Your body

[Jasper]

DK: MIssing the point, but in a hilarious way. 

[East Coast Hustle]

Here's the thing. One can choose to view life from any angle, I choose to view life from a different angle than you.

How is it different?

I deliberately left out the spiritual aspect, because I felt that it was irrelevant to my point.

By the idea that I am a spiritual being having a human experience rather than the other way around.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/new_page_2.htm

Enjoy yuor human experience.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Looks like you have some pretty major religious hang-ups, and you're VERY busy projecting them.

The OP is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification.   I could barely keep my eyes open.

Look at the assumptions in the premise:

So the deal is, the first thing that happens when you arrive is you get dumped into a yellowish or brownish meat-bag filled with red and white.

"When you arrive?"  Who is "you?"  Where is "you" arriving from?  For that matter, where is "you" arriving to?

"You" must be separate from the body, because "you" is dumped into a "meat-bag."  Meat-bag is clearly idiomatic Jerkass for the body.

Does "the first thing that happens when you arrive" mean that the sequence of events is

• "You" Arrives From (???) to (???)
• "You" is abruptly dropped or falls into A Body

That would seem to imply that wherever "you" arrive to is above the body you will be dropped or fall into.

I don't really care.  You started off with the Cartesian flaw, you can't get anywhere once you allow that.  Once you embrace Cartesianism, you're talking about religion.  I can consult my own pineal gland, thank you very much.

Though I really enjoy the use of the word dumped.  That opening line evokes images of angels swooping down from Heaven and crapping souls into little babies.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well gosh, I guess no one should ever use metaphorical or figurative language to make a point!

Heaven forbid! Oh noes, I used the word "heaven"... that must mean I'm appealing to a metaphysical entity! 

[LMNO]

ITT, we learn that "pedantic perfectionism" is not the same as "intelligence".

[Dead Kennedy]

Looks like you have some pretty major religious hang-ups, and you're VERY busy projecting them.

Looks like you have trouble dealing with criticism.

My hang-ups are entirely irrelevant to the criticism I offered.  I'll let it slide this time, but just so you know, I generally consider rebuttals such as the tripe you've offered here as an invitation to mock and belittle the intelligence of the person offering them.   

Your essay did nothing to convince me that you aren't a psuedointellectual wank, the intellectual equivalent of a thirteen year old with his dick in hand.  Your defense of your position not only dismisses any possible conjecture about your intelligence, it also marks you as thin-skinned asswipe.

At any rate, your essay continues to be mired in Cartesian dualism, and is essentially nothing more than the quasiphilosophical musings of a garden variety fuckwit who clearly has no real grasp of philosophy.

In short:  Your essay is the sort of poorly argued, poorly conceived, and poorly considered mindless crap that most of us got over when we were still in our teens, and your VERY OBVIOUS attempt to defend your piece by attacking me -- who you know nothing at all about -- only serves to illustrate how very pathetic the mind that produced this pathetic essay is.

 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Looks like you have some pretty major religious hang-ups, and you're VERY busy projecting them.

Looks like you have trouble dealing with criticism.

My hang-ups are entirely irrelevant to the criticism I offered.  I'll let it slide this time, but just so you know, I generally consider rebuttals such as the tripe you've offered here as an invitation to mock and belittle the intelligence of the person offering them.   

Your essay did nothing to convince me that you aren't a psuedointellectual wank, the intellectual equivalent of a thirteen year old with his dick in hand.  Your defense of your position not only dismisses any possible conjecture about your intelligence, it also marks you as thin-skinned asswipe.

At any rate, your essay continues to be mired in Cartesian dualism, and is essentially nothing more than the quasiphilosophical musings of a garden variety fuckwit who clearly has no real grasp of philosophy.

In short:  Your essay is the sort of poorly argued, poorly conceived, and poorly considered mindless crap that most of us got over when we were still in our teens, and your VERY OBVIOUS attempt to defend your piece by attacking me -- who you know nothing at all about -- only serves to illustrate how very pathetic the mind that produced this pathetic essay is.

 

 

You haven't critiqued a damn thing, you're just trying to pick a fight by regurgitating something you heard in discussion group for your sophomore year philosophy class.

[Dead Kennedy]

DK: MIssing the point, but in a hilarious way. 

I didn't miss the point.   I don't care what the point is.  The author is an idiot, and points raised by idiots are....idiotic!  There's no ideas in LLOF's essay worth considering, as any point s/he derives from such obviously flawed premises must also be flawed.

You can make a statue out of dog shit, but it's still a pile of shit.

----

And I see LLOF can't defend his/her position, and is falling back on the time tested defense of jerkass idiots worldwide: snark.

Oooh, I'm sooooooo impressed.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

DK: MIssing the point, but in a hilarious way. 

I didn't miss the point.   I don't care what the point is.  The author is an idiot, and points raised by idiots are....idiotic!  There's no ideas in LLOF's essay worth considering, as any point s/he derives from such obviously flawed premises must also be flawed.

You can make a statue out of dog shit, but it's still a pile of shit.

----

And I see LLOF can't defend his/her position, and is falling back on the time tested defense of jerkass idiots worldwide: snark.

Oooh, I'm sooooooo impressed.

What position am I supposed to be defending?  You can't even articulate what point you believe I'm trying to make with the essay... so what's to discuss?

[Jasper]

ITT: New posters trying to prove how smart they are.

[Dead Kennedy]

You haven't critiqued a damn thing, you're just trying to pick a fight by regurgitating something you heard in discussion group for your sophomore year philosophy class.

Oh, now that's just pathetic.  Surely you can do better than that?  I most certainly have critiqued your essay.  My critique can be summed up in single sentence:  Your essay is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification.

Seriously, is this really how you defend your ideas?  By attacking anyone who criticizes them?  By off handily dismissing education and the pursuit of knowledge?  Do you just not get how pathetic that is?  It's like admitting you're an intellectual lightweight who can't hold their own in a debate.  

I really have to wonder at the quality of the mind that vomits up rebuttals like "Nuh-uh, you only think that because you went to college!" as a defense.  What a baby you are. Maybe I should go get you a binkie and pacifier.

What position am I supposed to be defending?

Fucking pay attention dipshit, I've already told you twice now:  The mind-body dualism and ego-identification invoked throughout your essay.

You can't even articulate what point you believe I'm trying to make with the essay... so what's to discuss?

I think I could articulate your point, better than you have at least, but in order to articulate your point I would have to make a long series of assumptions.  The first assumption I would have to make is that you do not mean what you have said, and that you have not said what you mean.

But I don't like doing that.  I prefer to read what people have written and assume it means what it says.  Because if I assume that others do not mean what they have said, and that they have not said what they mean, I am essentially thinking for them, and not actually listening to them.  I'm pretty sure I know what you meant (and I'm not impressed at all, as it's neither a new nor exciting idea), but I'm far more fascinated by the train wreck of how you expressed the idea.

What you said is a bunch of unintelligent tripe, the sort of bargain basement philosophy churned out by brain-dead stoners who should've spent more time focusing on their studies and less time contemplating their navel.  

[Jasper]

Dude, you're totally missing it.  She never mentions dualism at all. 

It's essentially an informal rant that urges the reader to disregard gender roles and to take care of yourself.

[Cainad (dec.)]

DK: MIssing the point, but in a hilarious way. 

I didn't miss the point.   I don't care what the point is.  The author is an idiot, and points raised by idiots are....idiotic!  There's no ideas in LLOF's essay worth considering, as any point s/he derives from such obviously flawed premises must also be flawed.

You can make a statue out of dog shit, but it's still a pile of shit.

If you don't care what the point is, then your critique is irrelevant.

----

And I see LLOF can't defend his/her position, and is falling back on the time tested defense of jerkass idiots worldwide: snark.

Oooh, I'm sooooooo impressed.

Your sarcasm is very inelegant.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Pretty much what Felix said.

Informal rant, ten minutes at the keyboard, the end.

If you're looking for debates on High Philosophy, you'll have to look elsewhere. You came out of the gate with insults, so it's pretty clear that you're just stewing to pick a fight about dualism and don't care for discussion on the actual topic, which boils down to "NO, YOU ARE NOT A FUCKING DRAGON".

Plus, it takes you forever to compose a reply.

[Messier Undertree]

The OP is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification.

Did you really just say that?