StarGateWars Forums

For those among them who may think in terms of steps...

Agapooka wrote:For those among them who may think in terms of steps...

There are but a few whose mental composition does not require the constructs of causality and linearity, sir. Even among the 'upper percentiles' these people are scarce.


THOU SHALT CONFORM!

Hold on, I need to put on my cow hide.

Agapooka wrote:Hold on, I need to put on my cow hide.

Yes.. you do, very well trained pet.
I applaud your conformity, brother.

Universe wrote:One requires half a brain and a search engine to be able to defend their own opinions.
To create and credibly defend positions you do not support requires a complete brain. Search engine optional.
I think all those in the upper percentile of the second group know what the next step would be?

I tend to think it requires a much braver and intellectually strong person to argue his own views against himself. Intellectual Integrity dictates the need for self reflection over the supporting of false ideas. So I think that says what you where saying in that to many people simply toe the line and never oppose it, do you agree?

TheWay wrote:

Universe wrote:One requires half a brain and a search engine to be able to defend their own opinions.
To create and credibly defend positions you do not support requires a complete brain. Search engine optional.
I think all those in the upper percentile of the second group know what the next step would be?

I tend to think it requires a much braver and intellectually strong person to argue his own views against himself. Intellectual Integrity dictates the need for self reflection over the supporting of false ideas. So I think that says what you where saying in that to many people simply toe the line and never oppose it, do you agree?

The two are in agreement with their original intent. There two types of people who are capable of arguing the opposing view point from what they believe. The first are those who constantly question everything and are therefore willing to question even the grounds of their own beliefs. The second are those who have so much faith in what they believe that they are not worried about being influenced by further research/debate on a given topic and so can take either side of it.

@Pookie: the Wednesday debate while funny I found to be a waste of time for those who could have been debating something much more meaningful. Though it was good for a laugh at certain points.

Depends what you mean by "meaningful". I think that being ridiculous enough to evoke laughter is very meaningful.

EDIT: Besides, that debate is trying to say something about my ideas on debates, which are also posted here. Furthermore, I believe that the very nature of debating, as I understand it, reflects a lot on human nature. By exaggerating that, I am also making a serious point, which is very meaningful indeed, whatever that word, meaningful, means.

Agapooka wrote:Depends what you mean by "meaningful". I think that being ridiculous enough to evoke laughter is very meaningful.

Now that might be a decent discussion rather than a debate. Although I suppose we could debate the two extremes nothing is meaningful vs everything is meaningful...

Thade wrote:

Agapooka wrote:Depends what you mean by "meaningful". I think that being ridiculous enough to evoke laughter is very meaningful.

Now that might be a decent discussion rather than a debate. Although I suppose we could debate the two extremes nothing is meaningful vs everything is meaningful...

oh no now he will release his nihilistic leanings on us lol

Now, there'd be no point in me doing that, would there?

Agapooka wrote:Now, there'd be no point in me doing that, would there?