Afraid of being seen as gay, are you?

[sweetnpetite]

I'm sure have some sort of justification for that accusation? Anything?

saying that you can't prove that humans hate (and therefore, according to your line of reasoning, can't assert it either) is fanatic. It is taking things too far. It strongly suggests that you are incapable of having a normal discussion at all. It provokes a very strong *give me a break* response.

There, I've spelled it out.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who was thinking it. (and probably long before this post...)

***edited for misplaced quote lines. oops. sorry.

 

[Liar]

I have never been so close to chewing the carpet as I am right now. Why? I just read the last few posts in this dumbass thread.

There. Now I said it. This thread is a dumbass thread.

Now, please go on, both sides (or however many sides there are): Continue to speak to the deaf, and run yourselves into the same concrete walls over and over again. It is kind of entertaining to watch.

Edited to add: This wasn't a dumbass thread to begin with, but all this logic this logic that argumentation about argumentaion hooplah is gettin on me poor nerves.

hugs all over,
#L

 

[gauchecritic]

Re: Re: You just had to do this on a Wednesday didn't you?

If hate-like behaviors are apparent in animals, why not call it hate?

Because you purposely ignored the point I was making. That humanity uses a complex language with which he can predict events and of which animals are incapable.

Hate is a word, a label. humans use (complex) labels whereas animals (in general) do not.

When you attempt to bring logic to the behavioural table you are on to a loser everytime. Because logic is a subject solely about itself. Words. Labels.

Even your thinking that logic is about thinking is so narrow it cannot be applied to anything except itself. So much so that (whether you agree or disagree, whether you see the 'truth' of it or not) it becomes so much tautology when attempting to apply it to all things simply because that is what you know most about.

Orginally by Joe
I have had the distinct pleasure of being taught by Behavioral Analysis guru Dr. Kelly Wilson, in my day. Behavioral analysis is an essential clinical psychology tool. Absolutely fanscinating subject that I'd be delighted to talk about any day of the week.

I think he, and I know I, and I suspect the rest of the behavioral psychology world would say...

*

I am not a famous behavioral anything, and I never proclaimed to be his equal...

ad populum and verecundium.

Please stop haphazardly using the term "fallacy", guache. Its a bit of an offense to my profession--

Bite me.

Gouache

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: You just had to do this on a Wednesday didn't you?

... logic is a subject solely about itself.
...
Even your thinking that logic is about thinking is so narrow it cannot be applied to anything except itself.

Brilliant. Well put.

Bite me. Por favor.

Perdita

 

[rosco rathbone]

It is an unfortunate (and irrational) misconception that people who don't feel comfortable around homosexual things and people (even to extremes) aren't confident about their own sexuality.

Why am I visualizing the video to She Blinded Me With Science ?

"all my tubes and wires!"

 

[rosco rathbone]

For instance, they could just really hate gay people.

There is always a reason for hating folk. No one hates anyone "just because".

 

[sweetnpetite]

P.S. I know that it's great academic fun to find all sorts of covert homosexuality in sports, but believe me, that's not how men see it. Touching can be intimate but it can also be violent, and it really is the violence that men look for and see.

I don't think that there is a fundamental difference. JMO.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I'm sure Luc will agree that we would love to party with you. Meet us on Black's Beach at noon.

Agreed, I've got some left over mai-tais now that Joe's been kidnapped by academic overly-logical aliens.

 

[Belegon]

Agreed, I've got some left over mai-tais now that Joe's been kidnapped by academic overly-logical aliens.

That'll work. Despite comments about getting Joe "I-have-my-education-confused-with-my-intelligence" Wordsworth stoned, I tend to limit my vices to sex, caffeine and alcohol now. Although if I were to be trapped in a room with him and a bible I might change my mind about another joint.

 

[Guest]

Agreed, I've got some left over mai-tais now that Joe's been kidnapped by academic overly-logical aliens.

http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/alien/754.gif

(Eeek.)


http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/trinken/CHEERS.gif

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Re: Re: You just had to do this on a Wednesday didn't you?

Originally posted by gauchecritic
Because you purposely ignored the point I was making. That humanity uses a complex language with which he can predict events and of which animals are incapable.

I haven't purposely ignored anything. If something was ignored, consider it an accident.

Humanity uses a complex language... ok. With it he can predict events... ok. With you so far. Animals are incapable? Of the language (given, except in the cases of limited animal communication like bee dancing and dolphin rings) or the prediction (it seems that they predict a great many, many things up to and including things like weather and conditioned antecedents).

Hate is a word, a label. humans use (complex) labels whereas animals (in general) do not.

Possibly, sure. Hate is an utterance, for sure--we intend that utterance to mean things, also granted. Animals don't use the word "hate"--ok. Fine so far.

When you attempt to bring logic to the behavioural table you are on to a loser everytime. Because logic is a subject solely about itself. Words. Labels.

Logic and behavioral psychology go quite hand in hand. Again, science has a toolkit--logic is an important one (despite their not being synonymous). I mean, ask a psychologist about whether they use logic or not... I'm confidant they'll admit to it. APA studies, peer reviewed theories... all backed by good logic if they intend to be good science.

Logic is a subject that is concerned with the relations of ideas--not just itself. I have no idea where you're getting otherwise, really. Logic is the ordering and construction of proper relations of arguments and theories (to bring it to science). Entirely relevant a thing.

Even your thinking that logic is about thinking is so narrow it cannot be applied to anything except itself. So much so that (whether you agree or disagree, whether you see the 'truth' of it or not) it becomes so much tautology when attempting to apply it to all things simply because that is what you know most about.

Sure, it can be applied to propositions made with scientific method. Happens all the time, every day, in psychology research. Have you never read a psychology article? The presentation of the thesis /is/ a huge example of the employ of logic--it is argued, even, with logic and refuted also with logic. How are you saying it is otherwise? I'd love to know.

ad populum and verecundium.

For brief explanations of the fallacies...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
http://www.goodart.org/aa.htm

On populum, I didn't actually commit the fallacy because I never asserted my proposition as true. I said I think that Dr. Wilson would say... then that I know that I would say... and finally that I suspect that the population of psychologists would say... that my proposition had merit. That's a loooooong way from "A lot of people think its true, so it MUST be true".

On verecundium, professional psychologists are not considered as being poor authorities on the field of psychology by the fallacy.

For someone who knows ass-little about logic, even to go so far as to PM me just to tell me that he doesn't know anything about fallacies... you're awfully bad about acting like you know what the hell you're talking about concerning them. I have to think you do it just to be a bitch because I can think of no other decent reason.

Bite me.

Hey, I figured if I made a polite point about being offended about something you were doing that it would merit at least a polite acceptance. So, that isn't the case and you take the opportunity to be yet more of a fuck about it. Woo. Good job.

I figure you won't take the advice, but at least read a logic book, if you're not going to take any advice from qualified people on the subject.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Belegon
That'll work. Despite comments about getting Joe "I-have-my-education-confused-with-my-intelligence" Wordsworth stoned, I tend to limit my vices to sex, caffeine and alcohol now. Although if I were to be trapped in a room with him and a bible I might change my mind about another joint.

I haven't actually confused my education with my intelligence. Though it seems a conventient cop-out for those who can't actually hang in a rational argument.

And, 'Dita, I swear I'm trying, but they aren't making it easy.

 

[Liar]

I haven't actually confused my education with my intelligence.

You have confused your scientific intelligence with your sociodynamic intelligence, your logic with your reason and argumentative accuracy with rationality.

No, I'm not going to elaborate. I could, but frankly, it bores my shoes off.



#L

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Liar
You have confused your scientific intelligence with your sociodynamic intelligence, your logic with your reason and argumentative accuracy with rationality.

No, I'm not going to elaborate. I could, but frankly, it bores my shoes off.



#L

See, the thing is, I haven't done that either. Firstly, I am not certain that there is even a difference between "scientific intelligence" (whatever that is) and "sociodynamic intelligence" (which sounds like a ham handed pseudo-psychological or sociological buzzword)... but "logic" with "reason? The two are the same, how one confuses the "relationship between ideas and propositions" with the "relationship between ideas and propositions" is beyond me; also, "argumentatice accuracy"? Were are you getting your terms? If something is logical and accurate in an argument, it is rational... but confusing "argumentative accuracy" (an argument that is also correct?) with "rationality" (participating in logic)?

No, haven't done those.

I wasn't going to go into it, but backing up my assertions never really bores me--we're just different in that regard, it seems.

 

[gauchecritic]

Re: Re: Re: Re: You just had to do this on a Wednesday didn't you?

For someone who knows ass-little about logic, even to go so far as to PM me just to tell me that he doesn't know anything about fallacies... you're awfully bad about acting like you know what the hell you're talking about concerning them. I have to think you do it just to be a bitch because I can think of no other decent reason.

Yeah Joe right ok. You win. I'm a stupid working class goit and you are the king of creation. Ok you go for the ad hominem shit because you know what you're talking about. I'm no logician (as I implied in a personal PM to you, which unfortunately you didn't infer, but decided for your own reason to publish)

I'll content myself with not going the tu quoque route and instead keep with the sarcasm (sound familiar?) and sometime wit. (obviously doesn't sound familiar)

By the way, the bad acting got through to someone, I'll let you try to guess who.

Come back when you're less crippled by youth and logic and we'll have a battle of wit instead. If it please you.

Gauche

 

[Liar]

See, the thing is, I haven't done that either. Firstly, I am not certain that there is even a difference between "scientific intelligence" (whatever that is) and "sociodynamic intelligence" (which sounds like a ham handed pseudo-psychological or sociological buzzword)... but "logic" with "reason? The two are the same, how one confuses the "relationship between ideas and propositions" with the "relationship between ideas and propositions" is beyond me; also, "argumentatice accuracy"? Were are you getting your terms? If something is logical and accurate in an argument, it is rational... but confusing "argumentative accuracy" (an argument that is also correct?) with "rationality" (participating in logic)?

No, haven't done those.

Since you asked, I get my terms from Swedish literature on the subject, and translations are pretty ad-lib, so they might not concur what what you have in your logic bibles, whichever they are.

Furthermore, how can you say "I haven't done that either" when you yourself state that you don't understand the terms of that I say you have done? Sorry, but that's just not...drumroll...logical.

Anyway, I fear I'm not eloquent enough in your language to explain those terms. Nor have I the time or energy to head into this dead end. But logic and reason are not different words just for the fuck of it.

I wasn't going to go into it, but backing up my assertions never really bores me--we're just different in that regard, it seems.

Damn right, let's talk about something that matters. Like parsnips.

Or even better, anyone wanna talk about gay things? After all, that's what this thread is supposed to be about.

#L

 

[ABSTRUSE]

anyone wanna talk about gay things? After all, that's what this thread is supposed to be about.

I miss Divine. I loved his movies.

Why do gay people have nicely decorated apartments? Is the ability to accesorize and decorate innate or learned.

I hate transvestites who do their make up better than me.

 

[Liar]

I miss Divine. I loved his movies.

Why do gay people have nicely decorated apartments? Is the ability to accesorize and decorate innate or learned.

I hate transvestites who do their make up better than me.

I dunno bout that.

In my circle of firends there are only four gay men that I know well enough to actually have been invited over to their homes.

I live in a dump. I mean dirty laundry on the kitchen floor, dust monsters in the corners, stacks of magazines everywhere, dead, decomposing flowers in the window...

They are all much worse than me.

Maybe they aren't actually gay, but just homosexual.

#L

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I dunno bout that.

In my circle of firends there are only four gay men that I know well enough to actually have been invited over to their homes.

I live in a dump. I mean dirty laundry on the kitchen floor, dust monsters in the corners, stacks of magazines everywhere, dead, decomposing flowers in the window...

They are all much worse than me.

Maybe they aren't actually gay, but just homosexual.

#L

OMG!! After reading this, I realize....I'm a gay man!!!

 

[gauchecritic]

Maybe they aren't actually gay, but just homosexual.

#L

There's an interesting idea.

Gauche

 

[Liar]

OMG!! After reading this, I realize....I'm a gay man!!!

 

[Guest]

Re. "gay" - my mother used to interpret it (Spanish being her first language) so that she called them "the happy people".

Perdita

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Or even better, anyone wanna talk about gay things? After all, that's what this thread is supposed to be about.

#L

<radiating innocence> Okay. If I suck your dick while you're arguing, will Joe's head explode?

Kidding, Joey. Lovable ol' logician you are. And what a sexy smile and ass you have as well

 

[CharleyH]

Re: Re: Re: Re: You just had to do this on a Wednesday didn't you?

Bite me. Por favor.

LOL - god, you're such a slut! LOL - I LOVE it.

Are we finally coming to semiotics here?

 

[CharleyH]

Or even better, anyone wanna talk about gay things?

I'm with Abs - gay sort of, at least in a woman's body. I watch Fosse, am a Judy Garland fan, I cook croissants, I dress well, used to watch Dynasty and, yes, I'm a home decorating junkie.

Gay - ah to dream. Why do women get stuck with the worst sounding words? Lesbian - dyke?