make it so. Saying it over and over and citing Dr. Seuss does not make what you say any more subjective than it initially is. Why can't you grasp that? I don't see how existentialism can be one of your fav topics and you can't realize that. The individual experience ring a bell?

Oh yeah funny you quote Albert Camus when I already did that in my last reply to you.

 

[futuremd]

it makes no sense? science has nothing to do with religion. you dont need it to be able to have the piece of mind that a person gets. true they might be delusional and cant back it up but hey, thats their reality.science shouldnt have anything to do with government actions. when they do put science nd government together they mess up... we dont need science to tell us something is real just to have a hope nd belief in something. just like you dont need science to believe obama/romney can change things.. just gotta let time run its course, nd let belief nd hope create our realities

No one cares what peace of mind it brings.

If its not real, then I don't care. 

Otherwise you don't get to tell me that the tooth fairy and zeus aren't real.

Do you not see the problem here? 

We need a method to determine if things are real or not.

Otherwise we can never learn the difference from what isn't useful and what is. 

Science doesn't have an answer on who has the best economic policy. All we can do is look at data and then determine where we want to go. Thats the point. 

 

[brainwashed21]

yea i see the microwave example.. i feel you man.. but you gotta understand where im coming from.. you cant discredit the past. religion has been around for ever, its shaped the world, the belief and faith in it is real, even if they cant back it up.. what they feel is REAL. and the way its changed history in the past makes it pretty dam real to me.. even if it was off some delusional fasting. just like government, the belief is there to make things happen, without the religious hoopla.. nd they make things happen.. good and bad. thats all without science.. so you see how real things could be without a dam graph nd percentages involved?

 

[futuremd]

yea i see the microwave example.. i feel you man.. but you gotta understand where im coming from.. you cant discredit the past. religion has been around for ever, its shaped the world, the belief and faith in it is real, 

I don't care. Its not my problem.

Their belief might be genuine, but the thing they believe exists...is not. 

even if they cant back it up..

Not my problem. 

what they feel is REAL.

So. Its like feeling santa is real, until you realize that it isn't.

Its not my problem or concern. 

 and the way its changed history in the past makes it pretty dam real to me..

Wrong again.

People acting on behalf of said beliefs, doesn't make the inspiration for said beliefs an actual reality. 

even if it was off some delusional fasting.

Again.

I don't care. 

 just like government, the belief is there to make things happen, without the religious hoopla.. nd they make things happen.. good and bad.

Government is a system and a process. It doesn't assert things or claim to know things that it doesn't have the ability to confirm. 

It might lie about things, but its not the same as a religion that claims or feigns inerrancy. 

 thats all without science..

Science and research informs government policy. I don't know WHAT you're thinking. 

so you see how real things could be without a dam graph nd percentages involved?

No. You still don't have a point. 

What do you want me to do? Give leeway to people who believe in a widely recognized delusion? Why should I? 

I think you should be allowed  to believe what you want, but by no means will I not express my views on it. 

Dudes in here just want to be free from criticism for believing in things they WANT to be true. 

Honestly, its not my or anyone else's responsibility to defend you from claims that you don't even take the time to validate yourself.

This isn't about the opinion you have about the world or what you want it to be...its about the claims you ASSERT to be taken as "givens" and then go forth to make addition assumptions. Thats where the flaw lies.

If you want to believe that we'd be better of as a marxist society, go ahead. Thats merely your opinion on an idea. You're not asserting or declaring something as absolute here. 

However, don't assert that you can talk to a supernatural entity, that wants you to do XYZ, and XYZ happens when you die or some other series of unsupported assertions which have NO factual backing. Period. 

The bottom-line is to not put things forward that you can not back up. There is a difference. 

 

[brainwashed21]

dam you future

 

[brainwashed21]

masterzik futuremd..

so is science absolute? does intuition and conciseness not matter?

you said government lies about things, which i agree with. but yet they hand out facts from your science.. so theres still a chance i might get lied to right? even with science. 

science is used to prove a point with fact. but it can be manipulated however you want..

1+1=3... or am i wrong?

 

[Master Zik]

masterzik futuremd..

so is science absolute? does intuition and conciseness not matter?

Science is a tool, a process. No it's not absolute cuz at times there will be things it can not accomplish yet. I mean there's several theories regarding dark matter/energy. I'd go father to say the only absolute is there are no absolutes. You also gotta keep in mind that even if the the process of science/scientific method were perfect and/or absolute, human beings are not. As we all know science can be used for all kinds of bias agendas.

Intuition and conciseness (did you mean consciousness?) matter but it depends on what you apply them to and when. Intuition isn't enough in some situations and some times it's completely irrelevant when faced with facts. It could be your intuition to go in to the light but that light could be death by incineration.

you said government lies about things, which i agree with. but yet they hand out facts from your science.. so theres still a chance i might get lied to right? even with science. 

science is used to prove a point with fact. but it can be manipulated however you want..

1+1=3... or am i wrong?

You right but that's why there's peer review. As far as the government that's heading toward the conspiracy territory, one would then have to investigate to get to the truth and/or one would hope that one day the truth comes to light (yes hope would come in to play here given the dire situation) or the truth can be discovered by accident. There's only so much you can do if there's a concerted effort to lie to the masses for w/e ends and those saying otherwise are silenced or discredited.

 

[longstroke]

If what you're saying has any truth to it (at least the pertinent parts to this discussion, cuz talking to a person sure as hell doesn't guarantee to make you smarter or wiser. I'll also ignore some of the hypocrisy given your previous comments about philosophers when you went off on multiple tangents about baths and a flat world) I find it startling how you refuse to explain or support your stance. It's not about disagreeing with me. It's your lack of argument. Your ignorance on the multiple other options that can drive humanity.
You brought up slavery saying it was hope that led them out of it. When I can say it was there sense of justice that led them out of it. Not so much hoping to be free but making sure their oppressors faced justice for their crimes. The will to live is something you can have without hope. Revenge can easily also be a motivator. There's a plethora of other arguments when we're talking about humanity's survival like I said, the survival instinct which leans more on neuroscience and neurology since it exists in all creatures.
Funny you bring up Sarte when he was influenced by Kant among other philosophers. How can you dismiss past philosophers then talk about an alleged conversation with Miles Davis and him bringing up a philosopher that have learned and studied past ones?
Listen, you saying no, then giving one rationalized example is not conductive to this discussion. Especially when the examples are poorly put together, structured and executed.The pursuit of knowledge doesn't need hope as a component. Hope is not the prerequisite for all things. Just cuz you believe this to be true does not make it so. Saying it over and over and citing Dr. Seuss does not make what you say any more subjective than it initially is. Why can't you grasp that? I don't see how existentialism can be one of your fav topics and you can't realize that. The individual experience ring a bell?
Oh yeah funny you quote Albert Camus when I already did that in my last reply to you.

This coming from someone who proposes cuz and ppl, and then is attempting to define well reasoned arguments.

Pathetic.

Your problem not only lies in your arrogance, but in your very own ignorance as well. It's quite obvious that you lack the awareness to understand that all life is inspired through hope. If that were not the case, then there'd be no need for empires and other ruling classes to try and squelch it among followers. There is no doubt about this. But in your efforts to seem intelligent and well read, well versed, you are unaware of the one most simple explanations of human interaction.

People only do, what they know how to do.

Just like with you, and your supposed understanding of philosophy, you go so far to the extreme, that you forget your very own humanity. As if you are some sort of machine.

Most importantly, as was taught to me by my elders, those who I hold in high esteem, you MUST allow yourself that.

 

[offwhitewhite]

That's because there is no result. 

Everything you observe is the result of stimuli coming together to give you the a representation of the extent of the things you're observing.

You say there is no result but then you say the result of stimuli coming together gives you a representation of the extent of the things you saw. Where is the scientific proof that THAT representation exists. 

You can only perceive as much as your senses allow you to. 

You can't see UV light. You can't see IR light.

You can't detect sound waves below or above 20 - 20K Hz.

You can't detect shifts in magnetic fields.

You can't feel things beyond a certain range of acuity with your hands as you can with your elbows. 

You can't detect a certain range of chemicals with your nose.

I agree with this and never said anything opposing these views.
 

We discovered microwaves when this guy had chocolate in his pocket and walked in front of a machine and noticed that it melted. 

He couldn't see them. He couldn't taste them. He couldn't smell them.

But he knew that through some other modality that was heretofore working, allowed him to witness something that he was previously not aware of. That modality allowed him to get in touch with another realm of observation that was previously unknown to us. HE PROVED that such a medium existed.

Now, if you assert that this "soul" exists and that its present somewhere in the body, i'm not even going to say you're wrong. I'm going to instead hold you accountable for showing us WHAT it is, and WHERE it is.

Otherwise, until you do that, your claim remains unsupported and unsubstantiated.

Exactly my point. He knew something was going on and luckily he figured out a way to prove it. You're assuming what I'm saying is already false when it hasn't been tried, tested, and proven wrong yet. 

We can prove thoughts exist because we come to an understanding that based on the methods that we use to gather stimuli, we all share the same essential standards to recreate these notions within a reliable degree of certainty.

You can prove we have thoughts. You can't prove a particular thought exists with scientific data backing it up. If so, just point to a website or some writings where this is proven. 

 

[futuremd]

masterzik futuremd..

so is science absolute? 

No. It doesn't claim to be. Its only as powerful as the evidence collected to support the claims that are asserted.

Newton's laws were good enough until Einstein showed us how much farther we could go, HOWEVER we were able to prove each assertion made up to a certain point. The latter part is important because while we understood that we had farther to go, we were able to VERIFY that it was the correct manner to proceed.

does intuition and conciseness not matter?

You mean nebulous concepts that don't mean anything in relation to what you're talking to? I don't know.

What do you mean and how would it "matter?"

Again, I have no problem with conjecture...but I do have a problem when you assert things that are unsubstantiated. There is a difference. 

you said government lies about things, which i agree with. but yet they hand out facts from your science.. so theres still a chance i might get lied to right? even with science. 

Sure. Thats why peer review works. The scientific method is predicated on the notion that a community of your peers should be able to independently, and repetitively, replicate your findings within a reliable degree of your original work.

If you have truly uncovered something novel or unique, it should be apparently at all levels and be universally valid.

science is used to prove a point with fact. but it can be manipulated however you want..

Its can't.

People who falsify data are caught sooner or later. You can't build a house of lies but only so tall. Things get revealed at some point.

You can't create a context of lies and expect them to continually reinforce themselves.

This is a strength of the scientific method, not a weakness, as you might conclude. The fact that it allows itself to be self-corrected by reflective analysis removes noise from data points and exalts real progress. 

1+1=3... or am i wrong?

Stop trying so hard to appear "deep."

 

[cj863]

So basically this is a science defense dissertation sponsored by Putty like any thread with this related topic. Nice job putty

 

[brainwashed21]

im trying to hard to be deep? lol.. you guys have a good weekend, appreciate the knowledge

 

[futuremd]

That's because there is no result. 

Everything you observe is the result of stimuli coming together to give you the a representation of the extent of the things you're observing.

You say there is no result but then you say the result of stimuli coming together gives you a representation of the extent of the things you saw. Where is the scientific proof that THAT representation exists. 

Are you debating the existence of your own ability to perceive the information that your own senses give to you?

If so, we have a problem.

But if you're going to be difficult, we can give you tests of different frequencies to see how well you hear.

We can test your eye sight.

We can measure the acuity of your sensory receptors on your hands and other parts of your body and measure them and map them to parts of your brain's responses.
I'm not saying that you're wrong.

I'm just trying to get you to understand that until you support what you're saying, you can't take it as a given.

Speculation can not be asserted as something thats unsubstantiated, when it is not.
We haven't been able to do that specifically...BUT we have been able to map behaviors in the brain and predict which patterns will consistently be present by repeatedly observing the substrates at work and isolating their activation. In some cases, there are even emotions that we can elicit BY activating various parts of the brain. 

So this depends. Do you think your thoughts are comprised of emotional responses to various stimuli or do you propose the idea that thoughts are things unto themselves?

Get to work. 

 

[Master Zik]

If what you're saying has any truth to it (at least the pertinent parts to this discussion, cuz talking to a person sure as hell doesn't guarantee to make you smarter or wiser. I'll also ignore some of the hypocrisy given your previous comments about philosophers when you went off on multiple tangents about baths and a flat world) I find it startling how you refuse to explain or support your stance. It's not about disagreeing with me. It's your lack of argument. Your ignorance on the multiple other options that can drive humanity.

You brought up slavery saying it was hope that led them out of it. When I can say it was there sense of justice that led them out of it. Not so much hoping to be free but making sure their oppressors faced justice for their crimes. The will to live is something you can have without hope. Revenge can easily also be a motivator. There's a plethora of other arguments when we're talking about humanity's survival like I said, the survival instinct which leans more on neuroscience and neurology since it exists in all creatures.

Funny you bring up Sarte when he was influenced by Kant among other philosophers. How can you dismiss past philosophers then talk about an alleged conversation with Miles Davis and him bringing up a philosopher that have learned and studied past ones?

Listen, you saying no, then giving one rationalized example is not conductive to this discussion. Especially when the examples are poorly put together, structured and executed.The pursuit of knowledge doesn't need hope as a component. Hope is not the prerequisite for all things. Just cuz you believe this to be true does not make it so. Saying it over and over and citing Dr. Seuss does not make what you say any more subjective than it initially is. Why can't you grasp that? I don't see how existentialism can be one of your fav topics and you can't realize that. The individual experience ring a bell?

Oh yeah funny you quote Albert Camus when I already did that in my last reply to you.

This coming from someone who proposes cuz and ppl, and then is attempting to define well reasoned arguments.

Pathetic.

The grammar and spelling attack?!?!??? You're better than that

Guess you're done.

Your problem not only lies in your arrogance, but in your very own ignorance as well. It's quite obvious that you lack the awareness to understand that all life is inspired through hope.

So what you're saying is when someone disagrees with you and has an argument opposing it that has support you insult them, claim they lack awareness to your truth and don't understand. This is what you result to. It's your only option. You can't express yourself intelligently, extrapolate or explain your stance. This is your only recourse. Let me quote you then:

Pathetic.

If that were not the case, then there'd be no need for empires and other ruling classes to try and squelch it among followers

But there are and were empires and ruling classes. This is fact. You're excluding w/e doesn't fall in to your world view because it directly contradicts your half baked theory.

There is no doubt about this. But in your efforts to seem intelligent and well read, well versed, you are unaware of the one most simple explanations of human interaction.

So you have no explanation for the survival instinct. Not even gonna attempt to rationalize it. Won't touch the neuroscience facts. Maslow's hierarchy ignored.

Okay. Yeah, I'm the one putting in effort to seem intelligent and well read, well versed but you're the one name dropping conversations with Miles Davis.

U]People only do, what they know how to do.[/U]

Just like with you, and your supposed understanding of philosophy, you go so far to the extreme, that you forget your very own humanity. As if you are some sort of machine.

Most importantly, as was taught to me by my elders, those who I hold in high esteem, you MUST allow yourself that.

It's a good thing I'm not just pushing forth my beliefs and have actually referenced philosophers who have gone in depth in their views, theories, and overall philosophies. No insight on the split definition of the soul (completely different definition than you think) by Aristotle and Plato. You're not interested in discussing human nature, really. Nothing in relation to Machivelli, Hobbes, or Locke. Just allude to your elders and your alleged teaching.

I mean it's clear you don't want to discuss anything at this poinit and have no argument and rather turn this in to "I know more about this topic than you". You can't humble yourself and try to create dialog and explain what you're saying. It's better for you to insult any chance you get. Just say w/e expect all to accept it and if they don't they don't comprehend or are unaware. I get it. You on your B Smooth steez. I see you.

 

[futuremd]

im trying to hard to be deep? lol.. you guys have a good weekend, appreciate the knowledge

You said "1+1=3? or am I wrong"

Yeah. Thats pretty much your attempt at trying to pretend like you were able to uncover some new meaning of knowledge in some sort of sarcastic way. 

 

[longstroke]

The grammar and spelling attack?!?!??? You're better than that

Guess you're done.

So what you're saying is when someone disagrees with you and has an argument opposing it that has support you insult them, claim they lack awareness to your truth and don't understand. This is what you result to. It's your only option. You can't express yourself intelligently, extrapolate or explain your stance. This is your only recourse. Let me quote you then:
But there are and were empires and ruling classes. This is fact. You're excluding w/e doesn't fall in to your world view because it directly contradicts your half baked theory.
So you have no explanation for the survival instinct. Not even gonna attempt to rationalize it. Won't touch the neuroscience facts. Maslow's hierarchy ignored.
Okay. Yeah, I'm the one putting in effort to seem intelligent and well read, well versed but you're the one name dropping conversations with Miles Davis.
It's a good thing I'm not just pushing forth my beliefs and have actually referenced philosophers who have gone in depth in their views, theories, and overall philosophies. No insight on the split definition of the soul (completely different definition than you think) by Aristotle and Plato. You're not interested in discussing human nature, really. Nothing in relation to Machivelli, Hobbes, or Locke. Just allude to your elders and your alleged teaching.
I mean it's clear you don't want to discuss anything at this poinit and have no argument and rather turn this in to "I know more about this topic than you". You can't humble yourself and try to create dialog and explain what you're saying. It's better for you to insult any chance you get. Just say w/e expect all to accept it and if they don't they don't comprehend or are unaware. I get it. You on your B Smooth steez. I see you.

This is how you try and insult someone, by suggesting that they brush up on something, as if they haven't done the research in the first place. My pointing out the irony in your own mishaps, shouldn't be an insult to someone supposedly as intelligent and well versed as you.

You see, I went to school with cats like you. We all did well, but when we failed at some things, they were too hard on themselves, with one even killing himself due to not getting a passing grade. This was a kid with no hope.

When people like yourself try and come off as if I, or others, are somehow half baked in our presentation, especially  when we understand that there are many components to our existence, and every one of them in regard to are very own survival, is connected to HOPE.

This is how I get down, and then make many friends in my travels this way.

It's an attitude that allows me to accept people and their point of view, just as long as they do not try and squelch mine.

You can have your point of view, even while supporting your views with historical figures and research.

But, what was it that you said about dragging people out the cave?

If you put your hands on people in that way, do not be surprised if your hands do not remain attached to you.

 

[Master Zik]

The grammar and spelling attack?!?!??? You're better than that

Guess you're done.


So what you're saying is when someone disagrees with you and has an argument opposing it that has support you insult them, claim they lack awareness to your truth and don't understand. This is what you result to. It's your only option. You can't express yourself intelligently, extrapolate or explain your stance. This is your only recourse. Let me quote you then:

But there are and were empires and ruling classes. This is fact. You're excluding w/e doesn't fall in to your world view because it directly contradicts your half baked theory.

So you have no explanation for the survival instinct. Not even gonna attempt to rationalize it. Won't touch the neuroscience facts. Maslow's hierarchy ignored.

Okay. Yeah, I'm the one putting in effort to seem intelligent and well read, well versed but you're the one name dropping conversations with Miles Davis.

It's a good thing I'm not just pushing forth my beliefs and have actually referenced philosophers who have gone in depth in their views, theories, and overall philosophies. No insight on the split definition of the soul (completely different definition than you think) by Aristotle and Plato. You're not interested in discussing human nature, really. Nothing in relation to Machivelli, Hobbes, or Locke. Just allude to your elders and your alleged teaching.

I mean it's clear you don't want to discuss anything at this poinit and have no argument and rather turn this in to "I know more about this topic than you". You can't humble yourself and try to create dialog and explain what you're saying. It's better for you to insult any chance you get. Just say w/e expect all to accept it and if they don't they don't comprehend or are unaware. I get it. You on your B Smooth steez. I see you.

This is how you try and insult someone, by suggesting that they brush up on something, as if they haven't done the research in the first place. My pointing out the irony in your own mishaps, shouldn't be an insult to someone supposedly as intelligent and well versed as you.

You see, I went to school with cats like you. We all did well, but when we failed at some things, they were too hard on themselves, with one even killing himself due to not getting a passing grade. This was a kid with no hope.

When people like yourself try and come off as if I. or others, are somehow half baked in our presentation, especially when we understand that there are many components to our existence, and every one of them in regard to are very own survival, is connected to HOPE.

This is how I get down, and then make many friends in my travels this way.

It's an attitude that allows me to accept people and their point of view, just as long as they do not try and squelch mine.

You can have your point of view, even while supporting your views with historical figures and research.

But, what was it that you said about dragging people out the cave?

If you put your hands on people in that way, do not be surprised if your hands do not remain attached to you.

I got you bro



Just think if your "elders" replied to you the way you're replying to me. Also saying hope is not a prerequisite for all things is not the same as saying hope does not matter at all. Maybe that's where you got confused.

Dragging ppl out the cave honestly went over your head if you don't know what I was referencing when I said that. Honestly.

 

[longstroke]

I got you broJust think if your "elders" replied to you the way you're replying to me. Also saying hope is not a prerequisite for all things is not the same as saying hope does not matter at all. Maybe that's where you got confused.
Dragging ppl out the cave honestly went over your head if you don't know what I was referencing when I said that. Honestly.

Oh, so you are a victim now?

You don't come on making assumptions about people, then insulting them, especially in the middle of a convo, where the person I was addressing completely understood what I was speaking about. You were the one who took it out of context. So don't tell me what I may have been confused about, or what's over my head.

The comment had nothing to do with you.

My elders, as brilliant as they are, never assume, so there is no worry as to how I reply to them...

...Green eggs and ham, baby.

 

[Master Zik]

I got you broJust think if your "elders" replied to you the way you're replying to me. Also saying hope is not a prerequisite for all things is not the same as saying hope does not matter at all. Maybe that's where you got confused.

Dragging ppl out the cave honestly went over your head if you don't know what I was referencing when I said that. Honestly.

Oh, so you are a victim now?

You don't come on making assumptions about people, then insulting them, especially in the middle of a convo, where the person I was addressing completely understood what I was speaking about. You were the one who took it out of context. So don't tell me what I may have been confused about, or what's over my head.

The comment had nothing to do with you.

My elders, as brilliant as they are, never assume, so there is no worry as to how I reply to them...

...Green eggs and ham, baby.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

I didn't say anything about how you reply to your elders. Reread what I posted.

Dragging ppl out the cave is definitely over your head cuz you still have no clue what I'm referencing. If you do I don't see how saying losing one's hands could ever apply to the meaning of what I referenced.

@ the comment had nothing to do with me. Like I can't comment on any post I want on this forum. Your argument with FutureMD exists in a vacuum where only he is allowed to reply to it. Grow up son. I think that's what you're really mad about. I called you out on something that I was following the whole time and you're all perturbed that I'd question it when FutureMD initially looked past it only to come back to it later and echo similar sentiments I've been telling you from the jump.

Also I'm no victim I'm calling it how I see it. What you're portraying is faux open mindedness and sincerity, if you were really what you claim you are you would've explained yourself on your first reply to me but you didn't. Instead you'd rather tell me stories about who you had conversations with and who you grew up with claiming I made an assumption while you in turn do the same exact thing about me. You got me all figured out but can't address the argument.

 

[gatzbygordon]

 

[futuremd]

Also I'm no victim I'm calling it how I see it. What you're portraying is faux open mindedness and sincerity, if you were really what you claim you are you would've explained yourself on your first reply to me but you didn't. Instead you'd rather tell me stories about who you had conversations with and who you grew up with claiming I made an assumption while you in turn do the same exact thing about me. You got me all figured out but can't address the argument.

This is what always happens.

When they can't stick to the topic, they start trying to act like: "well its just niketalk, who cares!" or "you must be a loser if you're typing out your responses" or some other inane comment that feigns sincerity for you actually taking their argument seriously. My favorite tactic is when they claim you "flooded the thread" by merely responding to people who address you. As if the point of the thread isn't to...I don't know...participate? 

Its pathetic.