User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 119

  1. #71
    . Blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5231311252 View Post
    If you're referring to my statement in the post you quoted, I never said humans were worse than animals, but that "humans in general are worse than animals".
    I fail to see the distinction. Would you care to elaborate? I believe I'm much better than animals at doing a myriad of things, like playing tennis or baseball or things of a general nature.
    Ti = 19 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Te = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ne = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fi = 15 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Si = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ni = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Se = 11[][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fe = 0

    -----------------
    Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
    Man got to sit and wonder why, why, why;
    Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
    Man got to tell himself he understand

  2. #72
    XES 5231311252's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blank View Post
    I fail to see the distinction. Would you care to elaborate?
    What is there to "fail to see" ? There's a clear distinction between the statement you presented and the one I posted.
    “'Fuck', I think. What a beautiful word. If I could say only one thing for the rest of my life, that would be it.”

  3. #73
    . Blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    @5231311252
    I don't perceive the same nuance in meaning as you.

    EDIT: Actually,
    If you're referring to my statement in the post you quoted, I never said humans were worse than animals, but that "humans in general are worse than animals".
    "humans in general are worse than animals".

    So unless in general has some specific meaning to you, you kind of did say what I quoted since "in general" can be seen as filler.
    Ti = 19 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Te = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ne = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fi = 15 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Si = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ni = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Se = 11[][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fe = 0

    -----------------
    Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
    Man got to sit and wonder why, why, why;
    Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
    Man got to tell himself he understand

  4. #74
    XES 5231311252's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blank View Post
    @5231311252
    I don't perceive the same nuance in meaning as you.

    EDIT: Actually,
    If you're referring to my statement in the post you quoted, I never said humans were worse than animals, but that "humans in general are worse than animals".
    "humans in general are worse than animals".

    So unless in general has some specific meaning to you, you kind of did say what I quoted since "in general" can be seen as filler.
    I didn't "kind of" say what you quoted, you said that. Maybe you're playing devil's advocate and yet projecting at the same time? And in the case that you have some more issues perceiving, I included some definitions for you.
    “'Fuck', I think. What a beautiful word. If I could say only one thing for the rest of my life, that would be it.”

  5. #75
    . Blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5231311252 View Post
    I didn't "kind of" say what you quoted, you said that. Maybe you're playing devil's advocate and yet projecting at the same time? And in the case that you have some more issues perceiving, I included some definitions for you.
    "Kind of" is used as a filler term, to soften my directness. Perhaps I'll be more blunt. You did say what was quoted...I quoted it from you. Barring the nonessential words, your message is the same as mine, or so I think. I asked you to elaborate on your original message. You did not. Instead, you said that
    There's a clear distinction between the statement you presented and the one I posted.
    I disagreed, and believe saying "humans in general are worse than animals" is almost semantically identical to "humans are worse than animals" given the context of the original. If there is a difference, I do not see it being clear and distinct. I seek further elaboration, not condescension.

    EDIT: Given, if
    There's a clear distinction between the statement you presented and the one I posted.
    is true, then what is the distinction? How is it significant?
    Ti = 19 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Te = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ne = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fi = 15 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Si = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ni = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Se = 11[][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fe = 0

    -----------------
    Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
    Man got to sit and wonder why, why, why;
    Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
    Man got to tell himself he understand

  6. #76
    XES 5231311252's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blank View Post
    "Kind of" is used as a filler term, to soften my directness. Perhaps I'll be more blunt. You did say what was quoted...I quoted it from you. Barring the nonessential words, your message is the same as mine, or so I think.
    You believe it is nonessential, just like you believe ' you're much better than animals at doing a myriad of things, like playing tennis or baseball or things of a general nature' and :

    "humans in general are worse than animals" is almost semantically identical to "humans are worse than animals" given the context of the original.
    Notice you did not say 'it is identical' to, but that it is "almost semantically identical to". Is this you indirectly admitting that the statement you claimed I made, was in fact not made my me?

    I asked you to elaborate on your original message. You did not. Instead, you said that
    Not only did I again point out that the statement you claimed I'd stated was incorrect, I asked what you'd failed to see.

    If there is a difference, I do not see it being clear and distinct. I seek further elaboration, not condescension.
    Elaborate about what? And what "condescension" are you speaking about? Again, perhaps you are projecting.
    “'Fuck', I think. What a beautiful word. If I could say only one thing for the rest of my life, that would be it.”

  7. #77
    . Blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5231311252 View Post
    Notice you did not say 'it is identical' to, but that it is "almost semantically identical to". Is this you indirectly admitting that the statement you claimed I made, was in fact not made my me?
    Everyone knows that 1.0001 is NOT the same as the number 1, but it's often easier to round 1.0001 into 1, despite the fact that they're not identical. I am saying 1; you are saying 1.0001. Did you literally make that statement? I would be a fool to say so. But how different are 1 and 1.0001 really? Can't they both be used to express the same thing?

    Not only did I again point out that the statement you claimed I'd stated was incorrect, I asked what you'd failed to see.
    If I could tell you what I failed to see, then I wouldn't have failed to have seen it.


    Elaborate about what?
    Quote Originally Posted by Blank
    If
    There's a clear distinction between the statement you presented and the one I posted.
    is true, then what is the distinction? How is it significant?
    You may have replied and not seen the edit as a result. But if this is not the case,

    And what "condescension" are you speaking about? Again, perhaps you are projecting
    Well, you've ignored my requests for you to elaborate on my meaning ...four times now? You've implied that I have a perception problem, a projection problem, and that I'm playing the Devil's Advocate...when all I've done is just try to understand the core meaning of what you've said. I consider that to be condescending. Perhaps you're the one who has a problem of projecting projection onto others; have you never thought of that? It is obvious now you do not wish to have a discussion, nor will you provide any additional meaning for anything you've said. Have a nice day.
    Ti = 19 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Te = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ne = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fi = 15 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Si = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ni = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Se = 11[][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fe = 0

    -----------------
    Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
    Man got to sit and wonder why, why, why;
    Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
    Man got to tell himself he understand

  8. #78
    XES 5231311252's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blank View Post
    Everyone knows that 1.0001 is NOT the same as the number 1, but it's often easier to round 1.0001 into 1, despite the fact that they're not identical. I am saying 1; you are saying 1.0001. Did you literally make that statement? I would be a fool to say so. But how different are 1 and 1.0001 really? Can't they both be used to express the same thing?
    There are often errors with rounding as it might be the approximated value, but it is not the exact value.

    If I could tell you what I failed to see, then I wouldn't have failed to have seen it.
    Now that is an error on my part, as I assumed you could clearly see the difference between the two sentences and thus was pulling a stunt.

    You may have replied and not seen the edit as a result. But if this is not the case,
    I did miss the edit and to pinpoint it for you, the distinction is the absence of "in general". I don't care if you agree with my statements or not (though this is not to say that I'm not open to discussion), but if you're going to question them they should be the statements I actually made and not ones you altered or et cetera.

    Well, you've ignored my requests for you to elaborate on my meaning ...four times now? You've implied that I have a perception problem, a projection problem, and that I'm playing the Devil's Advocate...when all I've done is just try to understand the core meaning of what you've said. I consider that to be condescending. Perhaps you're the one who has a problem of projecting projection onto others; have you never thought of that? It is obvious now you do not wish to have a discussion, nor will you provide any additional meaning for anything you've said. Have a nice day.
    Those were questions of intent. Sure it's possible I am "projecting projection onto others", the same way it's possible that you are in fact projecting onto me. Either way I had no intent on being condescending, but perhaps this is moot since I'm possibly condescending by nature.
    “'Fuck', I think. What a beautiful word. If I could say only one thing for the rest of my life, that would be it.”

  9. #79
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    @5231311252 -- So... what is the difference between humans being in general worse than animals and humans being worse than animals? I interpret "in general" to basically mean "on average"... and if that is true, then humans are worse, since the metric for a group being worse is whether the total goodness divided by the number of individuals is lower.

    Does "in general" mean something other than "on average"?

    BTW, this thread has been awesome so far.

  10. #80
    XES 5231311252's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    @5231311252 -- So... what is the difference between humans being in general worse than animals and humans being worse than animals?

    Does "in general" mean something other than "on average"?
    Idiom
    12.in general,
    a.with respect to the whole class referred to; as a whole: He likes people in general.
    b.as a rule; usually: In general, the bus is here by 9 a.m.
    Take away "in general" and you get "the bus is here by 9 a.m". I don't think that grammatically makes sense anyway, but without "in general" you are making a false statement, since what if the bus isn't here by 9 am?

    since the metric for a group being worse is whether the total goodness divided by the number of individuals is lower.
    "Worse" is a subjective term, so what's worse to you might be better to me. Same with "goodness". How can there be a "total goodness" anyway? This does not compute.
    “'Fuck', I think. What a beautiful word. If I could say only one thing for the rest of my life, that would be it.”

Similar Threads

  1. Which character from Anime would you be?
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 160
    Last Post: 06-29-2015, 04:38 PM
  2. What separates America from the rest of the modern Western world?
    By Stansmith in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 12-04-2013, 09:57 PM
  3. What keeps you from nuking the planet?
    By ladypinkington in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-23-2009, 04:56 PM
  4. Mixing human and animal DNA
    By TickTock in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 09-19-2008, 07:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO