lmao verum
1 Like
Latin phrases are the “Live. Love. Laugh.” Of conceited nerds. 
3 Likes
´https://preview.redd.it/exwqzayl24r11.jpg?width=216&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=76199bbf67e9ba31150faad245be27a380816b8e´
3 Likes
I want it!!!
1 Like
Who dictated that was logical? You?
I disagree, who formulates the argument is important, especially when they back that argument with a fake crowd of themselves.
2 Likes
The first thing that you must understand is that we are talking about the human mind. The way our brains work is that they create mental pictures of the world around us. As you can see from the following two diagrams, these mental images are not just visual but also have a spatial component. We can also have sensory perception of these images, which we experience in our peripheral vision. And of course these images are always based on our own personal knowledge of the real world. They are not merely the result of reading a book or watching a movie.
These mental images can be described in two different ways. The first way to describe them is by means of concepts, the basic concepts which we use to define objects, properties, relations and actions. In the same way the basic concepts of the mental imagery process are called notions. To make a mental image, we have to make a conceptual image (concept), in which we associate the concept associated with the picture we want to make. That is to say, we have to think of our mental image as a “mental” concept. By contrast, we make a picture in the same way we would think about our physical body, but this picture is also a conceptual image. That is to say, it is a physical image. This process of “thought-possession” is called a conceptual image (or concept) transformation. The second way to describe the mental images of the mentalist is by means of concepts, the basic concepts which we use to define objects, properties, relations and actions. The mentalist thinks of his mental images as mental facts, concepts of which he possesses a concept of mental state. If this concept is a mental fact, it is possible that this concept is not a concept of any mental state. In this case it is the conceptual representation of the mental state itself that is the mental fact. If this is the case, the conceptual representation of the mental state is a mental state itself, that is, it is not the mental state.
1 Like
I was writing a longer reply to you, Vixi, but then I realized it wasn’t worth getting so much again into our discussion, when this is enough:
How do you know my sites are bad?
Oh, of course. Then you say that you have
while you keep making the case that I must read right-wing extremist journals (or low-key suggest I am rotten apple myself) because how else could I possibly have a different opinion from yours, right?
Then you proceed to make a case that your POV is subjective. Coherence isn’t your forte, am I right? So far, I read moderate journals and did read both sides.
Not really. Don’t jump to conclusions quickly: I am not claiming it is always wrong, I am claiming it reduces the value of what is being expressed/doesn’t take it seriously.
Also note how writing “this is a fallacy fallacy” and nothing else is a bit self-defeating since it is the same mistake it claims to adress.
Technically I said it wasn’t relevant in the core of the discussion, not in general. In general it was relevant: in fact, it made such an impact that you recall it to this day, while you disregarded the rest of my post. And you know why? Because you already claimed you wouldn’t accept rationally any claim from me. This mode of arguing became the most effective because you explicitly refused to listen to reason.
I did answer the question, really: if you explicitly said you weren’t going to take my arguments seriously, there was no way I could have convinced you by making normal posts, as you were clearly too biased against me, hence I had to rely on impact and the sense behind to arguments. It seems that, while I didn’t convince you, atleast I did make an impact this way.
Logic? Y’know, the first thing you learn in logic is that the truth value isn’t based on who formulates the argument, but what is the content which is being expressed.
3 Likes
So it was you that decided that what you said is logical. It isn’t.
Who’s making the argument will always be important, as their position may not be a genuine one, and the context comes into question in those cases.
Then I guess you misunderstood my question so I will ask another, then why rather than try and prove your credibility, why did you merely went around twisting others persons posts and keep saying dodgy stuff, just like a troll would btw, and still want people to believe you have said crediblity?
2 Likes
Logic and credibility are on his side!.. In his mind.
3 Likes
I am trying to make sense of his credibility and logic but he is not making it easy, is he? 
There is an entire discipline which is called logic and reasons about what is logical and what isn’t: this type of reasoning isn’t up for grabs.
Consider, however: the fact that a sentence is logical doesn’t mean that it is also true, Distant. I can believe something that it’s logical is also false (because logic judges the structure of the sentence, not the truth of its content).
For example, if I claim: “pigs fly only on thursday” we know that this statement is clearly false, but it is nevertheless formally correct.
But the actual truth value could be true or false regardless. There are hundreds of ways through which our bias is mantained and too often people judge the person, not what is being expressed.
2 Likes
Fair enough, I will keep my own responses fairly short them, because I’ll just be honest, I am both very frustrated and a bit hurt that you make up -deliberatly- false statements and accusations at me & belittleling my opinions, -only- because we disagreed on a topic.
Call me soft, but it does hurt.
I can be entierly wrong since it is generally guesses, but when your view of the story/stories is -directly- inline with very specific sites/belonging to a very specific category of people, that is where I will think you got the source from. As I suspect you do the same. But I can be wrong.
I like to think I am generally coherent but misstakes can always be made. As I said, my assumptions came and come from that your view of the stories & wordings come from as I said, specific sites that uses almost the exact same sentence structure, view of the story/events and words. It can be entierly coincidental and wrong, but as I said, it was a guess based on how it all looked. I have not claimed otherwise.
As for claiming that you are bad yourself, no. If you read that into my posts then I apologie, honestly. While I can disagree heavily on certain opinions and political believes diffrent from mine, you are still very much welcome to have them, and you are probably not at all a worse person for them either unless it’s something rather incredibly extreme and inappropriate, which I had not suggested you are.
As I said before too, in our previous discussions I remember, I have been civil with you, people have hopped in in the middle and said I should disregard you for being a troll/dragon rper etc, but I have not let that impact the discussions, even if we disagreed.
You on the other hand, as far as this thread comes across, has held a year-long belief that everything I say is a lie, that I am bad person, all for disagreeing with you on a topic that has pretty much been forgotten by everyone, aside from yourself apparantly.
You also in this very thread posted how personal attacks and stuff is not cool, nor is belitteling or invalidating people’s opinions, yet you have spent like 5-6 -lengthy- posts to do that towards me, in a very mocking way and agressive style, doing -everything- you can to paint me as some sort of monster not to be trusted because we didnt share the same opinion.
And that hurts, and it feels very hypocrotical when you also make comments about how that is a bad thing to do, and has in the past said its a bad thing to do as well. And It is, as I said something I have -not- done towards you.
Do you honestly think this is okay behaviour from you, especially when you have condemned it yourself in this very thread? And towards someone who has tried her best to be civil and polite with you in most discussions prior to this one, even if we didn’t agree on things.
Because intended or not, it currently comes across as if you think being mean to people and not respecting them is bad, unless they happen to not share your views, then they need to burn.
1 Like
hugs
There, there. 
1 Like
Final statement to this as well then, since you have done -exactly- this. You have judged me, and fabricated false things about me, in a very cruel and agressive way, because we did not share the same belief on a single matter. So it is weird to see you say how it is bad.
4 Likes
There are a whole lot of ways to interpret it and the fact that some people believe the exact same things as other people makes them just as bad as any other group.
It was always going to be like that. There’s no doubt about it.
It’s easy to tell someone they are right, and easy to convince someone that they are wrong. However, it is impossible to convince someone they are both right and wrong.
I’d love to change minds through arguments. It’s one of the most fun and useful things I’ve learned over my lifetime. However, it is impossible to change anyone else’s mind because it’s not your job to convince anyone that they are wrong. It’s your job to keep them in their place.
1 Like
You are soft. But lovable and honest too. Even when you’re wrong (this is not one of those instances)
3 Likes
Quoted for truth.
Most lovable gnome on the forums. 
2 Likes
Wouldn’t say the same about you….what the heck is wrong with your profile pic?
1 Like
It’s my staff okay?! 
1 Like