AmazingAtheist?

[Totenkindly]

But I am not these people. I am someone who has watched the apple fall from the tree a million times. I am someone who has watched the same movie a thousand times. I have witnessed the recurring patterns of observable Ti-Ne-Si too many times. It frustrates me how others can't see it when it is in front of them. Consider "painful" and "cringe" as descriptions of my perhaps arrogant frustration. Consider my statement as simply an emotional one.

Oh. I'm sorry, I was confused and tried to interpret it as a rational statement, as it was presented.

Person by the name of Jennifer,

(or "Unit formerly known as WXK-2312", to my friends)

I do not care for norms. I do not care about ideas whose existence in reality are merely agreed upon---subjective hallucinations feasted upon by the feeble-minded. What I care about is undiscovered reality. What we don't know and yet what is honestly existing. This is what I'm trying to figure out and express. I am saying that there are larger implications to "Common sense", and that the the "common guy down the street" could be that same "college professor" wearing a different outfit. They both have the same thinking patterns. It doesn't matter what you call it..."higher learning"..."abstracted angle of thought"..."common sense."

That's nice, and I wish you luck in that endeavor; but that's not what was meant by "common sense" here, nor it is how common sense is used in the vernacular... which I guess is something you agree with based on your response to my explanation (as you sidestepped it for the "Well, fine, but I don't really care because I'm interested in loftier things!" strategem).

 

[Craft]

That's nice, and I wish you luck in that endeavor; but that's not what was meant by "common sense" here, nor it is how common sense is used in the vernacular... which I guess is something you agree with based on your response to my explanation (as you sidestepped it for the "Well, fine, but I don't really care because I'm interested in loftier things!" strategem).

Close, but not quite. I'm saying that your idea of "common sense" is invalid because it is subjective(therefore, unreal) and norm-dependent, and that the only hint of "reality" that can be found is its relation to thinking patterns and my claim of an objective definition. I may have gone overboard with the idealism, but this is in reaction to your "Are we really arguing about what "common sense" means?", which i find both rude and presumptuous.

 

[Totenkindly]

Close, but not quite. I'm saying that your idea of "common sense" is invalid because it is subjective(therefore, unreal) and norm-dependent, and that the only hint of "reality" that can be found is its relation to thinking patterns and my claim of an objective definition. I may have gone overboard with the idealism, but this is in reaction to your "Are we really arguing about what "common sense" means?", which i find both rude and presumptuous.

Uh... dude.... I think it's ironic that we are arguing about 'common sense,' since it's supposed to be common sense.

If you want to get your feathers ruffled yet AGAIN in this conversation (you started by claiming that the answer was "painfully obvious" and have only gone downwards from there into emotional spritzing), be my guest, but it seems like a waste of energy for you to get your feelings bruised over a topic like "what type is Shouting Self-Amused Atheist Guy."

 

[Craft]

Uh... dude.... I think it's ironic that we are arguing about 'common sense,' since it's supposed to be common sense.

There is no irony because your idea of "common sense" is relative. The problem is that you think it holds some objective ground. You might as well replace your notion with any random idea.

case in point:

"I think it's ironic that we are arguing about 'rhinos' since it's suppose to be 'chickens.'"

If you want to get your feathers ruffled yet AGAIN in this conversation (you started by claiming that the answer was "painfully obvious" and have only gone downwards from there into emotional spritzing), be my guest, but it seems like a waste of energy for you to get your feelings bruised over a topic like "what type is Shouting Self-Amused Atheist Guy."

uh...what?

 

[Totenkindly]

There is no irony because your idea of "common sense" is relative. The problem is that you think it holds some objective ground. You might as well replace your notion with any random idea.

case in point:

"I think it's ironic that we are arguing about 'rhinos' since it's suppose to be 'chickens.'"

uh...what?

uh... whut??

Honestly, if I confused you with that last post, we can stop here, it's not really worth continuing.