Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Completelyu devoid of reality.

...<clip>
Can you say, "conceptually stunted?"

"The only ones that can't see equality among us, want to be more than the rest of us."

"No, I want to be less, and that's final!!!!"

HexHammer wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Dunno if you are drunk, trying to be amuseing or just trolling.

Don't drink as a rule, just occasionally, socially! But it's really more like the 4th option, did you feel the wind on the top of your head? Yes I can be sarcastic sometimes!
But in truth I believe your nym says it all. Are you a hammer, hexhammer, would that be a sledge? Or would that be an OctaHammer? Who you gonna hammer? You a base sixteen hammer? I think you should hammer the one that thinks everyone is equal. That'll put you into perspective! The HexHammer that hammered the one that thinks we're all equal, yeah that'll show him! Do you hammer in the morning, and hammer in the evening? It would seem that, blood surges from your eyes, what, like a hammer? While equality weeps from mine! The tear rolling down my cheek, quick, hit it with a hammer! Are we unequal, is your hammer bigger than mine? Am I crazy, or do I just run a pointed point into the ground?

Maybe a poetry site would be better for you? Least u'r not really doing philosophy.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do some Philo, Mr. Hammer! Impress the poet wanna be, should be easy, right? I'd say it contained something that any particular one might be quite oblivious to. What's contained in a nym choice, my friend? What can be said of one that wields a hammer. Hammers are for hitting things aren't they? Isn't is simply a mass, usually made of some type of metal or wood, for the purpose of forcing some object to bend, penetrate, or otherwise be moved. Why not just go for A-Bomb, I mean isn't that the ultimate hammer. Is a hammer or an A-Bomb an "EQUALIZER," or an in-equalizer? What would, let's say your nym, for instance, epitomize in terms of the topic: Equality? Impress me with your philosophy, Mr. Hammer! Why do you think any particular individual, would choose some sort of hammer to serve as a reference for themselves, I know this delves into psychology a little, but philo can be closely tied to any science as it's the father of all science.

HexHammer wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do some Philo, Mr. Hammer! Impress the poet wanna be, should be easy, right? I'd say it contained something that any particular one might be quite oblivious to. What's contained in a nym choice, my friend? What can be said of one that wields a hammer. Hammers are for hitting things aren't they? Isn't is simply a mass, usually made of some type of metal or wood, for the purpose of forcing some object to bend, penetrate, or otherwise be moved. Why not just go for A-Bomb, I mean isn't that the ultimate hammer. Is a hammer or an A-Bomb an "EQUALIZER," or an in-equalizer? What would, let's say your nym, for instance, epitomize in terms of the topic: Equality? Impress me with your philosophy, Mr. Hammer! Why do you think any particular individual, would choose some sort of hammer to serve as a reference for themselves, I know this delves into psychology a little, but philo can be closely tied to any science as it's the father of all science.

To do philosophy can start with staying on topic and not babble off loads of irrelevant nonsens.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:So do you think it irrelevant because you understand that it can be no other way, and thus know it to be so, or could it's relevancy escape you? Or more importantly, could you ever really know for sure which of the two it is?

And that, my friend, is in fact, the power of Socrates!

Immanuel Can wrote:Henry wrote:

Not so...by your own admission (up-thread) you made a choice to adopt Christianity (as religion, as philosophy, as ethical ground). I believe this makes your preference not only relevant, but the very core of everything that extends out from you.

As a generalization, Henry, this would be true of me. But it's not true to say that that fact has any relevance to the present debate. I am also a Manchester United fan, and that is also irrelevant.

That Atheism cannot fill Atheism's moral claims is a problem entirely internal to Atheism.

That I happen to be a Christian is, in this case, simply ad hominem and not relevant. I could make precisely the same case if I were writing as an Atheist.

HexHammer wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:So do you think it irrelevant because you understand that it can be no other way, and thus know it to be so, or could it's relevancy escape you? Or more importantly, could you ever really know for sure which of the two it is?

And that, my friend, is in fact, the power of Socrates!

You are going straight on ignore now. I tryed to reason with you, but you refused.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Well at least I see, that we're 'all' equal, it's just that many of us don't treat each other that way! I see that it's something to do with not seeing the life, for the self.

Kurt wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Well at least I see, that we're 'all' equal, it's just that many of us don't treat each other that way! I see that it's something to do with not seeing the life, for the self.

People communicate ideas in different ways the skill is in identifying this and approaching dialogue with this in mind. Culture, level of education, cognitive ability, beliefs are some reasons why. When an Italian talks to me with emotion, excitement while waving their hands around in physical gestures I don't take offence to this.
Treat people equally by understanding everybody is different.
So yes every body around us is equal if we treat them so.
Equality is in the eyes of the beholder as is the reverse.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Kurt wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Well at least I see, that we're 'all' equal, it's just that many of us don't treat each other that way! I see that it's something to do with not seeing the life, for the self.

People communicate ideas in different ways the skill is in identifying this and approaching dialogue with this in mind. Culture, level of education, cognitive ability, beliefs are some reasons why. When an Italian talks to me with emotion, excitement while waving their hands around in physical gestures I don't take offence to this.
Treat people equally by understanding everybody is different.
So yes every body around us is equal if we treat them so.
Equality is in the eyes of the beholder as is the reverse.

I see the differences between us, has nothing to do with equivalence, or a lack thereof, rather, just so much fruit, you know, apples, oranges, pears, etc.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Well at least I see, that we're 'all' equal, it's just that many of us don't treat each other that way! I see that it's something to do with not seeing the life, for the self.

Kurt wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Kurt wrote: People communicate ideas in different ways the skill is in identifying this and approaching dialogue with this in mind. Culture, level of education, cognitive ability, beliefs are some reasons why. When an Italian talks to me with emotion, excitement while waving their hands around in physical gestures I don't take offence to this.
Treat people equally by understanding everybody is different.
So yes every body around us is equal if we treat them so.
Equality is in the eyes of the beholder as is the reverse.

I see the differences between us, has nothing to do with equivalence, or a lack thereof, rather, just so much fruit, you know, apples, oranges, pears, etc.

Yes I agree equality does not mean just having one type of fruit that the majority decide upon. However the problem is at what point is fruit, rotten fruit

martinm wrote:After the Equality and human rights subject was ended I thought you might like to ponder on this:

The problem with Equality, is, unless we are all meticulous and generous with surpluses, somebody has to define, administer and police Equality. The makes a lifetime work for these civil servants of the 'state'.
As individual wealth fluctuates, the definition of equality changes, Certain people decide they 'know' what this definition should be and regard themselves as a special 'elite' or 'class' or 'leader' , deserving perhaps of more that is regarded as the dues for the others. The 'elites' police and condemn categories of behavior that is outside what they consider just, (excluding their own, of course). adding in their personal prejudices and politics. The 'elite' administration grows and grows, the elite get richer and richer.
The European Union is based on ever closer laws to treat all people of Europe equally, and you can judge for yourself the outcome: Ever more regulation, until the people can stand it no more. hence the breakup of the EU.