Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:As soon as you decide to stop lying, and apologize for it, we'll talk like those that are civilized. Am I a loon, or are you just fearful of the truth, as you try and cover it up? As I sense that there is something very dishonest about you. Are you an alternate persona of someone else here? As that would explain why I've sensed you being female, as you dig within your experience's of others persona's, to come up with an alternate way to convey, complete with Inflection, that at least to me seems feminine. The problem we have with this avenue, is that you obviously will not want to have your cover blown in a public forum, understandable. If you care to there's always PM, none would be the wiser, and I'm not a back stabber of the truth, I hold it in far to high a regard.

What are you babbling about?
And this is what I'm talking about, no need to insult me, above, I only ever ask, or mention that I sense or that it seems. You on the other hand state as if fact, which is presumptuous as it could be that you just don't understand where I'm coming from or are you trying to be a cµnt? Which is it? Either way it's undeserved, so don't wonder why I get pissed, it's apparent from my perspective.

The only thing you 'sense' is someone who responds to what you say from their understanding of what they read or hear. And this I think is the hinge of the issue as you appear to think that the meaning of ones words is what you think it is, its not. Whilst its true that one knows the meaning of ones thoughts, when it comes to telling others the game changes as meaning in language is not 'in' the words nor on one side as it takes two to make a meaning in communication or language, meaning is a triadic relationship in this sense as when one orders ones thoughts and then picks the words that one thinks best suits those thoughts it is not the case that its a straight transfer to another as when another hears those words they have to assign their thoughts and experiences to them and those can differ greatly from what the utterer intended, hence the saying "the meaning of ones words is the response they get". You on the other hand appear to believe that if one receives a response to ones words that does not fit what one intended then its the fault of the other or that they are lying, etc, etc, and due, I presume, to your personal experiences and psyche take extreme umbrage.
Great you actually managed to speak intelligently about something that is true, and only ever be informative with slight to no condescension, good job. But I have already made it known that I understand this fact. You did get my take wrong though. I never blame someone for not understanding. I do however, blame them for how it is that they respond when not understanding. For instance if someone responds with obvious sarcasm, it's uncalled for, as it's just a simple misunderstanding, and in light of your intelligent understanding of communication as highlighted above, it's easy to see that no one is at fault, so no one should get pissed and either deal a few words of sarcasm, condescension or use emoticons with the same intent. But I find that numerous times you have obviously tried to get under my skin by accusing me of having less than honorable intent, for instance you made light of my donations of both check and via a purchase of a tie to support the WWF. And the way you did so was uncalled for and completely incorrect. I think you like attempting to push peoples buttons, to hurt them, as you know full well that for someone of meager means to give their hard earned cash to a charity takes some real commitment to the cause. If I was rich that would be another story entirely, but I told you long ago of my money concerns.

You also appear to look for scapegoats to pillar them with, so in my case you take your misogyny and try to explain my behaviour and words by placing me into a gender category that allows you to apparently think little of them. That you cannot understand a male who behaves differently than you is more a result of your personal and cultural box rather than any reality about males.
This is TOTALLY wrong, this is where you have failed, miserably as to my intentions. Is it any wonder that you piss me off? When I originally saw your posts when I first joined back in Sep. 2011, I truly believed that you were in fact a female, due to all kinds of things that are characteristic of females, and that wouldn't have ever been a problem until one day I used either "she" or "her" to reference you, not because I was attempting to demean you, but because I truly thought you to be female, and it was purely a pronoun used to reference you instead of typing Arising_UK. I forgot but it was also probably due to the need of having to rewrite the entire sentence, so that it read properly, as I often find I have to do that, and you went ape shit screaming, misogyny, misogyny, like some bra burner might do, which only further confirmed my belief, as most men I've encountered would not have responded that way, they would have instead said something masculine, in defiance of my unintended insult. You seemed more concerned of how you believed I insulted women than how you believed I insulted you, clearly an indicator that I was right. Since then I've only ever mentioned it because I know it piss's you off, and once you piss me off I could care less about whether you are or are not a female, I only care that it gets under your skin for whatever reason.

: If I were Rick Lewis, for instance, and I wanted to participate in my own forum, seriously; I would create another persona for two very good reasons, that at least I see are justified, in the interest of truthful interaction between others, without reservation being injected:
1) So that I could be free to interact with no restrictions, so that I could distance myself from the responsibilities of running a respected magazine, speak my true mind, why take a risk of loosing the business, because some people may not understand the true nature of philosophy.
2) So that anyone I engaged would feel free to interact without restrictions, as I would want their argument to be truthful with respect to their beliefs, and not either tamed or inflamed, due to my position of authority.

I feel that these two reasons are important enough, to the truth of interaction but also see problems that could arise as a result of attempting to create this different persona, meant to ensure the freedom of thoughts, and thus tongues.

Now for all those that are reading, I'm not saying this is the case at all. It's just a Hypothetical, wherein I could see the type of problems, I'm currently seeing, i.e., mistaking inflections, via only text, that seem to indicate a female persona, as though many of us may have a bit of thespian running through our veins, I can see that eventually there could manifest some complications as a result of the act.

My case in point.
I don't see how this applies at all, it was just my way of referencing a hypothetical so you'd know where I stand on such things. As I know that I would treat Rick differently purely because he gives this gift to me. Out of respect I'd feel that I'd have to cow or else seem ungrateful, not that it would be, necessarily, a conscious decision.

I have come here, initially, only to seek real philosophers, of like mindedness, of the truth. When someone attempts to characterize my words in an untrue light, that are defamatory, I take extreme insult, as it is easy enough to ask what it is that I mean, before assuming one knows, and holding me accountable for that false assumption. As I have had enough condescension aimed at me, for a lifetime, because in the past it came from one that was supposed to love me, and not compete with me, only due to their insecurities. Parents should indeed love their children, else they have no right to create a life, to use merely as a punching bag, as they battle their fears. One should instead hold their children close, in the face of adversity, if for no other reason, it would seem, at the very least, because they are an extension of you, and anything that hurts you hurts them, thus they are your strength, as you fight the adversity to save them, thus yourself, but unfortunately some see their children as the reason for their met adversity. These are not the children you want to be. My life, it would seem, was a result of pure unadulterated lust, created by the inability to control ones hormones, not that it's necessarily an easy task for some, apparently. They had not grown up themselves.

Sad but I really don't care about your issues nor understand the relevance they have here? Especially since, compared to most fathers, I've spent and sacrificed(gladly) a large part of my life raising three kids so have no need for the advice of one whom, I guess, has not.
You've gotten 100% of this all wrong, Not advice. And I've already told you I have 3 blood children and 1 step child. This was only so you could understand "why" I react the way I do, to me it was quite obvious. Simple, I've had enough condescension to last a lifetime, no wonder I go ape shit when I receive it unjustly here. It's to be expected.

No I do not like someone to characterize me falsely. The funny thing is that due to the truth of my endurance, none have ever done so to my face. As the truth of my endurance is reflected in that face. Unfortunately the internet does not allow for it to be seen, as one sits in the comfort of their home, playing with a plastic toy, filled with fiberglass, and other such elements, designed to organize electrons, so as to convey remotely. No, the humanity is somehow lost in this remote exchange, and is ever increasing with each new life born as the ever increasing population of competition and turmoil yields an even emptier shell of a human, due largely to the speed of necessity, to deal with increasing competition for life to survive, as greater numbers surely creates. I wonder where the fire is, as with speed certainly comes friction, and I see that, as is, it can only increase, such that it would seem that fire is in fact out destiny, no revelation here, just par for the current course.

If I remember right what you appear to mean is that you are a big scary-eyed aggressively threatening male who uses his appearance in an attempt to cow others. As far as I can see the only humanity that is lost in these exchanges is that you have little feeling or understanding for anothers humanity and are quick to give offense but loathe to receive it. Now I guess you'll say this is not the case and I see from your other post you claim that it is I who instigate insult but I think you'd be pushed to find any post from me where when I am deliberately rude its not been in response. Does it not puzzle you that many of your posts here tend to go this way?
Again 100% wrong, now you sound like the goatturder, or as I prefer goatboy. Again you twist my original meaning, to suit your needs, to paint me in an off color.
It's clearly an extension of the previous paragraph. And originally it was spelled out, as the lesson that it is, as to human nature. My point is that people often act differently when they are not face to face with one another, they show the bravery of being out of range, treating someone nasty online. When in fact, if face to face, they would not dare to. My point was that I believe the reason everybody automatically cows to me, face to face, is because the pain of my youth is etched deeply upon my face, as it was indeed a scary place to dwell. Again you and goatboy have twisted my meaning to paint me in the worst light possible that someone could imagine, those who do such, do so, so as to attempt to buy allies. It's a very common ploy, and don't tell me that you don't use ploys, as to this ploy of which I speak, most humans are unaware, it is a common mode of operation, that most are oblivious too; a standard way to recruit support.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:Last rhinos in Mozambique killed by poachers

Arising_uk wrote:

Bill Wiltrack wrote:Last rhinos in Mozambique killed by poachers

More power to my suggested solution then I think.

This isn't a news site Bill.
Philosophy is everywhere, some might say, especially at a news site. Of course I agree that is would be nice if Bill told us more of his beliefs. But as to what's correct here, is the job of the mods.
What have you actually done for the rhino? Other than just bewailing the situation.
Action is not necessarily required, as to philosophy, but words are.

Why do you like to take your time to antagonize some? Are you somehow associated with the management here?

As to the topic, I see that as we diminish the animals of the animal/plant equation, we ensure that we're next. This topic speaks of the needless selfishness and eventual demise of the man animal. Something we all should be concerned about.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Philosophy is everywhere, some might say, especially at a news site. Of course I agree that is would be nice if Bill told us more of his beliefs. But as to what's correct here, is the job of the mods.

Action is not necessarily required, as to philosophy, but words are.

Why do you like to take your time to antagonize some? Are you somehow associated with the management here?

As to the topic, I see that as we diminish the animals of the animal/plant equation, we ensure that we're next. This topic speaks of the needless selfishness and eventual demise of the man animal. Something we all should be concerned about.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:GREAT post!

Bill Wiltrack wrote:

I...actually...have not mentioned anything about saving the rhino.

The point of this thread was to see what other members, such as yourself, felt about this, rather broad, subject.

This thread has been a wild success. WAY BEYOND anything that I could have hoped for as far as number of responses & I enjoyed the quite spirited debate you participated in.

As I stated earlier within this thread -


Please feel free to openly express yourself in any & ALL of my threads.

There is no right or wrong answer. We live in a multidimensional continuum. ALL of us...ALL of our viewpoints are valid.

Thank you for your well crafted responses.

...For me...at this stage of my life...I try to accept life the way it is.[/size]

That for me...now...is doing something.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Philosophy is everywhere, some might say, especially at a news site. Of course I agree that is would be nice if Bill told us more of his beliefs. But as to what's correct here, is the job of the mods.

No, subjects to philosophize about may be in the news but as you say Bill does no such thing.
That's what I said, 'philosophy is everywhere.'
As to Bill, that's not exactly what I said. So you're saying that you don't think he brings anything, enough or what? He brings you to his table quite a lot. Why have you made it your mission to ensure that he brings the amount that you feel is necessary? Whose expectations does Bill really have to live up to? Why not let him be comfortable in bringing as much as he brings when he brings it? Like I said, 'It would be nice if he brought more,' but I've accepted him for what he is, because largely he's not a mean person. He's got flaws like us all. The only time I'm aware of, that he was a bit nasty, was with BB, and her demise, but if I remember correctly, he regretted it, a good man.

Action is not necessarily required, as to philosophy, but words are.

Marx disagreed with you and so does pretty much Ethics.
Do you assume you know on which side of the argument Bill stands? If he's ever stated it clearly, I don't remember reading it. Are you saying that Bill has, in fact, contributed to the killing of Rhinos?

Why do you like to take your time to antagonize some? Are you somehow associated with the management here?

Nope, used to be a moderator but gave it up as it affected what I could say about others thoughts.
I think there is some major wisdom in what you just said, do you believe that you fully understand it? As I believe that if you had, you would still be one, or maybe not. Because I can see a lesson contained within, that would probably make our current conversation irrelevant.

Its not to antagonise, its to question.
I'm just wondering why I'm sensing antagonism. I won't be mean about it, but I see it otherwise. What were you and I just talking about, as to communication, and it's inherent ambiguities as to ones intent, versus how it's received? Do you think it can be applied here, in any way? Where does the responsibility lie? They say it takes two to tango. When do the hands meet? Who leads, and how does leading actually appear? Can leading be seen, in the following?

As to the topic, I see that as we diminish the animals of the animal/plant equation, we ensure that we're next. This topic speaks of the needless selfishness and eventual demise of the man animal. Something we all should be concerned about.

99% of all the species that have ever lived have become extinct what hubris to think that fate does not await our species but unlike you I don't think it imminent, barring catastrophes. What might happen is a collapse of this lifestyle. If you want to save the other species look to alleviating your fellow man's condition first.
You call me arrogant, and yet I see, that it does not wait, but instead, we create. You apparently see the causal as external, while I see it as internal, what could be said about each individual, due to their particular perspective? I have never given a date, as I know it's virtually impossible to do; could it be that you just project imminence, as to my meaning? imminent relative to what measure? Should one gorge their mouth with solid fat and pure sugar, just to the point of a massive coronary, before abstaining? And for the sake of what? Gorging? And 'might' anything else happen, instead, in addition? But I see that saving another species, is alleviating my, so called, fellow mans condition.

Hjarloprillar wrote:Ps..

I was away.. Tonight im hunting dragons in Skyrym.
talk again soon.