Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - P3nT4gR4m

Pages: 1 ... 417 418 419 [420] 421 422 423 ... 595
6286
Or Kill Me / Re: Your body
« on: February 13, 2009, 08:07:15 am »
Dude. Two sentences does not constitute a paragraph and treating it as such as mechanical stupidity.

A paragraph is a distinct portion of written or printed matter dealing with a particular idea, usually beginning with an indentation on a new line.  That's from the dictionary.  One word constitutes a paragraph if it begins on a new line.

Dumbass.

Quote
The point of it was to showcase the absurdity of the strict male-female gender structure.

Yes, but it failed.  It only showcased the weakness of the argument.

Quote
Also, no. The standard form for an essay is not strongest-weakest. In fact, that's actually a really bad idea. The second strongest should go near the end with the weaker ones in the middle.

I'm not an English major, so I'm going to cite an external authority, The Guide to Grammar and Writing from Capital Community College Foundation:
Quote
The second paragraph of the body should contain the second strongest argument, second most significant example, second cleverest illustration, or an obvious follow up the first paragraph in the body....The third paragraph of the body should contain the weakest argument, weakest example, weakest illustration, or an obvious follow up to the second paragraph in the body.

After looking at a dozen other sites, I can't find anything the specifically contradicts that.  Do you have any citations to back up your argument?

No?

You're not talking out of your ass, are you?

I think maybe you are.

Quote
Human memory tends to work that way.

:cn:

Look, it's not like any of this is really relevant.  This is quibbling over bullshit.

The point is that the essay is a bunch of Cartesian bullshit.  Despite what a lot of people in this thread have expended a lot of hot air denying, the entire essay is founded on the assumption that there is a ghost in the machine, a driver in vehicle. She even uses that second metaphor, calls the body a machine, and claims the mind exist independent of the body.

I find such ideas boring and wanky.  I said so.   Everybody is fucking falling over themselves to defend it. I have no idea why.

FAIL! Poster shows inability to present basic forum quote/response structure in a clearly legible manner.  :roll:


6287
Or Kill Me / Re: Your body
« on: February 13, 2009, 12:37:17 am »
The premise is that biology is simply what it is, and to decide that you are something else based on social constructs is just a story you're telling yourself.

No, that was not the premise of the piece you wrote. 

Yes, yes it was the premise, as a BIOLOGIST, I got /IT/. Okay? You can go on and on about criminal justice or women's studies or screenwriting or whatever you want to do, but when it comes to biology I'M THE SMARTEST MOTHERFUCKER HERE.

And I don't much like you acting you know anything about biology, okay? Thats MY domain, and I am sure any person here will tell you I am DAMN GOOD at biology. So back the fuck off until you've read Darwin, Mendel, Watson and Crick, McClintock and everything else I've read about the subject, not to mention all the interdisciplinary work I've done in geology, chemistry and physics.

Fucktard. DO NEVER STEP. Specially not on Darwin's birthday.  :lulz:

FUCKIN RAH!!!! :D

Also screenwriter, BA in Philosophy, non basement dwelling sock fucker  :cn:

I'm guessing pretty much everything he's said so far has been googled. Fair to medium troll, with no idea where he's stumbled into, getting raped every which way by some of the best in the business. If he's still posting by the time I wake up in the morning he'll get +1 point for tenacity but that's about it.

The internet equivalent of a missionary taking the word of god to the vatican

:facepalm:

free advice section: people who know about philosophy are as likely to mention Descartes in conversation as rocket scientists are to mention lego.

6288
Techmology and Scientism / Re: The molecular biology of paradise.
« on: February 12, 2009, 05:17:51 pm »
Quote
"Homo sapiens, the first truly free species, is about to decommission natural selection, the force that made us.... Soon we must look deep within ourselves and decide what we wish to become."
Edward O. Wilson
Consilience, The Unity of Knowledge

I love this quote but I can't for the life of me work out what this site is supposed to be.

Summarise for the slow readers?

6289
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Intermittens #5
« on: February 12, 2009, 05:14:48 pm »

P3nt:



FUCK YUO, MY MOTHER WAS GANGRAPED TO DEATH BY KARL MARX  :argh!:


6290
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Intermittens #5
« on: February 12, 2009, 04:35:45 pm »
Yeah, Alphapance, we're piling on teh aspietard here. Quit cramping our style  :argh!:

6291
Or Kill Me / Re: Hey you, Hey you...
« on: February 12, 2009, 04:24:51 pm »
Agree with Nigel - this rocked, right up to the last 3 lines.

:mittens: anyway. For a fledgeling hatemonger this one shows promise

6292
Literate Chaotic / Re: The Haiku Game
« on: February 12, 2009, 01:38:40 pm »
get the fuck out of dodge
the chinese are on the way
reincarnation

NT: Banks begging on street corners

6293
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Intermittens #5
« on: February 12, 2009, 12:36:24 pm »
Twat!

6294
Or Kill Me / Re: Your body
« on: February 12, 2009, 12:17:21 pm »
At which point did I accuse you of plagiarising? Unoriginal =/= copying. What I was implying is that your premise was the kind of shit that a million and one people can be heard espousing.

Whether or not they copied it or came up with it themselves is neither here nor there, the fact that it's shit is what I object to.

Don't even get me started on "cogito, ergo sum." that shit is three and a half centuries out of date "regurgitatum, ad nauseum" You want to talk geometry then yeah, he did some interesting shit but philosophically he was a fucking primate. Get over it.

Here's where I'm coming from with the seperation aspect. I'm a software engineer (congrats your estimation was about 20-odd years off) I deal with software which is an emergent property of complex semiconductor arrays. My programs use abstracted data modelling techniques which, although entirely dependent on the hardware, have, to all intents and purposes, nothing to do with it in either form, function or design.

To put it another way - DaVinci's Mona Lisa - work of art or a bunch of lightwaves scattering off some dried up organic compounds?

I'm getting kinda bored with you now. You seemed interesting to begin with but really, for someone who portrays themselves as a mastermind intellect you really do seem to have fuck all much to say, aside from regurgitating past its sell by date medieval literature.

Hint: we get pissed off when people regurgitate 60's counterculture literature round these parts. You are a fucking historical pinealist.

Anyway, I'm done with you. Troll away...

6295
Or Kill Me / Re: Your body
« on: February 12, 2009, 10:40:56 am »
If I hear "cartesian duality" one more time I'm going to assrape a puppy :evilmad:

Here's the deal DK - Mind is an emergent property of biology. Congratulations - you got that bit.

Emergent does not mean "FUCKING COMPOSED OF" This is where you're tripping up.

Yes, some mouldy old philosophy dudes refuted some even mouldier, older philosophy dudes positions on the concept of "soul" but, back then they didn't get the concept of emergence.

Fast forward to 2009 and we DO (all except you who seem to think emergence == composed of)

Best way I can describe emergence for the slow reader is using the old faithful - "made out of" expression. Pay particular attention to the "out" part of that, it'll come in handy later on.

Mind, as a property of flesh is about as useful a notion as flesh as a property of molecules. It's a ridiculously limiting model and fails to appreciate the totality and potential of the emergent phenomenon. For that to happen we have to apply duality and seperate the emergent phenomenon from the structure. We take it "OUT".

What the OP did, with the first line was applied a comedic juxtaposition to stick the mind back "in" the "meatbag" (ironically the argument you seem to be making with your "cartesian" gobshite) but, unlike you with your robotic insistence on adherence to canonical Wittgenstein, she did it with a modicum of style.

Unfortunately you saw "carteshun dooality" and immediately thought religion was on the table and then started bitching and whining about the soul. If you knew us, you'd know that very few people (if any) on this board would entertain such a notion in any context but satirical. But, of course, you don't know us. You prefer to make half assed assumptions based on how smart you think you are.

Newsflash - you're not the smartest person on this board (Cain is)

You're probably not even the second smartest. Given that any statement you've made and the citations that follow could have been lifted off wikipedia or a second year philosophy textbook I can only judge you on your interpersonal and communications skills which, to be perfectly honest, would rank you somewhere in the bottom percentile (alongside Payne and Cramulus)  :lulz:

6296
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Intermittens #6
« on: February 12, 2009, 09:50:58 am »
How in the fuck did I miss this?  :argh!:

Damn threadmining turns to tunnel vision  :weary:

6297
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Intermittens #6
« on: February 11, 2009, 09:48:28 pm »
I've found, whilst threadmining - the parable of the sacred bull by enrico

who is responsible for this? Is it kopyleft? Has it been published in anything else?

6298
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Intermittens #6
« on: February 11, 2009, 05:25:10 pm »
p3nt you must use that WORLD > EYE > DOT (you are here) diagram somewhere, cause it's awesome.

also more fonts, free and nicely catalogued for you on urbanfonts.com

good call! Thanks for reminding me about that one.

also thnx for new fonts site - now I'll be twice as long choosing my typefaces  :weary:

6299
Or Kill Me / Re: It's Simple Really...
« on: February 11, 2009, 04:23:16 pm »
Agreed!

I don't watch much teevee but I like the stuff I do watch. And, especially in the cases of commercials and biased journalism, often not in the spirit intended by the programme makers. I find advertisements fascinating, analysing the effects I can feel from different levels of persuasion. Then there's a sort of holistic view that I can take, a bit like ozzy in the watchmen, skipping through the channels, gauging the overtones of propaganda that permeate the whole thing, in a more general context. Like, right now, everybody is talking about saving moneys. The phrase "credit crunch" which is a much more cereal-sounding one than "recession" will be heard around every 5mins on most topical daytime shows. It's so hot-topic it's replaced "global warming/climate change" as the biggest meme on the box. And I'd be surprised if your average tv casualty would even be aware that oceana is still at war with afghaniraq.

6300
Propaganda Depository / Re: TGRR Podcasts
« on: February 10, 2009, 07:44:16 pm »
Best Yet!

:mittens:

Pages: 1 ... 417 418 419 [420] 421 422 423 ... 595