Posts by Elizabeth Ruiz65

Rebecca Cox2 said:How do you actually change someone's mind when they refuse to listen to logic?

By ditching arguments altogether and leaning into some good old-fashioned demagoguery. =)

I actually just wrote a review for this film over on IMDb a moment ago, so I’ll just
copy-paste it here. I hope nobody minds me being too lazy to rewrite the whole thing
into English.

In case anyone is struggling with the language, I'll just say it's an excellent
piece of work that somehow manages to be both entertaining and deeply serious at once. It’s
something you’ll particularly enjoy if you have an interest in existentialism or
a few other philosophies, where the real pleasure lies in spotting those
philosophical concepts woven directly into everyday, often quite
(semi-)satirical situations. All of this acts as a springboard for the film to approach
the questioning of human
existence in a tone that is both fun and instructional. Watching it left me feeling completely full of
positive energy, and the incredible soundtrack only helps enhance that
upbeat vibe.

--------------

"To really get the humor in this movie, you need to be somewhat familiar with philosophy and its
core concepts. Once you have that foundation, you realize right away
how brilliantly the entire existential theory is portrayed through a variety of
scenarios where those philosophical ideas are placed within the context of
everyday life.

The message the film delivers is profound.

We aren't defined by what we do to satisfy others; we are defined by what we do to satisfy
ourselves. Human suffering is a necessary ingredient for creating magic and happiness—you
can't have one without the other. There is a piece of us in everything,
whether it’s something we loathe or something we adore. Once we grasp that, we can finally
break free from the shackles of the identities society imposes on us and reconnect
with our true inclinations. Love, hate, existentialism, nihilism... they all stem from the
same underlying source. Yet, we spend our entire lives oscillating between
these binary poles. We ought to realize that there is a bit of
everything in everything. We should recognize the homogeneity of the universe,
where differences are merely modulations designed to keep people busy on the foolish
task of running in circles between those extremes. It’s a very Baudrillardian perspective on
things. Nothing exists without a reason, yet nothing exists solely because of one. Don't
try to assign meaning to everything, but don't try to strip it all away either. Find
the balance between those poles. That is the ultimate goal."

jeez said:I don't think the specific identity of those being hanged matters much here.
The point is what they represent,
and that’s Saddam.
As for that 99 percent majority everyone talks about, there you have it.
It was carried out by hanging, right during the holidays, too.
It’s hard to imagine a more twisted perversion than that.😕
All of this just feeds into an even greater sense of global chaos,
and there’s no end in sight.🙏

Imagine if they had hung him right before all those fireworks,
cheers, and celebrations—it would look like instead of New Year's Eve,
people were actually celebrating his death.😁

Even if I'm exaggerating, there might be some truth to it...

Sometimes, just the act of searching for meaning can be the purpose itself.
It’s a pursuit that gives essence to the mere fact of being alive, even if
it turns out nothing is actually there.

wanderingmaker8 said:Because the topic was framed as a forced choice between two options rather than offering three distinct possibilities.

I get what you're saying, really, but that doesn't make it any more answerable. Wouldn't it be significantly better if...
If you actually wanted to explore this kind of dualistic discourse, wouldn't it have been better to just ask, "Was Jesus...?"
"Leftist" or "right-winger"? If you actually wanted to reach anyone, maybe try framing the question with a bit more reality.
The results.

I don't get why everyone is tearing this topic apart. Have people just completely lost their sense of humor when it comes to satire?
I look at this entire thread through a satirical lens, and if that’s the way we’re playing things, there's really only one question left to ask.
It’s actually pretty clever and innovative.

I fail to see how none of the big brains in this thread managed to realize that, nor have they...
A quick poll posed an interesting question: does Jesus actually possess the core characteristics of today's political left?
Honestly, given certain factors, you just can't call them leftists—not if they're also doing that.
It’s funny how they manage to check all the modern right-wing boxes while simultaneously being completely undermined by their own specific obsessions. Is that really the best they can do?
He can't exactly label things as "right-wing," much like everything else he's unable to properly categorize.
If you try to force everything into a binary 0 or 1 framework, wouldn't you just end up crowding the center? It’s the same issue we see with Elizabeth Dole.
What's up, everyone? 😁

Blue bird. rustymaker5 said:You really need to go back and re-read what I actually said. You spent your entire response throwing everything out there at once—just a massive pile of words—but none of it hits the mark. By the way, this isn't some debate about why someone might be a theist. Just look at that absolute nonsense you wrote—the part I bolded. An atheist isn't even "in relation" to gods the way a theist is. Honestly, it seems like you don't even grasp the basic definition of theism to begin with. Ouch.

Why don't you just teach me what a circular definition actually is? I'll give you a classic example anyway:

God exists simply because that’s what the Bible says—and the Bible was written by God.
So, circular reasoning actually exists when you bake your conclusion right into the premise from the very beginning.

----------------------
Take a look at the nonsense you just wrote—the very thing I was bolding.
----------------------

Yours.
Every theist is just an atheist when compared to whatever other god someone else happens to be praying to.

My SHA was acting up again.
It isn't about being an atheist in relation to some collection of other gods—that’s not how you're framing this.

My entire argument is basically just eighty percent of your own text, only flipped on its head.
Contextually speaking, if I actually managed to write something stupid, eighty percent of that stupidity belongs to you. =)

It’s honestly pretty hilarious that they’re actually attributing a lack of understanding regarding the concept of theism to me.
So, we have someone who defines a theist simply as anyone who isn't an atheist. =)

When it comes to those circular definitions you love to brag about, here’s a little thought.

---------------------------
Whatever you theists happen to believe in, I don't. It's that simple.
And what exactly am I not a believer in? In the things that theists believe in, apparently.

So, who exactly qualifies as an atheist? It’s just someone who isn't a theist, isn't there? That's how the logic flows.
And who isn't an atheist? The one who believes in God, I suppose.
----------------------------

Yeah, you’ve got a point there. Those non-circular definitions actually exist... somehow.

Bluebird. said:Ugh... I went on quite a rant over on that religion forum, specifically in the agnostic/atheist thread. I think I’ve officially typed myself into exhaustion.😁 Well, looks like I have to step in here again...

I have to admit one thing—I didn't exactly expect this level of discourse from the philosophy department.
What a joke. This blatant misuse of the word "belief" is just pathetic.🙄

Look, it’s pretty simple: theists are the ones who initiated the whole "God exists" narrative in the first place. Atheism is merely the reaction to that initial claim—a rebuttal to the premise they laid down. How can you argue against a concept that wasn't even on the table until they brought it up? In essence, atheism is just the response to theism.

So, first the theists went off on their little rant, then the atheists fired back with a "yeah, right," but honestly, who really cares?
What exactly was the catalyst that pushed them toward that infamous "give me a break" attitude?
There are two possibilities here.

I’ve mentioned this before: the idea that there’s a dualistic possibility between theism and non-combat—or perhaps, the tension between battle and stillness within faith.
I find myself stuck in this endless loop, completely unable to make a rational choice between those two concepts.
Ultimately, it all boils down to the distinction between being decisive and remaining completely indifferent.

ili

Their own inability to grasp metaphysical concepts is exactly what drives them toward...
Is there any chance we could pivot toward a more rational worldview? Something grounded in actual science, for instance.

So, what are you actually getting at when you claim that atheism isn't an answer to theism, but rather just a void? Is it really that simple?
It’s often argued that most 20th-century movements were essentially just a massive pushback against positivism, but is that really the whole story?
The reasoning behind those answers—and the consequences they ultimately triggered—is what actually matters here.

Furthermore, you’re overcomplicating the definitions of atheism and theism. It's really that simple.
One dictionary offers a specific definition for theism.

Believing in a higher power, or specifically in a personal God—is that just a matter of faith, or is there something more to it?
As if they were the architect and sovereign of the entire universe.

Presumably, atheism is defined simply as the absence of the written word.

So, let’s just stick to the idea that theism is simply the belief in God and...
If we’re looking at it through the lens of a divine creation of the universe... then really, it's just...
Believing in something doesn't automatically make you a theist. I can believe in my own intuition, for instance.
Is my toothbrush really the ultimate source of my happiness and oral hygiene? Perhaps. But am I going to give it too much credit? Not a chance.
Is it divine status or the power to create worlds? It’s essentially the same thing.
An atheist scientist? You could arguably say he places his faith in science and the laws of nature.
Laws should be viewed as a creative force, though instead of attributing some mystical, metaphysical quality to them...
He’s making quite an effort to keep things grounded in reality and actually make sense, which is exactly why he’s getting under people's skin.
It separates him from theists.

Every theist is just an atheist when compared to whatever other god actually exists.

It might sound pretty enough on first listen, but there are definitely some holes in the logic.
Let's start with an analogy. To be considered a carnivore, you don't actually have to eat meat.
You don't have to love every single type of meat out there, but you should probably consider all the options available.
What options are there? You could, for instance, decide to eat nothing but chicken and spend the rest of your life hating everything else, but that’s hardly practical.
That doesn't change the fact that you're just as much of a carnivore as someone eating wild boar.
White-bellied, crocodile-style... =) Basically, just being a predator.
It isn’t about some kind of mindless cannibalism; it's purely about fulfillment.
The bare minimum requirement for being a carnivore is simply that you eat meat.
If we swap in the terminology from our current topic, aren't we left with the conclusion that theism doesn't?
It’s not really about having faith in every single god under the sun; it's more about just checking a box to get things done.
What is the bare minimum requirement for being a theist? To believe. That’s it. Even if you don't have all the answers.
Was the belief centered on a single deity, or were they actually worshipping all those old Egyptian gods?

Theism is essentially just a structural support for belief, something that springs directly from the human psyche and flows outward into the world.
Metaphysics is that territory where things are never quite provable by pure logic. How much of it will actually...
May the gods tie that thing down with a heavy chain; it’s a matter of individual responsibility. But then again, look at what it actually does.
A theist’s existence is predicated on the very concept of a connection being described. So, we aren't really talking
about an atheist existing in relation to other gods, regardless of how you choose to frame it.

blue bird said:Whatever you theists believe in, I don't!

So, who's the atheist? Just whoever isn't a theist!

And let's skip the circular definitions, shall we? =)

Ronald Rodriguez73 said:don't take this personally... but I'm feeling skeptical about whether I'll ever actually wrap my head around this post of yours. Between the grammar, the lack of line breaks, and the inconsistent capitalization... 🙂
And yeah... I don't agree with your take on atheists. At least not for me, and I won't speak for everyone else since everyone has their own reasons.

There are things I can't wrap my mind around either, but just because I
can't grasp them mentally doesn't mean they don't make sense. It’s the same logic
if we look at it from your perspective versus mine. My
personal impression is that your post isn't any more complex than most of the posts on
this subforum. If you truly find it that difficult, maybe put in a little effort if
you care that much about understanding it; we aren't children who need everything
handed to us on a silver platter.

And you claim you don't agree with my stance on atheists? How exactly
can you agree or disagree with something you haven't even understood yet? 😁

funny people

Veronica said:That’s a somewhat clumsy way to frame it—suggesting atheists reject all religions because none are "worthy" of their faith.

The vast majority simply don't buy the doctrines of any organized religion.
I suppose one could argue that non-belief is its own kind of faith, much like having faith in evolution.
Atheists aren't quite as arrogant as your argument implies. Interestingly, they often seem more moral than those who proclaim themselves devout believers while constantly frequenting churches, yet consciously choosing to ignore divine commandments.
As for those who use profanity and constant blasphemy just to prove they're atheists,
they are actually just outcasts from both faith and basic human decency.
Skepticism and atheism are not the same thing.

And how exactly do you distinguish a skeptic from an atheist? An atheist believes
in the relativity of faith, whereas a pure skeptic's belief in relativity
extends to other domains of existence untouched by religion. Again,
we are talking about a belief in the relative, just on a broader scale for the skeptic.
Another key similarity is that through their insight into relativism,
they either refuse or find themselves unable to commit to a definitive
viewpoint, which results in a nihilistic denial of certainty
regarding knowledge; this leads to a commitment to indecision, which is
itself a choice. Atheists achieve this by not choosing a religious
component, while skeptics avoid any metaphysical or secular choice
where duality is present. Further proof that there isn't a sharp
divide between skepticism and atheism is that every hardcore
skeptic is essentially an atheist, since if one advocates for the relativity
of everything, that must include the relativity of faith. If we flip the logic,
not every atheist needs to be a skeptic, though it can serve as a useful
springboard for them to project their relativistic views onto other life
spheres, thereby adopting a stronger skeptical charge.

Atheists, skeptics, and anyone else who generally stands against any established form of knowledge—all
of them share one massive, glaring issue of self-contradiction that effectively undermines
their own positions. It boils down to this:

The claim that one believes in nothing inherently contains a hidden belief, and that belief
is essentially the act of BELIEVING IN NON-BELIEF.

To put it in perspective, an ATHEIST believes that no religion is worthy of
their conviction.

And a SKEPTIC believes that absolutely nothing in this world is worthy of their trust.

That is the fundamental flaw that discredits everyone who identifies
as a skeptic or an atheist. Total non-belief is difficult, if not entirely impossible, to
actually achieve.

Well, what else could one expect? I step away for a few hours, and immediately I’m hit by this compulsive
need to prove something, resulting in nothing more or less
than three posts fueled by nothing but prejudice, condescension, and pathetic
attempts at cynicism—calling me "kid," "punk," or "little guy." Then, in those same
posts, you claim I'm the one directing intense energy toward you (despite you writing three posts
to my single one), and suggest I resort to insults due to a lack of arguments, while you
continuously rely on those shallow, childish cynical jabs. 🙂
Regarding the theory, part of it sounds plausible, but since you haven't actually found any footage or techniques to demonstrate,
it remains nothing more than ink on paper that proves absolutely nothing.
And why would anyone even step into the ring if training consists entirely of semi-
full sparring aimed at testing how things work in practice? For some, the goal in
life isn't proving themselves in a ring. But I understand you; for someone with such a compulsive
need for validation, it must be difficult to grasp that not everyone is wired the same way. =) You have your own
stubborn views that aren't going to change; no matter what I say, you'll just
come back with another "argument"—which is really just a prejudice—like the idea that a student
must be inferior to the teacher, served up in a mega-mix of childish epithets
that aren't even intelligent enough to be funny. As I told you, I wasn't in the restroom
for long, and quite frankly, I have zero interest in bickering over which approach is superior
or glorifying any specific style, especially at such a low level. The topic wasn't
opened to disparage anything, but rather with the intention of
learning and having a constructive discussion. Seeing through these
few posts that I won't get either from you—and seeing how you've taken a topic
that was foreign to me as a direct assault on your very
integrity and existence—even if I could provide an answer to your
question, I simply see no point in answering it or continuing the discussion itself.

So, I will cordially bid you farewell and sincerely wish you a life with a lower
level of bitterness and insecurity.

CHE-Guerrilla said:Where on earth did you get the idea that I’d want to start an argument, or that I was trying to glorify anything? Seriously, who actually started the thread asking for thoughts on P.Bayer Wing Chun... you or me? 😉
Everything you just said doesn't even come close to justifying calling something "P. Bayer Wing Chun." As for this idea that Man "individualized" his training sessions? That’s really just a misunderstanding of the cheap marketing gimmicks his students push around... and honestly, I can tell you couldn't care less about them. 😉 This concept of "individualization" really just boils down to a few key things:
There are people out there who spent a tiny fraction of time with Master Y, or perhaps haven't even trained with him at all, yet they act like experts. They haven't actually learned much in such a short window, but hey, when you don't know something, it’s always easier to just pretend you do, isn't it? It doesn't matter what we believe; everyone is convinced of their own version of the truth. I won't dwell on this too long—this cold is giving me a massive headache—but here is the point. Everything you just laid out is textbook indoctrination. We all know why certain "adjustments" are made and when. All those voluntary "improvisations" you mentioned are either a complete failure to grasp the core essence of Wing Chun, or they are nothing more than pure marketing designed to say, "We’re different," or "We’re more Westernized." It’s simple logic: you can't run before you learn how to walk. No matter how traditional that might sound to some, it's just the reality of the situation. Essentially, these modifications exist because people lack fundamental knowledge, or because they want to sell a fantasy. I told you before that I’m glad you’re happy and getting some exercise, but based on what you wrote, it looks like you’ve fallen for the propaganda. I don't care how much that upsets you or your "Sifu" Bichanic. As for this supposed "scientific approach" of yours, I’ll only take it seriously once someone from the Bayer lineage actually steps into a ring or even attempts to compete. Given that Bayer has been teaching for over thirty years, that's the benchmark. Until then, I couldn't care less about these modifications or the "science" behind them—they're only relevant to me as a way to pass the time or get some light recreation. Don't feel attacked or anything. I'm just telling you exactly what I think about these "modernizations" and this scientific veneer. 🙂

I already explained why I categorized that as P.Bayer’s Wing Chun, and I said...
I’m not looking to glorify one specific approach over another, and that’s exactly where we stood.
That's it. Honestly, everything I just listed was just the general state of affairs in the US.
It’s not like this is aimed solely at Bayer or their specific way of doing things.
The best. And you just rushed right in, didn't you? That childish need to prove yourself took over immediately.
Everything they say is just a distraction, a little detour from the point. You really think that kind of indirect jab isn't a direct hit on you?
(Just regarding indoctrination), and then you resort to the shallowest, cheapest attempts possible.
It’s been a while since I’ve heard cynicism quite like that—something along the lines of "me and my old mentor."
Or these pathetic attempts at mockery just because they're trying to link everything back to Bayer?
Prosthetics and the modifications mentioned—nothing lower than that.
And I’m certainly not going to lecture anyone on that particular brand of egoism—the kind that stems from the desperate need for YOU to be the one to take the credit.
When you see Bayer’s scientific approach in a fight, it's pretty much common knowledge that he's...
That whole approach is essentially just Wong’s legacy, isn't it? And now you're telling me that even Wong wouldn't...
He never actually fought (aiming for Beimo). That whole ego trip was just about what you’re going to do.
Admit it, you actually believe the world revolves around you and that everyone else should just revolve around you too.
What would people practicing Wing Chun actually care about? What would some guy on a forum think of them?
Someone who prefers to stay out of the spotlight.

Like I said before, I couldn't care less about these endless WC debates—especially not here.
At such a childish level, where instead of being constructive, it just relies on...
Driven by nothing but deep-seated prejudices and a childish need to belittle. 👋

p.s. since you’re constantly obsessing over some ring, why don't you actually show me the footage?
I’d love to see your favorite bathroom combat highlights, just for the sake of being informed.

ruggedfalcon2 said:So, you mean Elizabeth Ruiz65? 🙂 😉

I wasn't bringing this up just to glorify "my" version of P. Bayer’s Wing Chun
or anything else like it. It’s more because you see it mentioned everywhere
that when Yip Man’s students progressed, he tended to tailor the training philosophy
specifically to each individual. This led to some students championing anti-grappling
techniques while others wouldn't dream of touching them. Some instructors might
only introduce stick work after years of training,
whereas others use a few drills to establish a solid stance almost immediately.
Some insist on starting with Bong Sau through lateral lifting exercises,
while others demand that elbow rotation from day one. Some people love to mystify
everything with talk of Chi energy and similar nonsense,
while others stick strictly to a scientific, essentially Western, approach.

By attaching a specific name to a style practiced by someone who studied under Yip Man,
you're implying it's his direct lineage, but it actually provides a clearer picture
of that specific person's methods rather than just saying "I do Yip Man's Wing Chun."
The reason is simple: not everyone incorporates every single element of the original
teaching in the same way, and modifications inevitably creep in over time,
whether that's for positive reasons, negative ones, pure propaganda,
or just plain old marketing—or lack thereof.

That’s all there is to it. I don't really care for these endless Wing Chun debates here;
my take is that we should probably spend more time training and less time talking.

dustywolf52 said:There’s one thing I don't get. If you're claiming there's no such thing as Leung Ting Wing Chun, Wong Wing Chun, or Bayer Wing Chun, then what's the logic behind saying Yip Man Wing Chun exists while the others don't?

He's probably just trying to say that Yip Man was the primary figure responsible for passing everything down.
Basically, he's implying everything traces back to him. But honestly, I don't see why we couldn't
use terms like Leung Ting Wing Chun, Wong Wing Chun, or Emin Boztepe Wing Chun. It's almost certain
that there are distinct differences in methodology and approach among those three styles. By attributing
everything solely to Yip Man's Wing Chun, you aren't getting the full picture of what's actually being discussed.

ruggedfalcon2 said:Look, honestly, I’m not nitpicking here—I’m just simplifying things. It's about what happens when someone decides to add their own little "flair" to the mix. 🙄 It happens often because there’s either a lack of actual expertise or they just throw things in for marketing fluff. As far as I know, Bayer hasn't ever truly fought for anything, so I'm not exactly convinced that what he "added" is actually effective or useful. You're probably from somewhere like New Jersey or the surrounding area... I know a guy over there who works with P. Bayer a few times a year. 🙄 ...well, I suppose the bottom line is that you’re happy and satisfied. 👍 It all really boils down to what you’re looking for from the skill or sport you're training. If the goal is just recreation and hanging out with people, then I think you've made a solid choice. 🙂

Yeah, exactly. His name is Danijel. That's where I train. It’s true, I've been there a few times.
He’s been training at Bayer for a year now. He started three years ago, but he's been there almost every single day since.
It’s been about nine years now. Mostly, I put in two hours every single day—and they’re pretty intense.
Training sessions just to pass them off as some kind of casual recreation—at the start, that’s obviously where the focus lies.
Studying the theory, then immediately putting those elements into practice.
It starts with intense drilling—even some work on the dolls—and then moves into full sparring. It’s a pretty tough principle to live by.
Work. No holding back on the strikes, no skimping on the rest, and honestly? I love that about it. Also, every single...
Training’s wrapping up. We spent the last 20 minutes hitting the heavy bags—100kg and 50kg sets.
What's the point of focusing on those guys who just cling to the wall like they're trying to become part of the drywall? Or is this some kind of elaborate exercise involving a pole?
From about 10 to 12 feet away. There aren't many of us around—maybe three or four at most per session, if we're lucky. That's about it.
It allows for quite a bit of independent work, which is just a plus in my book.

Ruggedfalcon2 said:First off, I have absolutely no clue what anyone could possibly mean by "Philipp Bayerov Wing Chun." 😕 To be honest, I’ve only ever really studied Yip Man’s Wing Chun. 🙂

Come on now, let's not sweat the small stuff. It’s true that everything traces back to Ip Man, but there's more to the story than that.
It’s common knowledge that everyone eventually adds their own little spin to things or just twists them to suit their own narrative.
It’s a specific way of being—whether it's leaning into the positive or sinking into the negative. Just in that sense.
He was thinking "Philipp Bayerov Wing Chun." I'm actually just starting my own training recently.
Just for your information—this comes from someone who’s been working over at Bayer for a few years now. =)
Yeah, thanks for the reply.

What’s your take on Philipp Bayer's Wing Chun?

shadowgardener12 said:hmm www.answers.com, I don't ever rely on the internet.
There’s plenty of that out there... just hearsay and people getting the context completely wrong.

Don't assume I'm only saying this because I stumbled upon it on some random site; my
professor has spent years studying Sanskrit and its linguistic
structure, and Hatha uses that specific explanation in his translations. The link
is just the first thing I found that backs up what I'm saying.
As for the other points mentioned, I have nothing to add; there's actually stuff here
that I wasn't even aware of.

Regarding the Buddhist adoption of yoga, isn't it interesting to note that
its roots go back to when the Indian prince Bodhidharma—also
known as Da Mo—arrived at the main Shaolin Temple in the 6th century.
Finding the Buddhist monks there physically unprepared
and constantly nodding off during intensive meditation, he retreated
to a nearby cave for nine full years and developed
a mental and physical system based on elements of yoga,
which is widely considered the origin of Shaolin Kung Fu.

shadowgardener12 said:I haven't heard of any legitimate Yoga school or tradition that actually interprets "HaTha" as literal physical force.
The standard consensus remains the balance of the sun and moon—Pingala and Ida.

In Yoga, there is no such thing as force; there is only minimal effort. There is Ahimsa. Any use of force just creates more turbulence in the mind. Yoga is about letting go, not straining. Sure, if you push through Asanas using brute strength—like in some intense Ashtanga Vinyasa flows—you'll get certain physical results, but you're going to miss the most important mental component entirely.

Here is what I was getting at regarding the original Sanskrit meaning:

http://www.answers.com/topic/hatha-yoga

[Sanskrit haṭhayogaḥ : haṭhaḥ, violence, force (from forcing the mind to withdraw from the outside world by the use of difficult postures) + yogaḥ, union, yoga; see yoga.]