User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 54

  1. #41
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Same.
    Just catch me a leprechaun and I'll get back to you on it. Okay?
    Gottcha.....tag your it

  2. #42
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aerithria View Post
    Oh, and I refuse to change my thinking to match yours until you change your thinking to match mine. Open-minded-ness doesn't mean agreeing with you, it means that I consider your point of view before taking a position, which I have already done. And it works both ways, meaning that just because my opinion is different than yours, it doesn't mean that your way of thinking is better than mine.
    LOL I don't think my way of thinking is any better than anyone else's, I just get ticked off by instnat dismissal without review of any information..... just seems a bit short sighted...

    Lets face it if you reveiwed everything you'd spend your life with a nose in a book.

    L

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Look if astrology was real it would be a trillion pound industry, do you honestly think it hasn't been subject to rigorous scientific testing. Stars are the slaves of gravity right? So if the stars predict your life, you could predict the movement of the stars and therefore predict the future lol It doesn't work move on.

    What's next? Fairies? Where did they come from? What purpose do they serve? What did they evolve from? What do they eat and where do they fit into the energy cycle? Are they separate from the energy cycle and everything we know about entropy has to be rewritten? Think of everything we know about biology, where do fairies fit into the grand scheme? Nowhere, they were made up by the human mind, they're just too ridiculous, too out there. Everything is connected, I map it all out in my mind (to the best of my ability) and if someone says something that has absolutely no relation to my map, I throw it away and assume you're wrong.

  4. #44
    Senior Member LunarMoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3
    Socionics
    ENTJ
    Posts
    309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    The biggest problem with it is 'ethereal in nature'. There are a lot of animals that people have traditionally attributed 'magic' and that is consistently unfounded.
    Ethereal in a sense of being non-solid, not ethereal in a sense of being magical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    If these small creatures have 'magic' that makes them not only invisible but also intangible, well... we're going to have such a hard time finding them that they may as well be negligible.
    Just because something is difficult to see with the naked eye doesnít turn it into a meaningless discovery. Not since germ theory at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    We haven't found any other animals that can do this. Why start now?
    The same could be said for just about any groundbreaking discovery that has occurred within human history. What makes it groundbreaking is that nothing of its kind has been seen before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Another problem with so many cryptozoology animals is that so many places insist that there is only one. This seems a bit impossible, especially if people are still claiming to 'see' them in these places. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense if there were, well, a lot of them? So they could, you know, reproduce? That's a part of the myth, that there is only one, so that people feel special for seeing it (or any sticks and branches that sort of look like it.)
    I agree, and it is part of the reason for why I have been unable to greatly entertain the possible existence of the Loch Ness Monster. However, most of cryptozoology doesnít focus on one organism specimen but on an entire species of a kind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    There are too many people who want to believe that it'd be too difficult for these things to be proven, especially because the people who aren't believers tend to think it's a waste of time. Nobody would be impartial enough to do it.
    Agree with the first sentence but not with the second. Science, far from being an impartial field, is frequently plagued with this conundrum, and yet several differing theories are proven and disproven each year.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    However, if we do find a hairy species of humanoid primates who walk on two feet and live in the Yukon, then by all means, call them Homo Sasquatch. It's just that I guarantee, they will be a week-long blip on the news and that place will be a tourist spot for a few years, and what used to be wonder about what could be out there will be replaced with a bit of useless trivia.
    That does tend to happen when a discovery becomes accepted as common knowledge, even more so in terms of technological advancement.
    Surgeons replace one of your neurons with a microchip that duplicates its input-output functions. You feel and behave exactly as before. Then they replace a second one, and a third one, and so on, until more and more of your brain becomes silicon. Since each microchip does exactly what the neuron did, your behavior and memory never change. Do you even notice the difference? Does it feel like dying? Is some other conscious entity moving in with you?
    -Steven Pinker on the Ship of Theseus Paradox

  5. #45
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LunarMoon View Post

    The same could be said for just about any groundbreaking discovery that has occurred within human history. What makes it groundbreaking is that nothing of its kind has been seen before.
    Ah! You got me.

    I still don't think this is a reason to go on a fairy hunt, though. If there are any out there, we'll find them eventually. Most of the best discoveries happen on accident, anyway.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  6. #46
    Senior Thread Terminator Aerithria's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    LOL I don't think my way of thinking is any better than anyone else's, I just get ticked off by instnat dismissal without review of any information..... just seems a bit short sighted...

    Lets face it if you reveiwed everything you'd spend your life with a nose in a book.

    L
    Heh, I do review it, it's just not always immediately evident. And considering how commonplace faeries and astrology are, it's not like similar opinions haven't crossed my path before. Present me something that I've never encountered and then perhaps my consideration of the subject will take more than a few moments.

    Though you're right, reviewing everything would require a person to be able to sustain themselves without food and never need to go out and make a living. There's just too much useless information existing to be able to consider all of it.
    [insert funny quote/saying/etc.]

  7. #47
    Senior Thread Terminator Aerithria's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Apparently I'm double-posting. I apologize in advance for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by LunarMoon View Post
    If an organism as large as the Megamouth shark could remain undetected until 1976, is it really so unbelievable for a fairy, something not only small but in some descriptions, ethereal in nature, to go unobserved until now? The giant panda wasnít discovered until 1869 and the Mountain Gorilla still later in 1902. Would you honestly say that these animals can have no effect on humanity or that you couldnít care less about their existence?
    If I were a biologist or a zoologist, perhaps I'd care, but I can honestly say that I don't. Sure, the giant panda or the mountain gorilla probably do affect our world, but it's not something that interests me that much. And if it so happened that in fifty years or so a fairy was discovered and their existence as a species was proven, I wouldn't feel foolish, because with the current information that I have, to me it's more logical to remain skeptical about their existence. When I'm presented with differing evidence, I'll re-evaluate my beliefs, but until then, I don't feel that it's close-minded not to believe in something that doesn't conceptually make sense to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by runvardh View Post
    You shouldn't have trouble then. How close are you to 50? North of 49 or south?
    Sorry for the late reply, I actually thought I'd posted a response to this already. I think I'm somewhere around 49.5N, but it's hard to say, as where I live isn't listed. That's probably as accurate as I'll get, unless I can find a more accurate map.
    [insert funny quote/saying/etc.]

  8. #48
    Senior Member LunarMoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3
    Socionics
    ENTJ
    Posts
    309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aerithria View Post
    And if it so happened that in fifty years or so a fairy was discovered and their existence as a species was proven, I wouldn't feel foolish, because with the current information that I have, to me it's more logical to remain skeptical about their existence. When I'm presented with differing evidence, I'll re-evaluate my beliefs, but until then, I don't feel that it's close-minded not to believe in something that doesn't conceptually make sense to me.
    To remain skeptical is to remain completely neutral in terms of forming an opinion, not in choosing to believe or not to believe. If that is truly the case in your perceptions then we have no disagreements.
    Surgeons replace one of your neurons with a microchip that duplicates its input-output functions. You feel and behave exactly as before. Then they replace a second one, and a third one, and so on, until more and more of your brain becomes silicon. Since each microchip does exactly what the neuron did, your behavior and memory never change. Do you even notice the difference? Does it feel like dying? Is some other conscious entity moving in with you?
    -Steven Pinker on the Ship of Theseus Paradox

  9. #49
    Senior Thread Terminator Aerithria's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LunarMoon View Post
    To remain skeptical is to remain completely neutral in terms of forming an opinion, not in choosing to believe or not to believe. If that is truly the case in your perceptions then we have no disagreements.
    Well, I have come to a conclusion in terms of my beliefs, corresponding with what I think I know about our world, but I'm willing to re-evaluate the conclusion if there's a change in that knowledge. It's not quite the neutral skepticism you're suggesting, but I'm guessing it at least partially fits the criteria.
    [insert funny quote/saying/etc.]

  10. #50
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LunarMoon View Post
    To remain skeptical is to remain completely neutral in terms of forming an opinion, not in choosing to believe or not to believe.
    Hmmm...I don't know if it's possible to really achieve a state of neutral non-belief in anything, though. I mean, say with the issue of fairies; one person believes that they exist, another believes that they may possibly exist but doesn't believe that they do per se, and yet another person doesn't believe that they possibly exist at all. These are all separate beliefs. So which one of these people is the more open-minded? Couldn't we say that the person who believes that fairies may possibly exist (but that they also might possibly not) is not really being open to either of the other beliefs, by virtue of the fact that they have chosen their own discreet belief? By believing that fairies may possibly exist, and that they may possible not exist, you are rejecting both the belief that they do exist and the belief that they don't exist (as well as the reverse beliefs that go with each of those). So I don't know...being skeptical seems an awful lot like not believing (or believing in the reverse position). The term, I think, just carries the connotation that it is not a dogmatic disbelief (i.e., that the disbelief is not absolute), and that should evidence appear at a future time to the contrary, the skeptic would be willing to change his/her mind.

    For our purposes, though, I don't think that it's possible to adopt a position that doesn't automatically exclude some other position. Therefore I contend that "open-mindedness" is nothing more than a rhetorical device used to criticize someone else for their beliefs (negative or positive). The problem comes when people hold dogmatic beliefs and are unwilling to change them even when evidence is staring them in the face. That is what I would consider to be truly closed-minded. But to call someone closed minded for not believing in the possibility of some thing or other (santa, space tea pot, a perfect state of communism, the innate goodness of humans) is to engage in a sort of closed-mindedness yourself. You want that person to hold your belief instead of their own, and you use the term close-mindedness to try and bully that person into abandoning their belief and adopting your own.

    *Please note that my use of the pronoun "you" is not referring to any individual poster. It is a generalized "you".
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

Similar Threads

  1. [INFJ] INFJs and Single-Mindedness
    By Kiddo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 06:39 PM
  2. [NT] NT's and fluffy clouds :o)
    By labyrinthine in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-31-2008, 12:18 PM
  3. Odd idea about (some) NT's and NF's.
    By Athenian200 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-13-2008, 11:16 PM
  4. [NT] NT's and cheating
    By GirlAmerica in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-20-2007, 09:37 PM
  5. [NT] The NT Rationale and Rightness
    By Spartan in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-20-2007, 05:28 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