Genady Posted March 5, 2023 Author Posted March 5, 2023 Just now, dimreepr said: Just so we're clear and on topic, are you suggesting that we're taught to want company? No, I'm not.
dimreepr Posted March 5, 2023 Posted March 5, 2023 Just now, Genady said: No, I'm not. So what are you suggesting?
Genady Posted March 5, 2023 Author Posted March 5, 2023 2 minutes ago, dimreepr said: So what are you suggesting? That the hypothesis, Quote human need to conform is in human nature is not supported.
dimreepr Posted March 5, 2023 Posted March 5, 2023 1 minute ago, Genady said: That the hypothesis, is not supported. HISTORY supports it... If not, please explain why.
Genady Posted March 5, 2023 Author Posted March 5, 2023 Just now, dimreepr said: HISTORY supports it... If not, please explain why. Nothing to explain. I don't see that history supports this hypothesis.
dimreepr Posted March 5, 2023 Posted March 5, 2023 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Genady said: Nothing to explain. I don't see that history supports this hypothesis. In the context of your thread, it's a binary question, nature or nurture, unless of course there's a third state of being, or spiritual. Edited March 5, 2023 by dimreepr
Genady Posted March 5, 2023 Author Posted March 5, 2023 15 minutes ago, dimreepr said: In the context of your thread, it's a binary question, nature or nurture, unless of course there's a third state of being, or spiritual. It was not meant to be binary. I've identified the two extremes of the range but allowed for any combination of them. However, anything spiritual would've been OT.
mistermack Posted March 5, 2023 Posted March 5, 2023 Has anybody noticed that atheists is an anagram of 'eats shit' ? Certainly makes me think !
Genady Posted March 5, 2023 Author Posted March 5, 2023 2 hours ago, mistermack said: Has anybody noticed that atheists is an anagram of 'eats shit' ? Certainly makes me think !
TheVat Posted March 5, 2023 Posted March 5, 2023 3 hours ago, mistermack said: Has anybody noticed that atheists is an anagram of 'eats shit' ? Certainly makes me think ! Have you noticed mistermack is an anagram of "smack miter"?
mistermack Posted March 6, 2023 Posted March 6, 2023 9 hours ago, TheVat said: Have you noticed mistermack is an anagram of "smack miter"? No. What the hell is smack miter? I asked, smiling "me cat smirk".
dimreepr Posted March 6, 2023 Posted March 6, 2023 23 hours ago, Genady said: It was not meant to be binary. I've identified the two extremes of the range but allowed for any combination of them. However, anything spiritual would've been OT. Perhaps you can't see past my use of the word conform, I hesitate to ask again but please re-read my post, but for 'conform' read, attune or coordinate or harmonise or fit or integrate or seek company or etc... Too late to claim ambiguity in the topic title, for an athiest to not play golf, they first have to be taught what golf is. Some people like golf enough to comply with the rules, other people use the rules to force compliance. The only problem with that status quo, is when it's not fair...
Genady Posted March 6, 2023 Author Posted March 6, 2023 6 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Perhaps you can't see past my use of the word conform, I hesitate to ask again but please re-read my post, but for 'conform' read, attune or coordinate or harmonise or fit or integrate or seek company or etc... OK, if 'to conform' means 'to socialize' then it perhaps is in human nature. 8 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Too late to claim ambiguity in the topic title, for an athiest to not play golf, they first have to be taught what golf is. I disagree. From the statement, "for an athiest to not play golf, they first have to be taught what golf is" follows the logical conclusion, "as long as they were not taught what golf is, they play golf". The conclusion is wrong; as this conclusion is a logical consequence of that premise, the premise is wrong. So, in order to not play golf, they don't need to be taught what golf is. They just need not to play it.
dimreepr Posted March 7, 2023 Posted March 7, 2023 (edited) 23 hours ago, Genady said: OK, if 'to conform' means 'to socialize' then it perhaps is in human nature. The only real difference between those words is, how one's bias skews the meaning; for instance, in your case the word conform has negative connotation's, which means my entire post is read through that lense and that leads to misunderstanding; something I've suffered, in this thread if memory serves, and held up my hand's to, when my logic was shown to be skewed. 23 hours ago, Genady said: I disagree. From the statement, "for an athiest to not play golf, they first have to be taught what golf is" follows the logical conclusion, "as long as they were not taught what golf is, they play golf". That doesn't follow at all!!! You can't accidentally play golf, it's not like a snooker player who decides to play cross country snooker with a cue, is suddenly playing golf. 23 hours ago, Genady said: So, in order to not play golf, they don't need to be taught what golf is. They just need not to play it. how would you suggest they do that? Ban them from reading any golf related literature or just ban the book's or ban them from owning or using a golf club or just ban clubs??? Edited March 7, 2023 by dimreepr
Genady Posted March 7, 2023 Author Posted March 7, 2023 26 minutes ago, dimreepr said: The only real difference between those words is, how one's bias skews the meaning I see independent differences (Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary😞 Socialize Quote : to participate actively in a social group Conform Quote : to be similar or identical : to be obedient or compliant : to act in accordance with prevailing standards or customs
dimreepr Posted March 7, 2023 Posted March 7, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Genady said: I see independent differences (Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary😞 Socialize Conform If you want to see bias in action, try declaring yourself a socialist in certain parts of America... But I conform to the constitution... I'm not saying that I'm better than you, I'm saying that we're the same; I'm just lucky enough to see the path first; but if you consider me a "mad man in a parable", consider this, it may just mean you can't see the path. Edited March 7, 2023 by dimreepr -1
dimreepr Posted March 8, 2023 Posted March 8, 2023 Can anyone explain the neg rep on the above post? If it's wrong I'd love to know why, if it's an insult I'd love to know how, but if it's revenge, thanks.
Genady Posted March 8, 2023 Author Posted March 8, 2023 10 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Can anyone explain the neg rep on the above post? If it's wrong I'd love to know why, if it's an insult I'd love to know how, but if it's revenge, thanks. No revenge, but it is wrong that to my completely neutral comment with quotes from a dictionary you've responded with a judgement of me, personally: On 3/7/2023 at 9:24 AM, dimreepr said: I'm not saying that I'm better than you, I'm saying that we're the same; I'm just lucky enough to see the path first; but if you consider me a "mad man in a parable", consider this, it may just mean you can't see the path.
dimreepr Posted March 8, 2023 Posted March 8, 2023 19 minutes ago, Genady said: No revenge, but it is wrong that to my completely neutral comment with quotes from a dictionary you've responded with a judgement of me, personally: It's not a judgement of you, it's an acceptance of us. "When the student is ready the teacher appears. When the student is truly ready, the teacher disappears." - Lao Tzu Everyone has something to teach just as everyone has something to learn.
Genady Posted March 8, 2023 Author Posted March 8, 2023 8 minutes ago, dimreepr said: It's not a judgement of you, it's an acceptance of us. "When the student is ready the teacher appears. When the student is truly ready, the teacher disappears." - Lao Tzu Everyone has something to teach just as everyone has something to learn. The wrong is that you switched from discussing the post to discussing the poster.
dimreepr Posted March 8, 2023 Posted March 8, 2023 5 minutes ago, Genady said: The wrong is that you switched from discussing the post to discussing the poster. Nope, I'm still discussing the arguments; the wrong is, you've run out of legitimate argument's.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now