Homosexual help

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes Asher... cause when you get schooled in philosophy debates with Agathon, I think... oooh, there goes a real thinker, who was just whooped by a non-real thinker!

Agathon's pretty dense and shallow, too. Even you know that, when he debates anything but philosophy/artsy crap. But you're similarly in the philosophy/artsy crap, so you've no idea that he loses there, too.

In fact, you're all so dense that you can't see the obvious most of the time. Then since you all agree, you all think you're right.

You're not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course we are all right. When everyone agrees except you, Occam's Razor says we should credit everyone else .

Besides, what is 'truth' is a democratic exercise ('cause there is no absolute truth). If a great majority believes something is 'correct', then it is.

[Az]

So what do you do when a gay person says "that's gay"? Or doesn't care when people around him do so? I have a very good gay friend who says "that's gay" more than I do (I hardly say it)!

We don't have the parallel of that in Hebrew. ( describing things as 'gay', that is )

[Asher]

There is no truth in democratic exercise, nor is there much use. If the great majority believes something is 'correct', we'd still have slavery, blah blah blah.

I digress. Social sciences are a crock, and evidently the people who study them are full of sh*t as well, lacking the most basic reasoning abilities. It's rather unnerving, considering most of them run the countries -- then again, why else is government such an inefficient mess? Because it's full of social science retards.

[Az]

Technocracy.

[Asher]

We're pretty close to having The Matrix ready for production release 1.0.

[Solly]

What are we on about now? So do we conclude that calling things gay is a damn good way of showing you don't like them?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the great majority believes something is 'correct', we'd still have slavery, blah blah blah.

Not really (slavery was on its way out in the public opinion as well, except for some powerful plantation owners)... but going with this, if the great majority believed slavery was correct, then it would be. It was in the 1800.

Social sciences are a crock, and evidently the people who study them are full of sh*t as well, lacking the most basic reasoning abilities.

It must really KILL you then when Agathon runs loops around in basic reasoning .

then again, why else is government such an inefficient mess?

Mostly because it is realized by social science people that you must TALK to other people, and that results in compromise, which is inefficient. Engineers (and plenty of hard science yokels), being anti-social twits, can't function where they may have to say something to a real live person.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not really... but going with this, if the great majority believed slavery was correct, then it would be. It was in the 1800.

Nonsense, because it's clearly all relative, and therefore correct is not an apt description.

Accepted is not synonymous with correct.

It must really KILL you then when Agathon runs loops around in basic reasoning .

Wouldn't know, he's never done it.

Mostly because it is realized by social science people that you must TALK to other people, and that results in compromise, which is inefficient. Engineers (and plenty of hard science yokels), being anti-social twits, can't function where they may have to say something to a real live person.

Many of them are, which gives me an easy path up into management positions very quickly. And since I have a real degree and a real education with real use, I'm far more effective than the social science geeks who incorrectly use words like "correct".

[Solly]

You don't get many geeks in social sciences. Maybe in politics, but not in the rest.

And if you're wodnering why I'm in on a Friday night, I have an exam tomorrow at 9:30

[Asher]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
You don't get many geeks in social sciences. Maybe in politics, but not in the rest.

That's because in order to be a geek, you need to be intelligent.

And if you're wodnering why I'm in on a Friday night, I have an exam tomorrow at 9:30

And because you couldn't get laid, again.

[Solly]

This is getting really funny

[Imran Siddiqui]

because it's clearly all relative, and therefore correct is not an apt description.

Of course it is! If a great majority believe something is correct then it is. Like if a great majority believe something is true, then it is. 'Correct' and 'Truth' have been misinterpreted as objective statements. They aren't, they are subjective statements, and whether they fit depends on how many people use them.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course it is! If a great majority believe something is correct then it is. Like if a great majority believe something is true, then it is. 'Correct' and 'Truth' have been misinterpreted as objective statements. They aren't, they are subjective statements, and whether they fit depends on how many people use them.

Is 1+1=2 accepted or is it correct?

If correct, is it objectively correct or subjectively correct?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Both. It is accepted by most in the internal point of view, and since it is accepted it is correct.

It is subjectively correct, because it is only based on our perceptions and ways of looking at things. Apparently, in a prior thread, there was discussion about some forms of mathematics in with 1+1=0. And of course there is the question of whether what we percieve is what everything else percieves.