Posts by ruggedraven36

stormytiger4 said:Even though they haven't always seen eye to eye, Parsifal is clearly putting in the work to bring Belk back to its former glory.
He’s either setting up polls or just stirring the pot to prove he’s the one you need running things...🙏

I think you hit the nail on the head. Those two facts were rattling around my brain too, but I couldn't quite bridge the gap. It's a dirty game.

The question is pretty vague. Are we talking about meeting someone on our own level—a peer—or just facing ourselves in the mirror?

ironmarlin1 said:First off, that isn't actually a fact. Second, this whole idea of performing pseudo-intellectual acrobatics—the notion that you can simply step outside of society and "observe" it as if you aren't inherently part of its fabric—is pure delusion. It’s as if this person somehow stumbled, quite by accident and without any preconceived notions, into some remote tribe on the other side of the country just to "describe the people" and was suddenly struck by the sheer novelty of the facts they found. You seem to have conveniently omitted the "fact" of the observer themselves. And let’s be honest, he brought his own biases along like a loaded shotgun. I mean, we have so many wars, massacres, and tribalistic conflicts happening right here and now that we really need an "anthropologist" to come along and explain to us that, yes, other people are also fighting, too. You are completely ignoring the underlying intention of this "describer"—these tepid, lukewarm facts are nothing more than a mask for his own perspective.

As far as I’m concerned, the whole thing really just boils down to religious apologetics at its core. 😳

Even though Williams was an atheist.

Honestly, this Williams fellow seems to be nothing more than a complete and utter fool. Regarding what’s been cited here—I should probably clarify that I’m distancing myself from whatever vague, sweeping grand theories are being tossed around. I don't spend my time wading through the nonsensical ramblings of various self-proclaimed philosophers or theologians, nor am I someone who keeps up with the likes of Steven Pinker. I simply have no interest in consuming that kind of fluff. It all kicks off from this fundamentally flawed starting point—this idea that certain things are somehow "unnatural." It’s a slippery slope of logic: they argue that if mega-violence is considered a natural part of the human condition, then any concerted effort to reduce it must, by extension, be an affront to nature itself.

Where exactly did he say that?

It’s the same old story, really—once again, within this tiny little fragment of an argument, we find ourselves staring down the barrel of a logical fallacy. It all stems from a fundamental, deep-seated misunderstanding of nature and the mechanics of evolution itself. Instead of grappling with reality, there's this constant, wearying retreat into these hollow conceptual abstractions and flights of fancy, typical of a philosophical mind that has become quite frankly degenerate and regressive in its outlook. 🧐 😛

So, what you're doing here is essentially accusing someone of performing these elaborate conceptual acrobatics just to manufacture a position that they never actually voiced—and, frankly, one they would never even consider holding.

People aren't nearly as simple as we like to pretend they are. We are driven by a messy web of competing impulses, and depending on what’s most vital for survival or passing on our genetic legacy at any given moment, certain drives take the driver's seat while others are pushed firmly into the backseat. It’s this incredible capacity for adaptation that defines the human species; it's precisely why we’ve managed to spread ourselves across every corner of the globe, thriving in environments that would crush almost anything else. And this isn't just some slow-motion drama playing out over millions of years through evolutionary epochs—it happens in real-time, right under our noses. You see it when the landscape shifts: even a slight tremor in economic stability or a sudden dip in social security can instantly recalibrate everything. Suddenly, you notice shifts in the types of men women find attractive, or subtle pivots in the political spectrum and the very fabric of how we interact with one another. Everything is interconnected, reacting to the pressures of the moment.

"Humans aren't such complex creatures," you claim, and then immediately pivot to describing the micro-economics of cigarette trading in a high school courtyard. "Humans aren't such complex creatures," you say, before delivering the most vulgar, reductive, and utterly banal concept imaginable—evolutionary psychology.

Organized communities have simply proven more effective than tribal ones, which necessitates a higher degree of impulse control and the suppression of certain drives in favor of others; that’s just how history unfolded. I don't see any "transcendence" in any of this—honestly, it's a rather silly term. Of course, it's never perfect, which is why we still require the oversight of a repressive legal system.

"Impulse control." (Humans aren't such complex creatures)
"The male." (Humans aren't such complex creatures)
Well, Sigmund Freud did speak about the role of "impulse control," but you seem to be interpreting that through a strictly Victorian lens. In the modern era, people are essentially paralyzed by their own inertia, yet here you are lecturing us on the luxury of "controlling one's impulses."

Furthermore, nothing is being "erased"; rather, the circle of "us-ness" is simply expanding.

And now we're bringing in Peter Singer. (Humans aren't such complex creatures)

It isn't that our tribe was just a literal tribe; it evolved through new instruments of control and homogenization, such as religion, race, the nation-state, and other mechanisms. It is only with globalization that the need for universal human rights and equality emerged, and that is the phase we find ourselves in now.

We aren't.

In reality, none of this is a simple erasure; instead, there are multi-layered tendencies, conflicts, and micro-conflicts at play. People coalesce into "tribes" based on various foundations within broader frameworks; some exhibit a stronger in-group mentality than others, all heavily dependent on levels of social, economic, and general security, as well as the degree of trust in government institutions and so on. To truly form a global tribe, we'd probably need an alien invasion, since such unity is best forged against the backdrop of an "other."

Someone who prefers the Steven Pinker version of humanity over Thomas Mann (or Bernard Williams, for that matter) talking about "multi-layered tendencies" and a "global tribe."

Spare me the grand philosophies, the talk of transcendence, and all that nonsense—it's just a way for a murky gray mass of people with inflated verbal intelligence to swirl around abstractions while lacking any actual mathematical rigor or grasp of the facts.

Williams actually noted that Pinker introduces a sort of psychology of transcendence. And you, quite clearly, are a disciple of those idiotic movements.
What on earth does a Lebesgue integral have to do with the "expansion of the circle of us-ness"? Honestly, if someone from my math department thinks they have better insights into "social movements" than anyone else, they are truly delusional. Have you even seen Sam Peckinpah's *Straw Dogs*, the one about the mathematician?

Look, buddy, it’s just one idiot talking to another; if they actually had anything worthwhile to contribute, they’d be occupied with something far more substantive and concrete. The most successful thing about these simpletons today is how they manage to stay small-time, acting as mere sidekicks to serious science—if they aren't outright trying to wedge a spoke into a wheel of a machine they can't even begin to comprehend. They borrow from it, they steal from it, and then they try to spin their own brand of nonsense to cater to their little niche audience 😳 Honestly, though, there's an evolutionary explanation for all this—even a useless beta male without any real comparative advantages has to find a way to land a date, and he always finds some wide-eyed coed charmed by a messy, pseudo-philosophical disarray and empty verbal posturing. It’s essentially just a slightly more eloquent version of a cult leader, a guru, or a New Age charlatan 🕺

"Serious science"? Since you clearly consider yourself such an expert on facts, do you have an explanation for this compulsive need to constantly praise STEM and "serious science"? Especially when we're already dealing with the fact that you can't even objectively observe yourself. And you'd "just describe" things? I suppose that must be some sort of "impulse" you haven't quite learned to master yet.
Alpha and beta males. ("It's not that simple")
He just wants chicks. ("It's not that simple")
Have you ever considered that modeling everything after the animal kingdom is just a symptom of our specific era? Namely, the animalistic era:

The rest of your post is completely incoherent, but fine, I'll be polite and won't comment on why 😁

No, the rest of the post is perfectly coherent, and there’s actually an evolutionary reason why you won't touch it. It’s because you're a coward who doesn't want to rock the boat. You know how the informant system worked in those old communist states, where faceless bureaucrats would just look the other way regarding certain phenomena? "You must have imagined it all." (We'll just frame that as urban entertainment, shall we?)
Now, some psychologists do study the sources of illusions, which is a somewhat noble pursuit. But when someone refuses to even "look" at certain things, you know you're dealing with something vital. Isn't that right, in the interest of "politeness" for the gentleman bluemason3?

Is it coherent to say that Harvey Weinstein was a serial rapist, given that it was only recently exposed? Before that, was it all just "incoherent gossip"? And that happened in "developed" America. So how much worse must it be here? But no, bluemason3 is busy imitating Robert Copal... Look, Copal knows how to project an aura of scientific authority, but you almost seem to believe your own rhetoric. You're like that "little guy" being bewitched by some "beta male." Besides, what purpose do all those "business schools" or "economics departments" serve otherwise?

Even the word "complexity" is just another way of oversimplifying things. The second someone starts whining about how everything is too complex to grasp, you know they’re just gearing up to shove some reductionist theory down your throat.

mistybison said:Trolling isn't allowed unless you bring flowers for Mother's Day. 🙂

Honestly, I didn't even realize it was March 8th.

Happy International Women's Day—here's hoping you get every single one of those hard-won rights you deserve!

mistybison said:When you look at all that Druid spam, are you truly certain there's anyone there who actually deserves their own subforum? 😁

Saying someone "deserves" a subforum is just plain stupid. Who's the dictator supposed to be making that call?

mistybison said:I really enjoyed reading the executioner. Even though they post less frequently now and mostly stick to jokes, their serious contributions were a true pleasure to read. 🙂 Years ago, I would actually head down to the New York Times just to follow the executioner's participation in various debates. 😍 😁 Not only do they have a solid background in philosophy, but they are also an exceptional debater. 👍 I also believe they have a great vision for how the "Philosophy" subforum should function—specifically, ensuring it doesn't become almost entirely dominated by social and political topics like it does today.

Executioner really ought to go by James Bond—his avatar is straight out of that classic series, Seventeen Moments of Spring.

mistybison said:For me, it’s more of an emotional reaction: "I'm bored, I can't take this anymore!" Whereas you seem to be driven by constant principles. 😁

Quote : Weekend Warrior

My character isn't the point; what matters is that philosophy and spirituality simply don't go together.

Those good old forum days. 🧐 We used to have a combined "Religion and Philosophy" subforum, but we eventually realized that those two subjects don't really mix well, so we decided to split them into separate sections. Later on, the "free thinkers" requested their own space to distance themselves from the traditionalists in "Religion" to avoid constant arguments, which led to the creation of the "Spirituality" subforum.

While there might be a limited number of users on each individual subforum, merging them together simply doesn't make sense. No one actually wants that.

Beyond that, the forum as a whole struggles with moderation issues. There have been times when the Religion section goes unmonitored for days, leading to absolute chaos. It would be truly unfair to burden the few moderators who actually still want to do their jobs with even more work.

Somied was an active community member and moderator until he took on "Philosophy," but that eventually became too much of a drag for him, leading to his departure. Are you all aware of the impact your actions have on people? 😁

Well, being exhausted is a principle too.

mistybison said:You have threatened to quit so many times now that it carries no weight at all. 😁

Honestly, you could just switch to a different username and continue posting; that way, you could actually claim to be principled and show some real backbone. 😁

Forum addiction is simply too strong... 😈 😁

The owl mocked the shadow.

My character isn't the issue here—the issue is that philosophy and spirituality just don't mesh.

Melissa Stewart6 said:If I can't track down a moderator, they should just merge philosophy and spirituality into a single subforum, managed by the current spirituality mods.

Honestly? I’d stop posting altogether if they merged philosophy and spirituality. Philosophy needs its own space—it shouldn't be lumped in with anything else.

Gerald Jackson48 said:I'm with you. They needed to step in because things spiraled out of control on several levels. We definitely need a moderator.

I don't buy the idea of nuking the entire thread. Even if only 10% of the posts are actually decent, those should stay.

As for moderation—honestly, maybe nobody actually wants the job. And even if they do, there's no guarantee they'll actually pull their weight. That’s why I'm backing the Freudian suggestion that users should have some kind of veto power over moderator decisions.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Honestly, anything less than a total transformation wouldn't cut it for me. 😁

And then, of course, turning them back to normal. Just so I can look them in the eye and say, "See? I told you that you were being a pig."

🤣

Sometimes you don't even need the grand makeover. It's enough if he just owns it: "Flying, I was being a pig!"

Man, I'm picturing it something like this

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Fine, I’ll bite. But seriously—stop trying to pass off your personal hunches as actual math. Read more, type less. Most people here actually know their stuff—maybe try learning something from them instead of lecturing.

Thanks on behalf of everyone who actually wants to have a real discussion on this topic. Me? I'm sitting this one out.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:There’s no reason to be elitist about it—even nowadays, there are plenty of people who didn't get a solid grasp of high school math, so this topic might actually be helpful for them.

Look, I don't know what they're teaching in high schools these days, but my own math skills were enough to land me in the top tier at state-level competitions back in the day—so I’m hardly the clueless amateur you're making me out to be. Not that it even matters. There's a massive difference between being a skilled mathematician and actually grasping the fundamental concepts that everything else is built on. This whole debate just proves my point.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:My call? Just close the thread without any warnings or deletions. But hey, if you’re dead set on adding those, I guess we can play it your way.

I've got a better idea. Reopen the thread—I promise I won't say a single word, even if someone tries to drag me into it with a question. If my word isn't enough for you, go ahead and ban me; like I said, I really don't care.

By the way, since when did it become illegal in math to call out contradictory definitions? It’s hilarious—two of the main guys here actually agreed with me earlier when I pointed out that you can't really have a "number of elements" in an infinite set, yet they don't seem to mind using the phrase "the number of elements" when talking about an "infinite set." So now, I'm supposed to get banned just for being "stubbornly pedantic"?

It’s actually a good thing you didn't scrub those posts—they speak volumes about what's really going on beneath the surface of her persona. I'll leave the final verdict to the readers who aren't too lazy to think for themselves. Your decision wasn't based on the reasons you listed here—which are only half the story anyway—but was driven by ideology, whether you realize it or not.

As for getting a strike or a ban? I couldn't care less.

The "math problem" thread over in the natural science subforum just got shut down today—after being open for over a year. I jumped back into things at post #80, and suddenly, in just the last few days, more than half the replies have flooded in (taking us up to post #212). A handful of users joined in, and the debate was actually more heated than it’s ever been. But they closed it for this reason:

"Nah, I'd say the thread is getting stale so I'm locking it."

Clearly, the issue isn't some "stale thread"—it's me. If that moderator—whose name isn't even worth mentioning—had any legitimate reason or the actual authority to kick me off the thread, he would've jumped at the chance. Honestly, even if he'd made up some bogus excuse, it would've been better than this. Not for my sake, though—I've already said everything I had to say anyway.

Justin Baker6 said:Look, we all pretty much know the deal: ideas start in the mind and eventually turn into reality if they actually serve a purpose.
But could it work the other way around?
Could something already physical undergo dematerialization and loop back into its original concept?
I’m talking about a total reversal—without having to smash some object into pieces to make it happen.

Is there even a distinction between realization and dematerialization?

It makes sense to fight for your freedom—kind of like that deserter in Cesarić's poem "Pređi":

From army to forest he went
And lived off roots and dirt.
He had nothing left but his freedom,
And he defended it by running.

... etc.