Which of the following is the most worthless?

[Asher]

Originally posted by rah
I can think and talk.

I disagree with your assertion.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Why? I already know when you're trolling and when you aren't...

Only sometimes. Only sometimes....

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I've said several serious things in this thread. I've deliberately overstated my actual beliefs in order to provide a level of levity in an already silly discussion. I've also said certain things I don't believe at all (for the same reason).

Your mission, should you choose to acept it, is to apply critical thinking skills, along with prior knowledge of my stances on several issues as well as my relationship with certain poly posters in order to disentangle these different threads of conversation.

Im not going to spend the time unraveling all tangled threads, or sorting out how much of what someone (esp a deliberate troll) is saying that is A. His actual belief and B. entirely ironic and C. Slightly overstated.

You have critiqued one of Gepaps favorite techniques - "I never said that" Another favorite technique some use is "it was only a troll" after saying something that could be read as a serious argument. It has the exact same uses as Gepaps technique.

And I also am not going to check out an given posters complete posting history and knowledge. I dont know if youre aware of quantitative work in sociology, and even if you are, I dont know if folks who read you are aware of that.

Ergo, in many cases of "trolling" I will simply assert truths, and will ignore whether im falling for a "sarcastic troll" IMO trolls do so at their own risk - if they are misunderstood its THEIR problem, and their readers are under no obligation to figure them out. If you are going to be upset that someone addressed seriously an issue raised by your "troll" I would suggest that its YOU who have issues with social skills.

[Asher]

blah blah blah, you artsies are too long winded.

[KrazyHorse]

Im not going to spend the time unraveling all tangled threads, or sorting out how much of what someone (esp a deliberate troll) is saying that is A. His actual belief and B. entirely ironic and C. Slightly overstated.

I suggest you go somewhere else, then.

[KrazyHorse]

You might want to start here

[rah]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I'd consider those the "worst of", actually.

You're opinion only, and I'll reflect on that on the golf course when I retire in a couple years. They really worked out bad for me.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Im not going to spend the time unraveling all tangled threads, or sorting out how much of what someone (esp a deliberate troll) is saying that is A. His actual belief and B. entirely ironic and C. Slightly overstated.

I suggest you go somewhere else, then.

Suggestion acknowledged.

[Pekka]

It's really a question of preference. Both are needed.

I just prefer the technical aspect more. If I see something new, I think 'how does it work', not 'what is it?'.

If the world was more black and white, which one would serve us better.. which one would you have:

1) a world with more great art, artsy and all that stuff, but technology is very stripped.

or

2) a world with great technology, but less art and artsy.

So you can have both, but the other side dominates by being more lacking.

My chosen scenario is obvious. 2.

[Barnabas]

I thought saussiology was linguistics when I first read that word, it is sociology, right?

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Pekka
It's really a question of preference. Both are needed.

I just prefer the technical aspect more. If I see something new, I think 'how does it work', not 'what is it?'.

If the world was more black and white, which one would serve us better.. which one would you have:

1) a world with more great art, artsy and all that stuff, but technology is very stripped.

or

2) a world with great technology, but less art and artsy.

So you can have both, but the other side dominates by being more lacking.

My chosen scenario is obvious. 2.

In the past it was a combination of both, the experts of mathematics in egypt or mesopotamia were the priests, who were also masters of bull**** magic.

And a century and a half ago, many scientists still knew how to write down their discoveries in excellent latin.

A scenario like those 2 you proposed is not possible, it never gets that extreme.

[Pekka]

No **** BP?

Are people going to go on a panty twisting rampage again, about how the world wouldn't even exist without artsy people? As in we wouldn't have words, letters, nothing?

I guess it is difficult for them to realize, that there are lots of technical mindsets, who can actually do both. They just choose to keep the artsy as their hobby, because the technical side is actually challenging to them.

I can read a book or enter debates on my free time. And I do that. We just see these things not so important or 'real'. Only single minded people would think since you have a techical mindset, you can't do anything else. We read, we write. But you do not build applications on your free time, because you can't. That's the difference.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
I thought saussiology was linguistics when I first read that word, it is sociology, right?

Sounds like 'Saussure', eh?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
They're all pretty ****. The only advantage any of them has is that all but one of them have a well-defined realm of study.

Wow, a serious post.

The object of sociology is indeed well-defined.
Anthropology? perhaps not as much, but they do just fine.
Political science? problematic. It's often difficult to find its place, amongst economy, philosophy, and history.

Philosophy - I see that you don't have a very good understanding of the discipline in general, and incidentally of human knowledge. You may have any gripe you wish against it, but it's just silly to blame it on the basis that it has no defined object. After all, as soon as a discipline has an object, it becomes finite. The idea is that if you feel the need to classify a discipline as a finite object, you implicitly acknowledge two things: first, that there is a wealth of phenomenon; and, second, that some of them evade our ability to be described with quantitative models. If they didn't, well, science as a whole would be a single discipline, wouldn't it?
The solution is to see philosophy as an art - in other words, something whose definition is internal to its practice. Its objectives and methods are broad, and difficult to assess without personal practice. Like it or not, as long as we can't get to a general deterministic theory of the entire world (will we ever?), there will be some philosophy - a domain where the inherent self-referenciality and circular nature of our knowledge is freely at play, and where signification emerges, if you'll allow me to say so, in an 'iterative' manner.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Philosophy - I see that you don't have a very good understanding of the discipline in general, and incidentally of human knowledge. You may have any gripe you wish against it, but it's just silly to blame it on the basis that it has no defined object. After all, as soon as a discipline has an object, it becomes finite. The idea is that if you feel the need to classify a discipline as a finite object, you implicitly acknowledge two things: first, that there is a wealth of phenomenon; and, second, that some of them evade our ability to be described with quantitative models. If they didn't, well, science as a whole would be a single discipline, wouldn't it?
The solution is to see philosophy as an art - in other words, something whose definition is internal to its practice. Its objectives and methods are broad, and difficult to assess without personal practice. Like it or not, as long as we can't get to a general deterministic theory of the entire world (will we ever?), there will be some philosophy - a domain where the inherent self-referenciality and circular nature of our knowledge is freely at play, and where signification emerges, if you'll allow me to say so, in an 'iterative' manner.

Oncle Boris just answered this poll for anyone with any doubt...filosofy wins.