GENIUS FORUMS

Ah I see: wise men have the superpower of shutting down discussion whenever they want...

1otherS wrote:Ah I see: wise men have the superpower of shutting down discussion whenever they want...

Walking away from a discussion is one of the most basic liberties there are, one that should be available to everyone. If you're not able to end a discussion when you want to, then the situation you're in is pretty damn totalitarian.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

1otherS wrote:Ah I see: wise men have the superpower of shutting down discussion whenever they want...

Walking away from a discussion is one of the most basic liberties there are, one that should be available to everyone. If you're not able to end a discussion when you want to, then the situation you're in is pretty damn totalitarian.

OK fair, but I see the triumvirate backing off from reasonable challenges way too often...

What reasonable challenge? It was none of your business, in actual fact.

I meant reasonable challenges in other threads.

You know, it's funny how your "reasonable challenges" always exist in some other thread.

You're an spineless invertebrate, indeed!

Here's one challenge left unanswered:

"How's an illiterate box-folder going to appreciate Nagarjuna?."

Here's another:

"Do you know how to search someone else's posts?"

And another:

"What credentials do you have in philosophy and linguïstics in oder to call yourself a sage?"

A last one for this post:

1otherS
"What valence am I borrowing? I'm not claiming any superiority.

Weininger called the lowest of the male still higher than the highest of the female.

According to this logic, a male rapist and murderer ranks better on the morality-scale than a female Nobel Prize winner just because of a difference in anatomy.

My question is: does this look like good sense to you? Isn't this absolute black and white-thinking?"

Here it is, Leyla...Can you now please answer them all without namecalling?

[laughs]

1otherS, you're mad.

Here's my challenge to you: what is the purpose of context?

You can easily search what sections and threads I wrote my own arguments in to see where I'm coming from IF YOU'RE PREPARED TO DO SO.

Please put in some effort to refute my points...

BTW in a debate between grown-ups calling someone else "mad" automatically disqualifies you from getting any credit.

Hey, hypocrite, the game works thus: quid pro quo.

I ain't farting around on some wild goose chase to satisfy your womanly desire when I can CLEARLY see the manner of your own "refutations" in current, outstanding matters.

Quit playing games Leyla, Ive offered a lot more than you've given me.

Check my recent posts: all the challenges are there in the correct context.

Why do you keep evading everything?

Oh, and a word of caution: don't ever fucking speak to me like that again.

I don't play games with truth, mate. Pull your deluded skull in.

Threatening and namecalling...classy?

BTW do you have a sense of humour?

BTW do you have a sense of humour?

Of course I do. For instance, the following statement is so bloody funny I could hardly breathe from laughing over it:

Threatening and namecalling...classy?

Why, oh inferior one, do you dare to imply I should measure up to your notion of "class"?

Leyla Shen wrote:

BTW do you have a sense of humour?

Of course I do. For instance, the following statement is so bloody funny I could hardly breathe from laughing over it:

Threatening and namecalling...classy?

Why, oh inferior one, do you dare to imply I should measure up to your notion of "class"?

I never called you "a twit", "a woman", "so scared of an idea".

You have to admit you really beat me in the rudeness department, but actually did very little to refute my points( which I've laid out again in this thread, like you asked me to).

I never called you "a twit", "a woman", "so scared of an idea".

I spoke the truth. Do you never wonder why you can't directly answer a fucking question?

You have to admit you really beat me in the rudeness department, but actually did very little to refute my points( which I've laid out again in this thread, like you asked me to).

I have addressed the "points" directed at me in their appropriate place and context, unlike you. The fact that you do this simply further demonstrates your complete inability to confront things HEAD ON, stupid!

Leyla Shen wrote:

I never called you "a twit", "a woman", "so scared of an idea".

I spoke the truth. Do you never wonder why you can't directly answer a fucking question?

1otherS
Your "truth" is unsubstantiated bullshit.

You have to admit you really beat me in the rudeness department, but actually did very little to refute my points( which I've laid out again in this thread, like you asked me to).

I have addressed the "points" directed at me in their appropriate place and context, unlike you. The fact that you do this simply further demonstrates your complete inability to confront things HEAD ON, stupid!

I do confront things head on-I have asked important questions to the QRS and you. You just failed to answer any of them.

A pertinent one(AGAIN):

"How's an illiterate boxfolder going to appreciate Nagarjuna."

This was a challenge to Dan claiming the degree of education has no impact on the chance of enlightenment.

This was a challenge to Dan claiming the degree of education has no impact on the chance of enlightenment.

You've missed the point, entirely.

1otherS wrote:"How's an illiterate boxfolder going to appreciate Nagarjuna."

This was a challenge to Dan claiming the degree of education has no impact on the chance of enlightenment.

This thread seems to be a lot about the past and other stuff i'm not interested in being involved in.

But to address the above point, even though i don't see relation to the thread topic, statistics show that those people that have become enlightened are typically more educated than normal. Education really helps, even though it's not specifically required.

Rhett wrote:But to address the above point, even though i don't see relation to the thread topic, statistics show that those people that have become enlightened are typically more educated than normal. Education really helps, even though it's not specifically required.

Wise folks are also highly unlikely to "succeed" in a world that doesn't find them particularly useful, especially when it is an unwritten rule that one must be extremely egotistical in order to do so.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Rhett wrote:But to address the above point, even though i don't see relation to the thread topic, statistics show that those people that have become enlightened are typically more educated than normal. Education really helps, even though it's not specifically required.

Wise folks are also highly unlikely to "succeed" in a world that doesn't find them particularly useful, especially when it is an unwritten rule that one must be extremely egotistical in order to do so.

There's a challenge.

Trying for enlightenment is success at not being mediocre. Becoming enlightened is success at enlightenment. More than that is better again, of course.

Right..so says the poseur who thinks he has animal magnetism over any and all women.

Women are attracted to men that have consciousness, focus, intelligence, confidence, determination, individuality, an attractive body, and physical strength, to name a few things.

Only if they feel they can exploit those things and only till they find they can't.

Spot on, Danny boy, spot on.