A ridiculous question
- Thread starter Slut_boy
- Start date
Never
Come What May
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2000
- Posts
- 23,234
Slut_boy said:
Over six hundred posts and someone still thinks I'm male.
'Higher' thinking? Is one type of thought process greater than all the others?
While you gaze down upon this lowly, one I'll suggest that your questions are superfluous. What do I care about worms or birds? Does the idea that I don't exist or I do exist change that existence or lack there of?
It may even interest you to know they have already sent information at a speed faster than light.
I'm not knocking your questions. I've found them and the answers people have given intelligent and engaging. Like everything else though, they are meaningless, and the fact is you couldn't seem to tolerate the answer I gave you - the only answer that I truly believed. That's a shame because philosophy isn't about telling people the answer to life's questions, it's about making them question the answers others have given them.
Anyway, please don't think this is a tirade against you as I've always considered you articulate and knowledgeable and many times I've found your posts to saying what I try to say when I just can't get the thought out right. The important part? Never = female.
Say it with me people: Never is not a man.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~What is the mind? It doesn't matter.
What is matter? Never mind.
What the hell is the speed limit, anyway?
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the speed f light and the speed f thought are the same. (Both are faster than my typing speed, as evidenced by the above sentence) Our thought processes are nothing more than electrical impulses being carried across "synapses" that are the equivalent of "spark gaps" (It's dificult to explain without getting into basic electric theory and including discussions of magnetism and conductivity). Suffice it to say, we're talking about the movement of electrons from atom "A", "through" atoms "B" and "C" on their way to atoms "X", "Y", and "Z" or wherever their final destination turns out to be, even across the universe. This all occurs at the speed of light, which is the speed at which electrons travel.
Just had to add my coupla cent's worth...
GoMyr
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the speed f light and the speed f thought are the same. (Both are faster than my typing speed, as evidenced by the above sentence) Our thought processes are nothing more than electrical impulses being carried across "synapses" that are the equivalent of "spark gaps" (It's dificult to explain without getting into basic electric theory and including discussions of magnetism and conductivity). Suffice it to say, we're talking about the movement of electrons from atom "A", "through" atoms "B" and "C" on their way to atoms "X", "Y", and "Z" or wherever their final destination turns out to be, even across the universe. This all occurs at the speed of light, which is the speed at which electrons travel.
Just had to add my coupla cent's worth...
GoMyr
Okay, okay *finally stops beating on himself* I am sorry Never. I didn't mean to reply like that, it was uncalled for. At the time I did feel as though you were ridiculing a thread that we were interested in and enjoying. But I did apologize (reluctantly) soon thereafter. Now that I have read your post, I apologize most sincerely. As I said, it was obviously me that wasn't seeing things clearly. Please accept.
And then to ShyGuy, well what can I say my good friend? It is truly something so beautiful that I am afraid I may do the picture injustice if I even try to put words to that perfect image. Thank you for posting it. By the way, is that Kitten? *wink* Now a picture of Merelan please ShyGuy.
And then to ShyGuy, well what can I say my good friend? It is truly something so beautiful that I am afraid I may do the picture injustice if I even try to put words to that perfect image. Thank you for posting it. By the way, is that Kitten? *wink* Now a picture of Merelan please ShyGuy.
ShyGuy68
The Dane with a cane
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2000
- Posts
- 24,509
Slut_boy I just had the feeling you would like the picture when I stumbled over it a few days ago. And I was just waiting for the right time and place to post it! lolSlut_boy said:
It's an actress named Shannon Elisabeth, she in the movie "American Pie"
And if I have pictures of Merelan, who says I'll share them??
Merelan, I was just hoping that there may be more of those where that one came from. Hey, if ShyGuy doesn't have any of you then would it really be too much if I were to ask you to post one yourself *blushing at my own shameless boldness* .... er Merelan, it goes without saying that you should of course be flashing your panties in the pic that you have so graciously agreed to post *wink*
Never
Come What May
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2000
- Posts
- 23,234
You were what? *Hopes you cleaned off the keyboard afterwards at least* I suppose I should be flattered...Slut_boy said:
As for apologizing, you are a gentleman - I suppose I can't refuse.
Anyway; here's something to ponder.
Birds Sing.
Madonna Sings.
Madonna is a Bird.
Silverlily
Kitty Mama - East Coast
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2000
- Posts
- 13,101
Put me down? I know my posts aren't all the most in depth, but insults?
OH! Off of his lap! (smacks forehead) Silly kitty.
OH! Off of his lap! (smacks forehead) Silly kitty.
Another Question: Number 4
Okay, here is another question. This one has a relgious flavour and is not meant to offend anyone - rather it is something about which I have thought - a kind of paradox.
Christians often blame the Jews for the death of Christ. But Christianity also teaches how important Christ's death was for mankind. Is this a paradox: to hold those responsible for an act that you deplore despite it's resulting (apparently)in the salvation of all people, including a benefit to Christians. Shouldn't they thank the Jews rather than condemn them? Can Christian philosophy reconsile itself in this regard or is it simply inconsistent in this regard?
Okay, here is another question. This one has a relgious flavour and is not meant to offend anyone - rather it is something about which I have thought - a kind of paradox.
Christians often blame the Jews for the death of Christ. But Christianity also teaches how important Christ's death was for mankind. Is this a paradox: to hold those responsible for an act that you deplore despite it's resulting (apparently)in the salvation of all people, including a benefit to Christians. Shouldn't they thank the Jews rather than condemn them? Can Christian philosophy reconsile itself in this regard or is it simply inconsistent in this regard?
Expertise
Omniscient, Omnipotent and Occasionally Charming
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
- Posts
- 10,633
One of the many inconsistency's that abound in Christianity...like why has nobody beaten Gerry Falwell into little tiny pieces.
Actualy christians reviling jews for this reason actually calls into question there belief of God as an omnipotent and omniscient superior being.
They revile jews for something that God wanted to happen? Or is God not really as they see him or was he taking the day off.
I am not christian bashing here. I actually consider my self one in a broad sense. But those who are literalists and use the Bible and their church as a crutch need a smack and an intelect
Actualy christians reviling jews for this reason actually calls into question there belief of God as an omnipotent and omniscient superior being.
They revile jews for something that God wanted to happen? Or is God not really as they see him or was he taking the day off.
I am not christian bashing here. I actually consider my self one in a broad sense. But those who are literalists and use the Bible and their church as a crutch need a smack and an intelect
Silverlily
Kitty Mama - East Coast
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2000
- Posts
- 13,101
Hmm, to be honest, I was never aware Christians blamed the Jews for the death of Christ. I was raised in a non-denominational Christian home, though I myself am not one. My parents both truely believed in forgiveness, that nothing was too horrible that the blood of Christ couldn't wash it away, their words, not mine.
I do remember my mother saying once that God originally sent Christ to save the Jewish people, they were His chosen ones. Because they did not accept him as the Messiah, God instead chose to let him die for everyone. I think she was grateful.
I have always had a problem with blaming an entire people for that acts of a few. I think the situation you are referring to is probably based more in a sort of racism than any religious belief.
I do remember my mother saying once that God originally sent Christ to save the Jewish people, they were His chosen ones. Because they did not accept him as the Messiah, God instead chose to let him die for everyone. I think she was grateful.
I have always had a problem with blaming an entire people for that acts of a few. I think the situation you are referring to is probably based more in a sort of racism than any religious belief.
Fletch, it is indeed bizarre. What makes it even more bizarre, Kitten, is that Christians supposedly blame the Jews in an indirect way. Of course they didn't directly kill him - crucifixion was a Roman thing. They blame the Jews for not responding to Pilot's annual ceremonious freeing of one prisoner, by calling for the freedom of Jesus of Nazareth. Instead, the Jews chose another over Christ and for this reason the death of Christ is blamed (by the Christian institution) on the Jews. Surely the proximate causal nexus would in fact be the Roman's and not the Jews? How can one be more guilty in the choice that one makes than those who forced you to make the choice in the first place? But that's a different question altogether. What are your thoughts?
Silverlily
Kitty Mama - East Coast
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2000
- Posts
- 13,101
Slut_boy said:
My thoughts are that I've fallen down the rabbit hole and wound up in an alternate universe.
What is a proximate causal nexus? Is he related to Nexxus?
Seriously, I don't know. I believe people really have no rhyme or reason behind what they do. The decision to lay blame is often arbitrary. An example: Angry because traffic was terrible, I am gruff with the first customer to come in my store. It's not the customer's fault traffic was bad, but I took it out on her anyway. (This was only an example, I LOVE my customers)
I hope this makes sense. I think it would be difficult to pinpoint why and how a group chooses to do what they do. Not to mention reasons provided on one day may not be the same on the next day.
Merelan
Lady's Love
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2000
- Posts
- 10,812
Kitty dear, all your customers? Every single one? If so, what and where do you work?
Professor, yes, I too was raised to look at the Jew and blame him for Christ, at least that was what the church said. But, I was lucky, my parents only paid lip service to the church and taught us at home their beliefs. Where I grew up you went to church, period. Anyone that didn't was excluded from many things. When we were old enough to reason we made our own decisions. I also learned the reasons behind some of the seemingly wierd things that take place in the Bible.
As a rule it was simple to blame the Jews. They could have saved him. But see, here's the clincher. It was not the average Jew that stood at the gates that day. It was a fixed crowd. The Zealots who had wanted Christ to call to arms and take over the place and smother it is Judaism. Oh, their version of course. They weren't really happy with his peace, love and forgiveness schtick. The average person didn't even know who he was, nor care. They were starving, being beaten and oppressed by their liberating Roman Rule.
And don't think I am being facetious. I believe he and his Dad have to have the wierdest sense of humour around, hmmm, kinda like Dixon's now that I think of it. Look at what they wrought?
I realize I didn't even answer the question. Okay. Well. Do I think it's inconsistant with the so called Christian beliefs? No. Whatever the chief of their sect says is right true and the only way. Cross my heart and stick a needle in my arm and rub blue mud in my belly and wink at the full moon.
Does it go against what Christ himself taught? Yes. He sorrowed at his people. He loved us and wanted us to love each other, forgive each other for what was done to us. But he was destined to die for us. This of course wasn't his idea. It was his Dad's and can I just say something here? (No tomatoes thrown please!) I also do not think Judas rots in hell for betraying him. Someone had to do it, and he was the chosen black lamb. Not fair either. But there is nothing in the rule book about life being fair, is there?
Or did I miss something?
Professor, yes, I too was raised to look at the Jew and blame him for Christ, at least that was what the church said. But, I was lucky, my parents only paid lip service to the church and taught us at home their beliefs. Where I grew up you went to church, period. Anyone that didn't was excluded from many things. When we were old enough to reason we made our own decisions. I also learned the reasons behind some of the seemingly wierd things that take place in the Bible.
As a rule it was simple to blame the Jews. They could have saved him. But see, here's the clincher. It was not the average Jew that stood at the gates that day. It was a fixed crowd. The Zealots who had wanted Christ to call to arms and take over the place and smother it is Judaism. Oh, their version of course. They weren't really happy with his peace, love and forgiveness schtick. The average person didn't even know who he was, nor care. They were starving, being beaten and oppressed by their liberating Roman Rule.
And don't think I am being facetious. I believe he and his Dad have to have the wierdest sense of humour around, hmmm, kinda like Dixon's now that I think of it. Look at what they wrought?
I realize I didn't even answer the question. Okay. Well. Do I think it's inconsistant with the so called Christian beliefs? No. Whatever the chief of their sect says is right true and the only way. Cross my heart and stick a needle in my arm and rub blue mud in my belly and wink at the full moon.
Does it go against what Christ himself taught? Yes. He sorrowed at his people. He loved us and wanted us to love each other, forgive each other for what was done to us. But he was destined to die for us. This of course wasn't his idea. It was his Dad's and can I just say something here? (No tomatoes thrown please!) I also do not think Judas rots in hell for betraying him. Someone had to do it, and he was the chosen black lamb. Not fair either. But there is nothing in the rule book about life being fair, is there?
Or did I miss something?
Silverlily
Kitty Mama - East Coast
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2000
- Posts
- 13,101
LOL, Merelan! I really need to find some symbol for sarcastic!
I was the manager for a women's clothing shop, but am now the retail consultant. They now pay me almost the same salary to come in once and a while and tell them what to do. As for my customers, or the terminally vapid, they're all darlings, everyone one of them. That's assuming, of course, your definition of darling is a twit who insists she is three sizes smaller than she really is or yells at you because there is nothing good on the clearance rack.
I was the manager for a women's clothing shop, but am now the retail consultant. They now pay me almost the same salary to come in once and a while and tell them what to do. As for my customers, or the terminally vapid, they're all darlings, everyone one of them. That's assuming, of course, your definition of darling is a twit who insists she is three sizes smaller than she really is or yells at you because there is nothing good on the clearance rack.
Pull over, buddy
Um, actually it doesn't.
"Thought" and other neuronal phenomona are indeed electrical signals, but the actual propagation is more chemical than electrical and has more to do with sodium pumps and membrane permeability than it does with spark gaps.
The actual speed of propagation varies with many parameters, but the general range is approximately 1-300 mph (0.5-120 meters per second for the metrically inclined).
Additionally, the intrinisic nature of neuronal interaction is to tend towards frequency modulation over amplitude modulation; thus, many pulses may be required to send a given signal, with an appropriate refractory period between each pulse to let the plumbing recharge.
The magic isn't in the speed of your synapses, it's in the emergent behavior of the dense interconnection.
GoMyr said:
Um, actually it doesn't.
"Thought" and other neuronal phenomona are indeed electrical signals, but the actual propagation is more chemical than electrical and has more to do with sodium pumps and membrane permeability than it does with spark gaps.
The actual speed of propagation varies with many parameters, but the general range is approximately 1-300 mph (0.5-120 meters per second for the metrically inclined).
Additionally, the intrinisic nature of neuronal interaction is to tend towards frequency modulation over amplitude modulation; thus, many pulses may be required to send a given signal, with an appropriate refractory period between each pulse to let the plumbing recharge.
The magic isn't in the speed of your synapses, it's in the emergent behavior of the dense interconnection.
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
Re: Another philosophy problem to solve
Okay, so I am astonishingly late replying to this one. I have a minor punctuality disorder. If you can have road rage syndrome, I can have a punctuality disorder.
Anyway, I am reminded of a joke that I heard in Algebra 2 all those years ago. I am also reminded that I'm the only idiot who laughed. Hmmmm.
"Rene Descartes eventually pondered out this philosophy in answer to his question of existence, "I think therefore I am." That evening his wife asked him if he would like spaghetti for dinner. He said "I think not!" and ceased to exist."
In answer to your question, we never left square one. We have just as much certainty that our early worm exists as we do that we ourselves exist. Our proverbial fish bait has nothing in it but a small cluster of nerves at one point called cephalization. It is a much dimished version of our medula oblongatta and as such, incapable of rational thought. It seems to have no problems understanding it's existence.
Anyone else notice the great mathmeticians were all philosphers?
[Edited by KillerMuffin on 08-25-2000 at 09:12 PM]
Slut_boy said:
Okay, so I am astonishingly late replying to this one. I have a minor punctuality disorder. If you can have road rage syndrome, I can have a punctuality disorder.
Anyway, I am reminded of a joke that I heard in Algebra 2 all those years ago. I am also reminded that I'm the only idiot who laughed. Hmmmm.
"Rene Descartes eventually pondered out this philosophy in answer to his question of existence, "I think therefore I am." That evening his wife asked him if he would like spaghetti for dinner. He said "I think not!" and ceased to exist."
In answer to your question, we never left square one. We have just as much certainty that our early worm exists as we do that we ourselves exist. Our proverbial fish bait has nothing in it but a small cluster of nerves at one point called cephalization. It is a much dimished version of our medula oblongatta and as such, incapable of rational thought. It seems to have no problems understanding it's existence.
Anyone else notice the great mathmeticians were all philosphers?
[Edited by KillerMuffin on 08-25-2000 at 09:12 PM]
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
Re: A third philosophical question
Heheheh
Watch Flight of the Navigator. PeeWee Herman will explain Einstienian physics to you while the Doctor from WKRP in Cincinnati tries to catch you.
The fastest known force in the universe is the speed of gossip.
By the way Hunky Thumpy, we can't even prove we exist, how can we prove or even beggar to theorize that matter cannot go faster than the speed of light? Have you been there done that and not told anyone? This can bring us back to the speed of a man's come question.
Our man is going the speed of light and he is butt assed naked while doing it, watching the Spice channel. His whangy is pointed along the same vector as he is travelling. When he comes is his ejaculate going faster than the speed of light?
[Edited by KillerMuffin on 08-25-2000 at 09:08 PM]
Slut_boy said:
Heheheh
Watch Flight of the Navigator. PeeWee Herman will explain Einstienian physics to you while the Doctor from WKRP in Cincinnati tries to catch you.
The fastest known force in the universe is the speed of gossip.
By the way Hunky Thumpy, we can't even prove we exist, how can we prove or even beggar to theorize that matter cannot go faster than the speed of light? Have you been there done that and not told anyone? This can bring us back to the speed of a man's come question.
Our man is going the speed of light and he is butt assed naked while doing it, watching the Spice channel. His whangy is pointed along the same vector as he is travelling. When he comes is his ejaculate going faster than the speed of light?
[Edited by KillerMuffin on 08-25-2000 at 09:08 PM]
Similar threads
