Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: It's as though there was a discussion about math 49

Me: "2 + 2 = 4"
Him: "You're incapable of seeing beyond your affirmations."
Me: "What, then? Can you sketch an alternative to traditional math?"
Him: "Look, you're just regurgitating the same old stuff. If you won't give that up, there's nothing I can do."
Me: "Sorry! I thought this was an exchange of ideas, not a con job."

Wow. I thought I was supposed to be the one who's nuts for thinking that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ.
But you won't begin to catch me evangelizing the meaning of life in the kind of anti-intellectual mode I have conveyed above.
And, no, the above dialog is not a literal one. I've taken what I consider the gist of another discussion with someone else here on /. and recast it from scratch.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

It's as though there was a discussion about math

Comments Filter:
  • You: God sayez "2 + 2 = 4"

    Me: What does 'god' have to do with anything? Don't be cluttering up biology with your 'cosmik debris'. I don't care about your 'alternatives', and your other rationalizations. I'm only telling you that your actions prove without any doubt your animal nature still prevails, and that only by arrogance do you place yourself above it all, and try to distance yourself from what you are. And of course you need to create a supreme being to protect and justify your supreme authority. You

    • Not that you'd accept any secular data [] either, if it went against your convictions.

      • What, it just means people should be more careful when they have sex. No real controversy there.

        • But telling people to be more *serious* about having sex, gets in the way of their atheistic Right to the Holy Orgasm, which they should be allowed to experience without your naysaying.

          • It's not an order, it's a suggestion.

            • In my experience, any suggestion against the Holy Orgasm to liberals is met by a lynch mob.

              • That's another issue, and those kind of people are not liberals, not in the classic sense anyway.

                • "those kind of people are not liberals, not in the classic sense anyway"

                  Should we just give up on these left/right, liberal/conservative labels and just go with Rousseauan and Lockean?
                  BHO is going to defend the Orwellian state, and liberals are going to rush to call him 'conservative' for it.
                  • Should we just give up on these left/right, liberal/conservative labels...

                    Yes, of course.

                    ...and just go with Rousseauan and Lockean?

                    No, in the physical world strong and weak will suffice. We can drop the 'philosophical' charade.

                    You all can call Obama what you like. I just see him as a paid actor, reading his lines, and not bumping into the furniture. The camera loves him. What else is there to say? Your 'Orwellian state' is propped up by none other than your John Galt. They need each to exist at all.

                • Correct- they're libertines. Sexual side, or fiscal side, take your pick, they've made liberty their new Goddess.

                  • You say that as if we should all submit to oppression. Don't think you'll find much luck there. There is no 'right' to authority, only might. The morality angle is bogus, a thinly veiled attempt to hide powerful bullies.

                    • There is no difference between the authority of the libertines and the authority of the government. The government is made up of libertines.

                    • No, it's mostly composed of neo-liberals that cater to the ancient system of mercantilism. It's strictly business.

                    • There is no profit in mercantilism for reduction of population. It is in fact very bad business to reduce either your labor or consumer supply. Only the fiscal libertine side can be described by this, not the sexual libertine side, so you just revealed yourself to be rather partisan.

                    • And it just occurred to me that I have a blind spot due to my Catholicism. It isn't the sexual libertine side. It's the *sensual* libertine side, which includes abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs.

                    • Because we are animals with a single motivation, fiscal and sexual cannot be separated, like authority and cruelty. One is used to get more of the other. Doesn't matter which direction.

                    • Then why are all the big fiscal liberty families so small? In fact, it's almost a cliche- the richer you are in America, the fewer heirs you have.

                    • There you go again with the materialistic reductionism. Other than an momentary, hedonistic excuse that vanishes upon reflection, I can't fathom what you have to offer.
    • I'm only telling you that your actions prove without any doubt your animal nature still prevails, and that only by arrogance do you place yourself above it all, and try to distance yourself from what you are.

      And yet, still, you haven't shown me an alternative.
      Nor have I ever explicitly denied an animal nature. In fact, I've got 23 pairs of chromosomes that underscore the existence of such.
      Nor do I see how I've placed myself above it all, in positing that there is an universe within which we all sit. I have stated that there is a purpose.
      Nor am I seeking to "distance yourself from what [I am]". I'm out to maximize the value of that which I am, through developing it.
      Maybe, just maybe, you're ignorant of what

      • 2 + 2 = 10 []

        Or you might be talking to the wrong people. Or being in the wrong conversation.

      • The priests are raping young boys...

        Well, sure, they have to until you can give them an alternative. Boys are having sex with boys, and the priests have to have sex with boys to show that having sex with boys is wrong.

        Either you can continue living and acting as animals, or you can try to be a human being. Those are your choices, pick one.

        • Sorry, not Roman Catholic.
          As a Baptist, I can tell you that

          try to be a human being

          is a side-effect of pursuing Jesus Christ. Back atcha.

          • a side-effect of pursuing Jesus Christ.

            If he is found, he'll end up in Gitmo, if not droned.

            And I doubt propping up your favorite bandits is a very good method of 'pursuing Jesus Christ', unless there's some other Jesus Christ on the wrong side of the Rio Grande we are unaware of.

            • . . .if not droned.

              *Sigh* Whatever happened to traditional rejections of Truth, like crucifixion? You kids are so over-caffeinated these days.

              • The truth you're after?? Who would've known? Well you sure won't find it by chasing ghosts and rationalizing premeditated murder by the state (the uber-state!)... Besides that, it will destroy all your preconceptions, so I fully expect an out of hand dismissal as such if you ever bump into it. For some the truth is a wall instead of a window. And crucifixion really has gone out of style, only ceremonially practiced by those kinky types who like to be tied to the bedposts during sex.

                • I can say the same about you....with preconceptions like pedophile priests that turn out to specifically NOT be pedophiles, even when guilty.

                  • It's an analogy, ok? The man is rationalizing bad behavior because he claims there's no alternative. To which, the only logical response is, hogwash! When you pursue the 'lesser' evil, you still only get evil.

                    • Once I get through your insulting analogies, I kind of agree. Too bad I know that you're also for just the lesser evil.

                    • the man is rationalizing bad behavior because he claims there's no alternative

                      Wut? To claim no alternative, you'd have to destroy free will. And I assure you, I'm not a materialist.

                    • Only a horny priest who can't keep his vows, or just about any other hypocrite would take it as an insult. A regular person would understand the point without having to think twice.

        • Actually, I just had this conversation with somebody who insisted that what the priests did was specifically not pedophila (well, ok, I was relating it to heterosexual men wanting 8 year old girls with precocious puberty, but when you look at the actual cases, NONE of the boys were actually "young" as in under the age of puberty).

          • Yeah well, there is that little statutory issue, regardless of whether it's valid or not.

            • Which I brought up. To which I was treated with a round of "your definitions are bigoted and illogical and against the Holy Orgasm as preached by St. Freud" or some such equivalent nonsense.

Elliptic paraboloids for sale.