|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 20:20:54 GMT
It wasn't an "end quote screw-up" it was a "didn't change double-quotes to single-quotes within a quote" screw-up; but literally the only way you could've misinterpreted that was to: 1. Miss that an open quotation mark had followed an open quotation mark 2. Miss that the first closed quotation mark had followed the second open quotation mark after a single word 3. Miss the second closed quotation mark at the end of the sentence So I'm sorry for your apparent case of grammar-blindness. That's not what I said, equated, intimated, or whatever next word you want to throw out there is. You were confused by the confusion because in your warped mind everything you say is crystal clear and doesn't depend on the correct usage of words and grammar. I explained the confusion in a way that anyone with a basic grasp of English could understand. That you still refuse to admit your mistake is just telling of your autistic-like grasp of communication. Way to keep smokescreening so as to avoid taking responsibility for your failure. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 20:21:05 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:You really are a weird little nutcase. Your misrepresentation was in repeatedly trying to divert to consent-based approaches, other or general, when I made clear time after time that I was strictly interested in deezen's specific criteria. Seriously, you lecture people on English and comprehension?  I don't care nor believe your characterization, as you kept going on and on about the general or other than deezen consent-based, or could I come up with a consent based for some other irrelevancy, and dogging me as I had zero interest in your scrambles away. And you were the one that fatuously started on about "misrepresentation" near the very start of the exchange. Ludicrously so, of course. It is "diverting" to persistently try to move away from the thing at issue between us - deezen's specific criteria. Not by me. The discussion I had and the only one I was in the slightest bit interested is what exactly he advocated through his explicit criteria. Go back to the first interaction between us in this thread and see if you can somehow come to comprehend.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 16, 2017 20:25:09 GMT
No. That hardly makes them immune to misrepresenting what the actual research was (whether intentional or not), and even re a primary source, there's no guarantee that the methodology was sound, that the reasoning from the data was sound, etc. Obviously not but they dont just pull this stuff out of their arse you know. The only mainstream psychological viewpoint I have ever disagreed with is evolutionary psychology which is just nonsense to me. That seems like an oddly status quo disposition to me. I think that academia is full of people who aren't very bright, who don't don't reason very well, who still believe tons of ignorant things, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 20:25:22 GMT
No. That hardly makes them immune to misrepresenting what the actual research was (whether intentional or not), and even re a primary source, there's no guarantee that the methodology was sound, that the reasoning from the data was sound, etc. The only mainstream psychological viewpoint I have ever disagreed with is evolutionary psychology which is just nonsense to me. Not to start another tangent, but what's your problem with evolutionary psychology? I don't know a ton about it, but seems like a pretty diverse field, and it seems like there should be some basic truth that our psychology--at the very least some aspects of i--has some evolutionary basis, especially if you believe in the brain-mind connection. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 16, 2017 20:39:09 GMT
Obviously not but they dont just pull this stuff out of their arse you know. The only mainstream psychological viewpoint I have ever disagreed with is evolutionary psychology which is just nonsense to me. That seems like an oddly status quo disposition to me. I think that academia is full of people who aren't very bright, who don't don't reason very well, who still believe tons of ignorant things, etc. No doubt, one great example that we both agree on is multiverse theory which is just completely inane but for the most part they are spot on. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 20:41:40 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:Your misrepresentation was in repeatedly trying to divert to consent-based approaches... Misrepresenting and diverting are two completely different things. Pesky words and their meanings tripping you up again. I don't care what you care or believe. I went back to the beginning of the thread and went through each page CTRL+Fing "consent-based" and counted three posts by me before your "misrepresenting" remark. You're free to do the same and prove me wrong. I'll even double-check: *checking* Oops, missed one. It was 4, not 3. Wow, when you categorize our discussions this lucidly[/sarcasm] it's amazing how you could get so confused about things. So basically what you're saying is you had no interest in what I was saying even when you quoted posts of me saying it in order to address what I was saying. Alrighty then. Exactly! I had started on about the classification of Eddie's criteria as a misrepresentation not just at the start of OUR exchange, but at the very start of my discussion about Eddie! In fact, it's precisely what my post was about that you first responded to! So I'm glad you now recognize it was YOUR attempt at discussing the "actual criteria" that was the diversion, rather than the discussion of the general category and what was a diversion/misrepresentation. YOU may have thought that was the issue between us, but it was not my issue in the very post that you had first responded to me about. Perhaps if you were better at understanding the subjects of people's posts (like Bryce's "experts" VS "sex-robots") you wouldn't keep making these mistakes. Reading comprehension problems again. Who the fuck cares "not by you?" You jumped in on a discussion that was about one thing, and you tried to "divert" it to something else, and now have the audacity to claim that it was others "diverting" and "misrepresenting" when they carried on with what the original discussion was about. You have some gall. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 20:42:51 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:1) Is advocating that the cons are worth the pros. The cons come with the thing advocated. Yes, that's advocating the cons. 2) I'm not sure about your tortured proposal in (2), but when one obfuscates, freely lies, totally lose their composure, begs in acolytes and induces them to engage in base falsehood and hypocrisy, and does everything possible to scurry away from the crass reality of advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults with persistent meanderings thrusts away from the actualities of the specific criteria at hand, they are of course arguing for the position. Regardless of your bladeish "namely" disclaimer. But maybe the stigma is the big wrong part.  I've got to really ponder, as I just don't know innately that offering 4 year-olds up for adult sex use is horrific without pondering the matter. 
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 20:43:30 GMT
That seems like an oddly status quo disposition to me. I think that academia is full of people who aren't very bright, who don't don't reason very well, who still believe tons of ignorant things, etc. No doubt, one great example that we both agree on is multiverse theory which is just completely inane but for the most part they are spot on. Similar to evolutionary psychology, what's your problem with the multiverse? I've found most people who object to it don't even understand the various theories about it. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 16, 2017 20:44:47 GMT
The only mainstream psychological viewpoint I have ever disagreed with is evolutionary psychology which is just nonsense to me. Not to start another tangent, but what's your problem with evolutionary psychology? I don't know a ton about it, but seems like a pretty diverse field, and it seems like there should be some basic truth that our psychology--at the very least some aspects of i--has some evolutionary basis, especially if you believe in the brain-mind connection. saying behaviour is shaped by evolution is like saying a computer spitting out 4 random letters and all of them being d is the product of the principle of the survival of the d. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 16, 2017 20:46:04 GMT
No doubt, one great example that we both agree on is multiverse theory which is just completely inane but for the most part they are spot on. Similar to evolutionary psychology, what's your problem with the multiverse? I've found most people who object to it don't even understand the various theories about it. well for one how on earth would you even test something like that empirically? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 20:48:15 GMT
tpfkar 1) Is advocating that the cons are worth the pros. The cons come with the thing advocated. Yes, that's advocating the cons. 2) I'm not sure about your tortured proposal in (2)... 1. Fine, we can just agree to disagree about this, even though you're dead wrong. From now on, whenever you support any position I'll make sure to consider all the consequences of it and go around claiming you're advocating for those cons. I'm sure this won't bother you at all. 2. Then let me rephrase with an example. Person A is pro-life. Person B says that Person A advocates for the killing of unborn babies without mentioning that Person A is pro-life, or that they value the mother's decision more than the life of the fetus. Is Person B misrepresenting the position of Person A by only saying they advocate for the consequence? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 20:49:23 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:They can be both, my obtuse bother. Your misrepresentation was in repeatedly trying to divert to consent-based approaches, other or general, when I made clear time after time that I was strictly interested in deezen's specific criteria. By which you kept misrepresenting that I had anything to say say all about them. Sorry I didn't lay it out in binary for you. Hopefully there'll be a port, I mean a different port for you. I'll be in and out, but I'll catch up, my beeping imbecile friend. 
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 21:06:03 GMT
Not to start another tangent, but what's your problem with evolutionary psychology? I don't know a ton about it, but seems like a pretty diverse field, and it seems like there should be some basic truth that our psychology--at the very least some aspects of i--has some evolutionary basis, especially if you believe in the brain-mind connection. saying behaviour is shaped by evolution is like saying a computer spitting out 4 random letters and all of them being d is the product of the principle of the survival of the d. Except we know that such a random behavior wouldn't "stick" over time without the benefit of a mechanism to make it do so. We do know how natural selection makes mutations and other changes "stick," so it seems the only real issue would be whether or not this could apply to minds the way it applies to other biological functions, and if you believe in the mind-brain connection this would seem to be a rather rational inference. This is one of the common objections that illustrate that people don't understand the multiverse. The multiverse isn't a "theory," it's a consequence/outcome of certain mathematical cosmological and physical models/theories. In other words, if certain models are true, the multiverse is true. So a multiverse doesn't require direct empirical testing; what requires testing are other aspects of the models. Many scientists find these models compelling for many reasons, some being as common as Occam's Razor or the fact that they better fit all the available data; hence why the multiverse has become rather popular. Max Tegmark has been pretty good at offering laymen-friendly overviews of the different multiverse theories and evidence for them: www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe/ and arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1283.pdf (for something a little more in-depth). Personally, I'm most familiar with the many-worlds variant, and I can say with it that my argument for it is more reason-based than empirical-based (it's the simplest interpretation that fits all the data). There was a lengthy thread on it in the philosophy forum in case you missed it (the quantum physics and determinism one) where I explained it and the major problems with other interpretations. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 21:07:51 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:They can be both, my obtuse bother. Your misrepresentation was in repeatedly trying to divert to consent-based approaches.... This still doesn't make sense. How can a misrepresentation be IN a diversion? How can it be a diversion when it was the subject was originally about? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 21:15:48 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:Good for you, you've moved on from "misrepresentation" for disagreement. Different words, you know, trippy beeping dude. You can't of course simultaneously be the actual meaning of that slanted term "pro-life" and yet "value the mother's decision more than the life of the fetus". And of course Person A advocates the termination of pregnancies, and it is "misrepresentation" only in the Arlonsphere. Did that catch you up, or was this like a TI-55's version of that lobster guy's trap?
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 21:18:25 GMT
tpfkar You can't of course simultaneously be the actual meaning of that slanted term "pro-life" and yet "value the mother's decision more than the life of the fetus". And of course Person A advocates the termination of pregnancies, and it is "misrepresentation" only in the Arlonsphere.My mistake: I meant pro-choice rather than pro-life. So let me rephrase with example again: Person A is pro-choice. Person B says that Person A advocates for the killing of unborn babies without mentioning that Person A is pro-choice, or that they value the mother's decision more than the life of the fetus. Is Person B misrepresenting the position of Person A by only saying they advocate for the consequence? Assuming you still figured out what I meant and stand by the bold part, then we can also agree to disagree over that, even though you're still dead wrong. But I know that's never stopped you before. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 16, 2017 21:19:36 GMT
saying behaviour is shaped by evolution is like saying a computer spitting out 4 random letters and all of them being d is the product of the principle of the survival of the d. Except we know that such a random behavior wouldn't "stick" over time without the benefit of a mechanism to make it do so. We do know how natural selection makes mutations and other changes "stick," so it seems the only real issue would be whether or not this could apply to minds the way it applies to other biological functions, and if you believe in the mind-brain connection this would seem to be a rather rational inference. This is one of the common objections that illustrate that people don't understand the multiverse. The multiverse isn't a "theory," it's a consequence/outcome of certain mathematical cosmological and physical models/theories. In other words, if certain models are true, the multiverse is true. So a multiverse doesn't require direct empirical testing; what requires testing are other aspects of the models. Many scientists find these models compelling for many reasons, some being as common as Occam's Razor or the fact that they better fit all the available data; hence why the multiverse has become rather popular. Max Tegmark has been pretty good at offering laymen-friendly overviews of the different multiverse theories and evidence for them: www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe/ and arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1283.pdf (for something a little more in-depth). Personally, I'm most familiar with the many-worlds variant, and I can say with it that my argument for it is more reason-based than empirical-based (it's the simplest interpretation that fits all the data). There was a lengthy thread on it in the philosophy forum in case you missed it (the quantum physics and determinism one) where I explained it and the major problems with other interpretations. note - my cap lock Doesnt work re evolutionary psychology - Do we really know it wouldnt repeat over time though? Why do you that? I think evolutionary biologists and evolutionary psychologists cherry pick positive "adaptions". If you really look at human behaviour there are thousands more examples of weaknesses. someone would be just as justified in founding a discipline called Death psychology and claiming human behaviour and biological make up is shaped by the principle of the survival of the death. You dont have a self aware penis that detects danger when near? blame the survival of the death! Your skull isnt made of unbreakable metal? Well blame the survival of the death! and so on. I could easily make the argument that weaknesses could not be repeated if they were not shaped by the principle above. re multiverse theory - Well I am not sure I would take any explanations seriously from someone who believes in the mathematical universe hypothesis (an extreme and very amusing form of mathematical platonism( regarDless how would you even define a universe? some responses I have gotten are like "the universe is everything that exists" which is obviously logically impossible as it breaks the law of non-contraDiction. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 21:20:41 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:I neither care about nor really believe your confusion. The only subject I broached with you and pursued, save your subsequently inflicted repeat atrocious dishonesty and tantruming, was strictly deezen's criteria and their direct actual implications.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 21:27:24 GMT
Except we know that such a random behavior wouldn't "stick" over time without the benefit of a mechanism to make it do so. We do know how natural selection makes mutations and other changes "stick," so it seems the only real issue would be whether or not this could apply to minds the way it applies to other biological functions, and if you believe in the mind-brain connection this would seem to be a rather rational inference. This is one of the common objections that illustrate that people don't understand the multiverse. The multiverse isn't a "theory," it's a consequence/outcome of certain mathematical cosmological and physical models/theories. In other words, if certain models are true, the multiverse is true. So a multiverse doesn't require direct empirical testing; what requires testing are other aspects of the models. Many scientists find these models compelling for many reasons, some being as common as Occam's Razor or the fact that they better fit all the available data; hence why the multiverse has become rather popular. Max Tegmark has been pretty good at offering laymen-friendly overviews of the different multiverse theories and evidence for them: www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe/ and arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1283.pdf (for something a little more in-depth). Personally, I'm most familiar with the many-worlds variant, and I can say with it that my argument for it is more reason-based than empirical-based (it's the simplest interpretation that fits all the data). There was a lengthy thread on it in the philosophy forum in case you missed it (the quantum physics and determinism one) where I explained it and the major problems with other interpretations. note - my cap lock Doesnt work re evolutionary psychology - Do we really know it wouldnt stick over time though? Why do you that? I think evolutionary biologists and evolutionary psychologists cherry pick positive "adaptions". If you really look at human behaviour there are thousands more examples of weaknesses. someone would be just as justified in founding a discipline called Death psychology and claiming human behaviour and biological make up is shaped by the principle of the survival of the death. You dont have a self aware penis that detects danger when near? blame the survival of the death! Your skull isnt made of unbreakable metal? Well blame the survival of the death! and so on. It could only stick if there was a mechanism to make it stick, otherwise each successive stroke would still be random. Evolution, in general, works by natural selection acting upon random mutations, and the mutations replicating so that it isn't a random mutation in the next generation. For this to be true of psychology all we really have to assume, at the most basic level, is that this same theory is true of brains and that brains are (at least largely) responsible for what we call psychology. I'm not sure if I really want to get into specific examples, though, since evolution isn't about creating the perfect survival-and-reproduction being, but rather just replicating whatever happens to survive and reproduce. There are millions/billions of variations on how this can happen, and most of them will have flaws that got through only because they didn't matter enough to the success rate (and if it does matter then they eventually go extinct). He isn't just arguing for his mathematical multiverse, though; he's explaining the other versions of the multiverse and the arguments for and against them. When using "universe" in the context of discussing the multiverse, the universe is just limited to our observable universe that began about 14 billion years ago. I do know some define it as all that exists, but in this context you have to distinguish "our universe" from the potential "other universes" out there. EDIT: Also, FWIW, I don't buy the mathematical universe idea either, but I do think Tegmark is dead-on in his assessment of the other multiverse theories. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 21:29:50 GMT
tpfkar The only subject I broached with you and pursued... was strictly deezen's criteria and their direct actual implications. Yep, you "broached and pursued" this by responding to a post about the correct classification of Eddie's position. So, again, you tried to divert. Of course, it was perfectly fine for you to divert given the relatedness of the subject, but don't divert and then accuse others of diverting. That's what's known as hypocrisy (not to mention being plain wrong). |
|
