Icelander said:

Fireworks IMO is one of the best posters here. He has a strong ego. People may have trouble with that.

---

I am glad to pronounce that I have a strong, transparent ego.

I consciously choose to play out the roles that I do, and I have great confidence in myself and my abilities, and yet the structure within my mind that could be referred to as ego is as transparent and unobstructive of my awareness and my experience of my state of being as it possibly can be (within a set of degrees, of course ).

I hold no true judgement of anyone or any aspect of reality, and I feel that I truly recognize and understand everything as it is presented to me. I am learning and experimenting with how I choose to interact with reality in the situations I am present in, and they do not actually represent myself or my thoughts and intentions.

I am also completely understanding of the fact that it is this same way for everyone, regardless of whether or not they are consciously aware of it. But what can one do but put on one's mask and take part?




Peace.

MushmanTheManic said:

I was poetically discribing how the emoticons feel like they're just being used. You never show them any affection. 

---

I most certainly do show them tender, loving affection! 

But that is only in private messages to Icelander.  


Peace.

fireworks_god said:

Deviate said:

swami when your arguments go flat you don't respond any better than the people that prompted your creation of this thread. i can recall several instances where you simply ignored peoples entire rebuttles.

---

Feel free to demonstrate this. There is no sense in making a statement concerning the nature of something without providing for us that which you base your understanding upon. Otherwise it is simply unsubstantiated conjecture, and it is not possible to engage in a discussion of ideas.

Otherwise, I could simply say "Oh yeah, Deviate? I recall several times when you have made posts where you don't post better than someone else and I can remember countless times where you just ignore the point and blah blah blah".

How does someone debate something like that? "Nu-uh, mang, I always respond better than those I am questioning and I always directly address the point". "Fuck you, man, I remember differently". etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Perhaps he only ignores rebutalls like these, the conjectured ones that cannot actually be discussed?

"Nu-uh, mang, he ignores valid ones! I remember!"

REAL productive manner of discussion, folks.


Peace.

---

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4267458#Post4267458

There you have, didn't need to waste all your english ...

Btw, i didn't need much time to find this post. Memory's a bitch, isn't it ? It can be even selective. Perhaps that's why you can't recall such posts ...

MAIA

MAIA said:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4267458#Post4267458

There you have, didn't need to waste all your english ...

---

I fail to see what this demonstrates. Someone asked a question that does not even pertain to the topic he proposed, concerning the percentages of UFO sightings being in error, and he doesn't respond. In fact, it seems to me that pretty much no one replies in the thread after that.

Neither is it evidenced in the thread that he was truly aware of the question and chose to blatantly ignore it.

In fact, on closer inspection, it is evident that he certainly did respond to the question.

Swami said:

Please explain what relevance a squid-like creature on the swamps of Darden IV some million parsecs away that can add 1+1 has to do with human's ability to self-deceive.

---

He directly addresses the question and requests an explanation of what relevance it has to the topic he has proposed before he will answer the question. In fact, it seems that mattz2dope ignores Swami's response and does nothing to acknowledge that he expressed it.

Obviously he did not answer it, but yet not answering a question that he himself has directly knowledged and requested more information before choosing to answer it about does not equate into blatantly ignoring the question. In fact, there is no difference between this example and that of blaze2 asking when the last time I had sex was - it has no relevance to the points raised. If this is the best evidence you have to conclusively demonstrate that Swami straight up will not respond to questions he suspossedly cannot respond to without admitting he is wrong, then you might as well return to the Mysticism forum right now. All you have done is demonstrate that certain individuals who Swami has debated are themselves guilty of failing to respond/ignoring points he has raised. The glorious irony of it all. 

Quote:

Btw, i didn't need much time to find this post. Memory's a bitch, isn't it ? It can be even selective. Perhaps that's why you can't recall such posts ...

---

Perhaps I can't recall such posts because I either never read them/never jumped to the conclusion that someone failed to respond because they were "trapped" (by the way, mattz2dope indubiantly had him in a corner there, let me tell you what, asking if he thought life might exist in a distant galaxy ) when I read the post, thus the post never came to mind. I'm not the one making claims to substantiate in that manner, burden of proof does not rest with me.


Peace.

fireworks_god said:

blaze2 said:

my beliefs are just cozy where they are and you are changing the subject my POINT wasnt that this isnt a place to argue, it was that when a sane person spends enough time communicating with a group of people a healthy respect shoudl be formed, and as respect forms one may wish to communicate civily with others.

---

Thus the purpose of discussion in such a manner, to bring the other to continue to express their point of view so that the exact "POINT", as you decided to captialize it, is clearly expressed so that everyone may understand what one is attempting to express. Before, it was not clear that your "POINT" was not that this place is not a place to argue.


The more clearly and poignant one expresses their point of view, the less this form of discourse is necessary.

Now, to address your "POINT". People will choose to communicate with others in any manner that they wish, regardless of whether or not a certain respect is held. The manner in which they express themselves is not evident of whether or not such respect is held. You are in no position to determine whether or not others here hold such respect, especially not by taking into consideration the manners in which they express themselves.

In terms of this "civil communication" that you allude to but do not give example of, please demonstrate what exactly concerning mine or others such as Skorpivo's posts are not to be classified as "civil communication". It is not clear what exactly you are implying by such a term. 


Some of the stuff you need explained like for instance "what is civil conversation mean?"  come on its not one thing that can be explained its IDEA in and of itself.  Its an all encompassing way to act and behave in a social environment.  It is respect for others way of thinking.  To show your respect not just in ways YOU consider respectful, but in respecting how OTHERS view respect.  In france when you burp its respectful to the cook, if a french guy burps here in a resteraunt people would think he is gross.  This is a neutral place neither my ways of respect nor your ideas of respect are right, but BOTH should be kept in mind.  THAT is civil communication. 

Quote:

  THere is nothing wrong in being civil, nor does it stop one from arguing his point of view.

---

This point cannot be considered until one demonstrates to us what exactly is civil communication.

Quote:

  90% of your "wellthoughtout" arguments are just plain disagreements on semantics, and you will argue when you see someone use a word in a way you dont yourself use it as.

---

?

Please demonstrate what you are referring to, so that we can discuss the specific examples to be able to come to a consensus on whether or not they actually are "plain disagreements on semantics". 

You argue over definitions.  You just did that in the begginning of the post.

Otherwise, please do not assume that we will take your conclusion that such is true on its own. If you wish to convey meaning to others, you need to give them the necessary means by which they can arrive at that meaning on their own - you cannot simply dictate truth and assume we will believe you.


I guess I'll explain everything from now on like i would to a small child so there is no confusion. 

Quote:

I only wish you would direct your arguing to what one wishes to have argued that is not asking to much.

---

I will direct my attention towards that which I prefer to address. Any aspect of one's expression is entirely valid to be questioned as it is an aspect of the main idea that is being attempted to be conveyed. It is asking too much - people are not going to respond simply to what you demand them to.

Of course you can attack whatever you want but until you disprove the main idea your just nitpicking man, take it all the way down or dont, the argument is still alive unless you do, and maybe you like htese huge long drawn out pointless squabbles but most people dont I think, its wearisome.
I am not telling you have to do anything man, just asking it out of respect, you can make the same requests of me and you would find me very receptive.

Quote:

  Make assumptions when things are asked to be assumed FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT.

---

When Deviate states that Swami ignores entire rebuttals, I am not simply going to assume that what he states is true. It is not safe to assume that his statement reflects reality without being provided with some substantiation that would thus allow me to make such an assumption.

So what you are saying is you are skeptical until you have proof, hmmmmmm

For the sake of who's arguement? His? Sorry, I prefer to claim my right to openly and validly question any aspect of his arguement to benefit my own needs. That is the function of debate.

Sure it is, but what is the point in only arguing things that are proven?  if it is already proven then you cant add anything NEW to the discussion.  You are not actually participating in philosophy or spirituality, but you play the part  of a simple fact checking machine in this forum man.  You point out flaws in arguments, important sure, but not everyhting.  THere would be no facts to check if people did not throw stuff out there in the first place

Quote:

No that may be why YOU are here, but to me I am here only to study the way the human mind works the arguing is just ways to test its limits

---

Quote:

you skeptics tend to be impossible to break(always having rebuttals, not caring at all how it makes you look), but when it does happen you wont admit it and will ignore any further mention of the subject.  How does it feel to never be wrong?

---

You refer to me through the obstruction of a generalized term, which implies that you are not responding to myself and the points that I have raised, but a preconception. Rather than debate myself, you raise points directed to a mental image of your own that existed prior to this debate. This does not surprise me.

I prooved you were a skeptic right ^^^^^ there about 3 inches up.

You seem to be expressing anguish that others will not admit that your point is correct, as you refer to these imaginary people you name skeptics as being impossible to break, and that they will not cease with questioning replies.

Skeptics are real people man(no that is not all a skeptic is, but In the course of the arguments in this forum that is their defining attribute), you either believe or dont, but im sure im assuming something without proof or some other bullshit here. whatever

I personally do not know how it feels to never be wrong. Do you? You continue to define what my behavior is when you have provided no justification for your views. You do not seem to be interested in participating with others given the nature of such statements you continue to make.

I dont need justification man, any HUMAN can read HUMAN behavior, its not paranormal in the least.  They can be wrong of course, but since you seem to be more interested in trying to prove its impossible for me to read behavior than in showing me that you are not the things I presume you to be, In fact in your pursuit of disproving an innate HUMAN ABILITY (empathy, body language, tone, history of repeated actions) you have just made my points that much clearer, thanks buddy. 

Quote:

smart ass your smarter than that you just like to make people go through more shit jsut so you repeat the process of tearing them down again.  What do you get out of it?  when is the last time you had sex btw?

---

Firstly, referring to myself as "smart ass" might constitute flaming, even though I would personally consider your refering to me as a "skeptic" more of one.

You would think that

It is clear to me that, at this point, instead of addressing your points agansit the ideas I have proposed, you choose to address myself as a person. This is not the appropriate approach to discussion here. Persist in your unfounded analysis of myself and my behavior, please, it actually is quite amusing.

Your right again woohoo for you!  Doesnt matter that you have a complete lack of trust in your own common sense, conscious, and deductive reasoning skills.  If you did you would not need everything explained like a 2 year old does.

Questioning when the last time I had sex was contributes what to the conversation at hand? I personally wouldn't be surprised if it exists as an immature tatic of someone who cannot handle productive discussion of ideas.


WOW you noticed that it has nothing to with the coversation amazing man, and you put sex and immatureism together good show,  Im impressed maybe you do have some common sense after all.

If you really must know, though, the last time I had sex was sometime last night. I had my girlfriend get naked and lie down on our comfy, soft couch. I then laid down on top of her, my chest pressed agansit her big boobs, and preceded to fuck the hell out of her. I think she had her hands squeezing my butt for awhile, but near the end, her legs were straight up in the air. I always enjoy having sex on the couch because it is easier to build momentum.

WHy should i just accept that as true on your word you seem to refuse to do that for me, nope I think im going to need some proof.  Im waiting.

Quote:

Dude no one makes any process in any arguments in here.  if you think you are then you are blind.

---

Attention Shroomery! Blaze2 declares that no one benefits from discussion in this forum! All of you who may have arrived at new insight over the years, learned to question aspects of your beliefs that lead you to new conclusions, those who have been brought to understand yourself and life deeper are blind for thinking you have.

I fear that, as the result of your frenzy of defining who I am and what I do, you have lost any basis with reality. I feel that I personally learn, grow, and benefit from every single exchange I have ever been involved with in this forum. You would not know this as you are not me, even though you seem convinced that you are.


Just cause you say an argument is invalid do you think the person on the other side says "you know what hes RIGHT! I havent been making any sense at all.  Wow im glad he showed me that."  of course not, but then again maybe you do think people have those thoughts.  Youd have to be pretty Naive tho.

---

Quote:

I concede your points here, but you could make ALOT more progress if you would only use respect in addition to your arguments.  I cannot prove this to you because it is something one must prove to themselves, by giving it a try.  Its not like if nothing changes you cant just go back to your old ways.  Also for DISCUSSION to take place one must give as well as take, arguments are what happen mostly in here, there is no give in an argument.

 

Quote:

Yea but once again I point out that i respect the opinion of this forums cats much more those.  There are perhaps 4 or 5 of you "skeptics" who are about the only ones in here besides the mods who take the rules about what should and should not be discussed in here, maybe that should tell you something man. 

---

It only tells me that you simply seem to not know what the hell you are rambling on about. Everyone here is interested in using this forum in a manner that is outlined in the rules. If they weren't, they wouldn't be here, by force or by choice. Refering to others by grossly generalized terms certainly isn't a good place to start.

Im here arent I that proves your argument false right away.

Quote:

You struggle with it daily liek having this ridiculous argument right now, you are probroly waiting ready to rebute whatever I write, go ahead I'll jsut add the sensical parts in tomarrow.  Its time for bed. and peace man i mean it wheather or not you care.

---

First off, I would not be having this "ridiculous" argument if it were not for the points you have raised (justified or not, mostly the latter ). The fact that you state I struggle with some concept of yours does not mean that I actually do, and you will not be able to demonstrate that I do.

Of course I wont only YOU can prove that to people and I think most probrobly agree you have.  You dont HAVE to have this ridiculous argument just cause i put some point out there, you could have more important things to do and just say fuck it you win, ive done this more than a few times on this board, but maybe you dont have more important things... too bad.


Peace.

---

MAIA said:

fireworks_god said:

Deviate said:

swami when your arguments go flat you don't respond any better than the people that prompted your creation of this thread. i can recall several instances where you simply ignored peoples entire rebuttles.

---

Feel free to demonstrate this. There is no sense in making a statement concerning the nature of something without providing for us that which you base your understanding upon. Otherwise it is simply unsubstantiated conjecture, and it is not possible to engage in a discussion of ideas.

Otherwise, I could simply say "Oh yeah, Deviate? I recall several times when you have made posts where you don't post better than someone else and I can remember countless times where you just ignore the point and blah blah blah".

How does someone debate something like that? "Nu-uh, mang, I always respond better than those I am questioning and I always directly address the point". "Fuck you, man, I remember differently". etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Perhaps he only ignores rebutalls like these, the conjectured ones that cannot actually be discussed?

"Nu-uh, mang, he ignores valid ones! I remember!"

REAL productive manner of discussion, folks.


Peace.

---

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4267458#Post4267458

There you have, didn't need to waste all your english ...

Btw, i didn't need much time to find this post. Memory's a bitch, isn't it ? It can be even selective. Perhaps that's why you can't recall such posts ...

MAIA

---

Sorry Fireworks, but I agree with Deviate. I see him do this often. I have my reasons for paying attention.

Swami said:

Fireworks IMO is one of the best posters here. He has a strong ego.

The force is strong in young Skywalker. 

---

Yeah, i remember when Darth Vader told that to Luke ...
Lack of ego is where the force is stronger, hence Obi-Wan Kenobi's death ...


MAIA

Quote:

If this is the best evidence you have to conclusively demonstrate that Swami straight up will not respond to questions he suspossedly cannot respond to without admitting he is wrong, then you might as well return to the Mysticism forum right now.  All you have done is demonstrate that certain individuals who Swami has debated are themselves guilty of failing to respond/ignoring points he has raised. The glorious irony of it all.

---

You make it sound so hilarious. Btw, we surely agree on how good it feels to not have myself as a moderator on this forum ...

MAIA

MAIA said:

Swami said:

Fireworks IMO is one of the best posters here. He has a strong ego.

The force is strong in young Skywalker. 

---

Yeah, i remember when Darth Vader told that to Luke ...
Lack of ego is where the force is stronger, hence Obi-Wan Kenobi's death ...


MAIA

---

He who is without ego, draw the first light saber.