|
Post by Rishi on Apr 12, 2009 6:26:23 GMT 12
Now seriously, what got you to that conclsion? Common sense. dosn't work. Works for me. I've opened it up in a new tab about a minute ago. Perhaps your chosen internet browser is defective in some way, just like your line of reasoning. Eye colour is not instinct. The example dose not match with the explanation. My point which you so opaquely avoided was simply that there are some things which we have no choice over (such as homosexuality and, oh..... eye colour too! . The example I chose got my point across and it was therefore sufficient. Thanks for the clarification. See so you do reasearch on what you're talking about as well. Who doesn't? Moot point. If anything I find that Wikipedia is usually rather useful LOL. No wonder what you've been saying in this thread is so dodgy! Dude, there's more than one problem with Wikipedia. I tend to use Wikipedia as a last resort. I didn't need you to show me that it wasn't a special power. You sure 'bout that? I may be over-simplistic. Yes. Definitely. But that is just llllloooonnnnngggggg. No arguments there! All wisdom is contradicted by another pieice of wisdom. Absolutely right. The pourpose is to allow thought within the reader/listener, to allow them to forge their own choice of how to live. Couldn't agree more. There is only one athism, one without god. Is there only one theism? No, there are different degrees and types of theism and so it also is with atheism. As for the bolderd and underlined sections of the 'long' quote, it shows how you have taken small portions of the big picture. The big picture would not be as big as it is were it not for those 'small portions'. All of my points still stand. Therefore I say again. Hindu Atheist = oxymoron Using none other than your own peculiar flow of logic, I therefore say again: Hindu Atheist =/= oxymoron Yes No. My generalisation is a very good point. Keep thinking that. My generalisation 'generalises' it. Redundant much? Not taboo, still frowned upon. Still not taboo (as you admitted yourself), which is exactly my point. You gave your experiences, I gave mine. Fair enough! Those regions (that I stated) have high quantities of non hindu populations. i.e. Gujrat has a high Muslim populous and only 3% of Muslims in India are actually vegetarian, yet the Hindu ties to vegetarianism are still strong says a lot. The example I mentioned about the state of Karnataka is also relevant. The predominant religion in Karnataka is Hinduism and many of the Hindus there eat meat to a certain extent. India as a whole has a strong vegetarian system, and has for a long time. Just beecause you have seen it otherwise, it dosn't change the general view of the country by visitors, and resedents. I'm not actually denying that the majority of Indians (read: 'Hindus') embrace vegetarianism. That is a fact. But, as I have already mentioned, embracing vegetarianism is not one of the strictest of laws outlined in the Vedic literature and is merely a product of arbitrary cultural customs which have manifested in Indian society throughout the last few millennia. Not common sense.. just sense. Not just sense..... common sense. No. Short enough for your liking? For the sake of not wanting to go long. You can be as verbose as you want, whenever you want. I'm fine with that. I have all the time in the world to read and refute your arguments. If you had as you say spoken about it's entirety When did I actually say something about speaking about this issue in its entirety? Never. Exactly! I said: I will explore this issue in its entirety as much as I possibly can and that includes delving into relatively obscure details (since I do not consider those relatively obscure details to be any less important in regard to this debate). Note how I said that I will explore this issue in its entirety as much as I possibly can. Apparently, you didn't properly read the underlined words of that statement otherwise I don't see how you could've established such a blatant straw-man argument. you would quite literally defeat yourself, stating ALL views even if they are self defeating. I would not defeat myself, as the views which contradict my own would be taken into due consideration, analysed and, if I ultimately find myself still in disagreement with those particular views, they will be defeated by me exposing their flaws. That is something you have not done. I know. However, I never said I would do it. Another moot point, my friend! The focus that you have put on the obscure details is too much for you to have put all views to the table in balence to how much they matter whilst your focus has been quite clearly upon the fringe thoughts. Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with you that I've placed the majority of my attention in this thread on relatively obscure details and fringe beliefs, I have still compared these relatively obscure details and fringe beliefs to their mainstream counterparts and found myself satisfied with the conclusions I have reached. If you take too long looking at the grain of sand, you miss the joy that the beach offers. If you only enjoy the uniformity the beach offers, you miss the beautiful diversity that comprises it. So you're throwing the salt away!!! tut tut tut. More like throwing away the risk of getting heart disease!!! tut tut tut. So, all this time I was talking about religion in general, but you were talking about certain parts of religion that suit you. I was talking about religion in general as well and have merely disagreed with that which does not align with my sense of reason. I thought you said you were talking about things in its 'entirety'. As I've already mentioned earlier in this post, the fact is that I basically said I'd explore this issue in its entirety to the very best of my ability. Whatever happened to that? Nothing happened to 'that' as 'that' did not actually exist to begin with. It was a straw-man argument you constructed. Yes... just... yes. 'Because it's so clear, it takes a long time to realise it.' 'He who claims to realise it does not realise it, he who claims to not realise it does realise it.' 'He who defends everything defends nothing.' I never stated that I defend everything, as that is simply untrue. 'When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.'
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on Apr 12, 2009 9:33:01 GMT 12
or a lack of it. 'so the world is wrong' in reply to you saying that religion is not created by god. is an off hand statement. What it implies is greater than what it says on face value. That you are going against that which you were defending. That the very religious texts that you quote from are bieing denied by you. I suggest you take things for more than face value. As defective as you are long. Definition 'long' (urban dictionary) No. Eye colour is a physical attribute whilst what I was representing were mental attributes, related with the mind and the choice that the mind offers. Putting together chalk and cheese will not put your point across. A lot of people. That says a lot about you. No wonder why a lot of what you say is so long. As normal people tend to see Wikipedia as the first place to go. Yes, pretty much. You're stepping out of religion and into pure philosophy in that case. No they don't. A car is not a car just because of the rear spoiler, it's a bit on the end, it's the car that matters, the spoiler is a part of the car, without it the car is still a car, without the car a spoilker is not useful anymore. You are talking about the spoiler, I am talking about the car. YOu are talking about the bit on the fringe that dosn't really matter, I am talking about the bit in the middle, maybe without the exess, but with an identity all its own At a point where it is not the parts that made it, but something comepletely different. whatever. Yes. If I didn't point that out to you who would? Still very much frowned upon as I myself admitted which is exactly my point. Than why the exclamation mark? Besides I was replying to and I felt that needed an explanation to clear up what was said. That goes against the quote below which contradicts what you're saying there. They do, they don't, make up your mind. Culture and Religion usually have a large effect on one another, at times are seamless. It would be common sense if it was common. The real world is not as open minded as the internet. For the sake of not getting into a lengthy, pointless argument over something that. To be honest I don't give a $h1t about. For the sake of an argument, which to be honest the difference beetween the two words will barely affect. It is the same because debateing otherwise is just POINTLESS. and yes, the length is adiquate. Thank you very much. and unlike you I'd rather play playstation with my mates, with a Pizza and some Drinks. You're arguing the difference beetween explore and speaking... in a forum argument where all you explore more or less is what you voice out. Come up with a better argument and maybe I'll give it more thought. and I say once more, all wisdom is contradicted by another piece of wisdom, and 'he who defends everything defends nothing' If you consider everything, it will destroy itself leaving you with nothing to defend. You can not explore this situation in its entirety if you only stick to that which you have picked out to be right by your own sense of logic. Two paragraphs above. Your answers are there. But you have not weighted them accordingly. A belief followed by one, no matter how reasonable, is anihalated by a thousand that believe in the googoo monster. You look at the sand. I'll play volleyball on it. and wasting it! you didn't even store it in a suitable enviroment for later, wasteful, very wasteful. So religion tailored to you. Meerly strengthens what I said. What you said made absolutely no sense. Either that or you didn't read the bit above it. It dosn't work like that, when someone says what I said. No rational person will carry it on, so please.. just don't when you do that you make an ass out of you and me. He who claims to not realise it, usually dosn't realise it, he just is a very truthful person. He who claims to realise is, also dosn't realise it, he is just prideful. Entirety and everything. If I could change the wording of the quote to match your words I would, but then it wouldn't be a quote would it luv?
|
|
|
Post by LuciferIX on Apr 12, 2009 17:32:10 GMT 12
Wow you two, I don't remember the time I've seen this intent of a discussion here. Keep it up, though I'm probably dam*ed for saying this it is quite entertaining reading all of this.
As for me this topic has no real affect on me so truthfully I don't care either way. Though I have to say most of the times it is kinda disturbing, although not as disturbing as some of the other things that I've seen on the internet. shudders
|
|
|
Post by Midnightmoon602 on Apr 12, 2009 20:16:40 GMT 12
Wow you two, I don't remember the time I've seen this intent of a discussion here. Keep it up, though I'm probably dam*ed for saying this it is quite entertaining reading all of this. As for me this topic has no real affect on me so truthfully I don't care either way. Though I have to say most of the times it is kinda disturbing, although not as disturbing as some of the other things that I've seen on the internet. shuddersYou haven't seen disturbing. what is distirbing is having one of your best friends as a dirty shipper and jokes Ash is a playboy and Pikachu is the leader of a mafia gang. After that it gets heaps worst.
|
|
|
Post by Rishi on Apr 13, 2009 6:35:52 GMT 12
No, there isn't a lack of common sense here. 'so the world is wrong' in reply to you saying that religion is not created by god. is an off hand statement. What it implies is greater than what it says on face value. That you are going against that which you were defending. Here you assume that I defend the notion that religion was created by 'God'. Whattaheck? Never have I believed that religion arose from 'God'. Not even once. Well done, XAOTL! In this thread, I have explicitly said: Religions are made BY people FOR people. That the very religious texts that you quote from are bieing denied by you. This is another very obvious straw-man argument from you. The validity of a religious text is not necessarily dependent on whether or not it was created by 'God', especially in regard to religions which lean toward atheism (Jainism and Buddhism, for example). If there is some degree of truth to be found in a religious text, then it is true on its OWN merits and not because it was allegedly produced or inspired by 'God'. If I recognise some degree of truth in a religious text, then I acknowledge it regardless of what religion it is a part of. I suggest you take things for more than face value. I almost always take things for more than face value. I often try to look beyond the surface meanings of things. I suggest you cease making baseless assumptions. As defective as you are long. Perhaps I'm long, but I'd take 'long' over 'defective' any day! Definition 'long' (urban dictionary) You looked up a definition for the word 'long' on a goofy dictionary website dedicated to slang words and phrases? Wow, that definitely WASN'T a waste of time! lol Yes. Eye colour is a physical attribute whilst what I was representing were mental attributes, related with the mind and the choice that the mind offers. You seem to still be unable to comprehend why I used 'eye colour' as an example. I used 'eye colour' as an example PRECISELY because it WAS a physical attribute - one which we originally have no choice over. Just to refresh your apparently faulty memory, this is what you stated earlier on in this thread: I'm saying that people are not born one way or the other, good or evil, violent or peaceful. A biulder or a gardener, an accountant or a shop owner. That we have freedom of choice, Hitler could choose to kill the Jews, and use the tank to strengthen the German people; or to make Germany into a economic power without strength of arms, but he chose what he chose, as is the price of freedom. I responded to these statements simply by figuratively drawing a line between where we have freedom of choice and where we don't have freedom of choice. Putting together chalk and cheese will not put your point across. Putting together an irrelevant proverbial phrase will not put your point across. I'm not one of them. Are you? That says a lot about you. And it says even more about you than me. No wonder why a lot of what you say is so long. When I make posts, I rarely pay attention to their length. Why? Because I don't care about their length, I care about their content. But hey, no-one here's forcing you to read my apparently long posts (least of all me!). As normal people tend to see Wikipedia as the first place to go. The word 'normal', in this particular context, is completely subjective and relative. Many of the things a person considers to be 'normal' are considered to be 'abnormal' by another person. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' in this instance. This is an undeniably moot point from you. Good! You're stepping out of religion and into pure philosophy in that case. The dividing lines between both of them are sometimes highly blurred. Yes they do. A car is not a car just because of the rear spoiler, it's a bit on the end, it's the car that matters, the spoiler is a part of the car, without it the car is still a car, without the car a spoilker is not useful anymore. A rear spoiler is a part of a car, but it's not a necessary part or even a very important part. When I've focused on 'parts' of a whole in this thread, I've focused on 'parts' which are necessary and/or of some relevant importance to this thread. You are talking about the spoiler, I am talking about the car. You're talking about glossing over the car as a whole, I am talking about all of that which makes the car a car. YOu are talking about the bit on the fringe that dosn't really matter Whether it is labelled 'fringe' or not, it matters and it will continue to matter with or without your sanction. I am talking about the bit in the middle Yes, while neglecting the edges which hold it together. maybe without the exess, but with an identity all its own Yes. A superficial identity. At a point where it is not the parts that made it, but something comepletely different. A 'whatever' from XAOTL = a win for me! Yes. No. If I didn't point that out to you who would? Other people with a penchant for redundancy. Still very much frowned upon as I myself admitted which is exactly my point. Still not taboo as I myself admitted which is exactly my point. Than why the exclamation mark? Have you ever heard of something known as 'emphasis'? and I felt that needed an explanation to clear up what was said. Basically, I was telling you about conflicting views in the Vedic writings about the consumption of meat (beef in particular) and how being a vegetarian in general is not considered to be a spiritual necessity according to the Vedic writings themselves. You responded with a comment both irrelevant and odd about how alcohol (last time I checked, 'alcohol' wasn't the same thing as 'meat'! lol) is banned in Gujarat and Maharashtra except when you have some documentation to say otherwise, then you continued your response by telling me that there are nearly no meat restaurants in Gujarat and Maharashtra except for tourists and HGV drivers going into Pakistan. This is essentially you telling me that the customs of one state of India differ from the customs of other states of India, hence I responded to you in that particular way! That goes against the quote below which contradicts what you're saying there. No it doesn't. How does me saying that many of the Hindus in Karnataka eat meat negate the fact that the MAJORITY of Hindus in INDIA (as opposed to Karnataka alone) are vegetarians? It does not negate that fact and I never said that it did. There is no contradiction here. Wanna try again? They do, they don't, make up your mind. My mind was made up from the moment I made my very first post in this thread. Culture and Religion usually have a large effect on one another, at times are seamless. I wholeheartedly agree! It would be common sense if it was common. It is common according to my personal experience. The real world is not as open minded as the internet. Yes. That is often very unfortunate. For the sake of not getting into a lengthy, pointless argument over something that. To be honest I don't give a $h1t about. It hardly comes as a surprise to me that you honestly don't give a '$h1t' about the issues raised in this thread. Furthermore, I don't see this overall argument as being 'pointless' and I couldn't care less about the length of either of our posts. For the sake of an argument, which to be honest the difference beetween the two words will barely affect. It is the same because debateing otherwise is just POINTLESS. and yes, the length is adiquate. Enjoy these posts of 'adiquate [ sic]' length from me while they last. You're welcome. and unlike you I'd rather play playstation with my mates, with a Pizza and some Drinks. Actually, I'd rather play games on my Playstation 3 with my cousin (Street Fighter IV in particular at the moment). But thanks for your assumption! You're arguing the difference beetween explore and speaking... in a forum argument where all you explore more or less is what you voice out. There's a very clear distinction between exploring and speaking. If I spoke about religion/homosexuality/meat-eating in an in-depth manner in this thread, we'd honestly be here in this thread for weeks, whereas if I explore aspects of religion/homosexuality/meat-eating in this thread, I can analyse those aspects in their entirety as much as I can and ONLY talk to you about that which has some relevance to our arguments. Come up with a better argument I already did. and maybe I'll give it more thought. Non-committal, eh? Nice! and I say once more, all wisdom is contradicted by another piece of wisdom As I've already stated, I agree with that notion. and 'he who defends everything defends nothing' I've already addressed this issue and told you that I don't defend everything, so I don't know how you bringing up this point again actually helps your argument. If you consider everything, it will destroy itself leaving you with nothing to defend. 'Considering' and 'defending' are two different things, so your point is once again moot. Simple as that! You can not explore this situation in its entirety if you only stick to that which you have picked out to be right by your own sense of logic. Yes, I can explore this situation in its entirety because, if I do, it gives me a wider context to study, to understand, to compare (if warranted) and, as a result of those processes, it enables me to make a more informed decision about what I can deem to be 'right' according to my sense of logic. Two paragraphs above. Your answers are there. Two paragraphs above. My responses to those answers are also there. But you have not weighted them accordingly. I have weighted them accordingly. I have given the information presented to me in this thread the consideration that was due to it. A belief followed by one, no matter how reasonable, is anihalated by a thousand that believe in the googoo monster. Truth conquers an argumentum ad populum. 'Googoo monster' sounds kinda funny though. You look at the sand. I'll play volleyball on it. You play only volleyball, I'll play a dozen other diverse and fun water sports. and wasting it! you didn't even store it in a suitable enviroment for later, wasteful, very wasteful. I threw it away into a bin - a charity bin (as opposed to a rubbish bin!). I consider that to be 'a suitable enviroment [ sic]' where it will not be wasted but rather used sparingly by people who are less financially secure than us. So religion tailored to you. No, not really. I don't view myself as an adherent of any religion (that includes Hinduism). If something in any religion is resonant to me, then I will be inclined to support it even for that reason alone. Meerly strengthens what I said. It neither strengthens nor weakens what you said, it's still the same barely coherent string of words. What you said made absolutely no sense. If you genuinely think that what I said made absolutely no sense, then your ability to discern sense leaves much to be desired. You asked me what happened to me 'talking' about things in their entirety and, in doing so, made another straw-man argument to which I responded by informing you about how you misrepresented my position in this thread by somehow bizarrely assuming that I was actually going to 'talk' about certain issues related to religion/homosexuality/meat-eating in their entirety, something which I had never said I would do. Either that or you didn't read the bit above it. False dichotomy. It dosn't work like that, when someone says what I said. Quite the contrary, it ONLY works like that when someone says what you said! ;D No rational person will carry it on, so please.. just don't when you do that you make an ass out of you and me. No rational person will make a statement as incoherent as that. Which prompts me to post this image for the third time in this post: He who claims to not realise it, usually dosn't realise it, he just is a very truthful person. He who claims to realise is, also dosn't realise it, he is just prideful. So all people who both make and don't make claims of realisation usually don't actually realise anything? That's quite a firm grasp on reality you've got there! Entirety and everything. If I could change the wording of the quote to match your words I would, but then it wouldn't be a quote would it luv? Once again, I never said anything about me defending everything. That is refutable simply by me stating that I oppose persecution against homosexuals. That is something I do not defend. You wanna try again, sweetheart?
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on Apr 14, 2009 1:42:35 GMT 12
Good to know. Religion assumes the notion that it was created by god. If you are going to refer to religion you are going to have to understand that little bit, just because you think so dosn't mean that every single religious person is on the same track as you. Problem with your argument is that it is wrong. You seem rather content with taking away one half of religion and keeping hhe other.I'm starting to see that this isn't really a proper argument, if your side is going to be the morals in which you belive, rather than the reality of the situation. Then why didn't you? Well I must credit you for shortening it, it has given a breath of fresh air, and really cleaned up your argument a lot more.. five seconds it took, so not much time wasted. It gives reference to the contenxt in which I had used the word, a word that I found hard to put down what It meant on my own, so I used another source to solve my problem. You wish. Choice lies within the mind and nothing more, all actions that come from the mind, eye colour is decided by our DNA, not by our consious actions. All emotions are regulated by the mind, the bit down below to some small degree but ultimately the mind has control over it. You just don't get it do you? and I said that your example didn't work. You don't seem to understand the difference beetween choice and otherwise. Where as I here am talking about choice. Pure and simple. YOu have replied in a way that our actions are generaly instinct driven, and that there is no free will in the matter, hwere as I have said that most consious matters of thought that go through the mind must go through a process of choice. It would for anyone but you. No. At least we're getting to know each other a lot better. But the entertainment that we're providing is gold ;D Don't want to dissapoint our fans now do you? and you've taken something that was otherwise very simple, and pissed a philosophical argument all over it. Well done. Sometimes. Personally I find that if it's philosophy with god/afterlife, and any of that. Then it's religion. Without the supernatural stories, then it is generally Philosophy. Not. The reason I chose the rear spoiler was because its implications are very relivant to the discussion. It effects the rest of the car, but only slightly, if it fell off it wouldn't matter. If you were speaking of the integeral parts of the car you would be focusing on more centeral yet individual bits of the topic like... the Dali lama, or the general view of the religious populous. The only thing that you've said is not a rear spoiler is the part where you've mentioned traditions by state. Otherwise it is not much. The spoiler dose not make the car a car. If it is orthadox and mainstream it will continue to matter more than the fringe no matter what your sanction. Since when did the edges hold anything together? That's like saying without a windscreen wiper and a rear view mirror the car will fall apart. (to continue down the car road) But an identity nevertheless. A whatever from me is a whatever from me. Don't big yourself up too much on this. But still... Yes yeah I kinda figured that out. The question is that have you figured out that it is still frowned upon? yes, but only when nessesary... or as a joke. Agreeing with two conflicting views, that first, from your own experience, many people eat beef in a single Indian state in order to show to me that all Hindus do not listen to the no Beef rule, I conceded that there are exceptions, but generally the case is that Beef is forbidden. You then continued to say how my reference is pointless, then you agreed with the fact that the majority of Hindus do not eat beef. What I am saying is that there are exceptions but the majority view of Hindus is that beef is something that is not to be consumed. This is the point of my argument, whilst you continue to poke at my example and saying how they eat beef where you went. Which I find is a useless thing to keep on coming back to as I would rather move on, as I had already said that I was only giving my own experiences in reply to you giving yours. The vedic writings may be on either side but as I also said previously, that s so that it allows the student of the religion to choose a path for themselves. I have also said theat the maority view had chosen the path of staying away from consuming beef. I had also said that the view of the majority had a greater weight on such things as morals,and other thought based views. I am confused as to what view exactly you are with, I'm getting a hint that you agree with my view, but if that was the case you wouldn't drag this on. Therfore I am at the conclusion that You agree and yet at the same time disagree with my point which is nothing but dragging this conversation into somewhere it dosn't need to be. The reason this is such a good argument. What's better in an arguent than two stubborn people, eh? Well three I guess, but I don't think there is anyone as stubbourn as us. My experience says that people would rather gossip and think about what to have for lunch. I was pointing out to arguing over the difference beetween Rajput and Kashtyria. Do you really want to discuss that? the rest of it is all right, but digging into that hole would just not be needed. I'll savour every moment. But you were the one who said 'I have all the time in the world to read and refute your arguments. ' (COD FTW! ;D) Yeah, it's VERY clear [/sarcasm] Not. Firstly you have choosen to explore everything to the best of your ability. Secondly you have stuck to the fringe, giving it an unbalenced amount of focus whilst staying away from the centeral views and points. To make an informed decision you must be able two opposing yet equally valid sides and arguing either one. Three you have already said that you had made up your mind since you made your first post on this thread, therefore weather you are capable to sway your opinion to see the other side of things, or even entertain the thought of another side of seeing things is questionable. Four, the argument here, I have to say, is not about you. It is becoming rather pointless fighting against your own ideology (or religion tailored to you, as I have said previously), whilst I fight for the actual side of a topic, that dosn't nessesarily represent what I think the world should be, but how things are if I like it or not that is the reason that I have shown actual real things that are in my references. To fight against what you think things should be is folly on my part as it would be a unwinnable fight. So Pick something real and something that is sizeable enough to matter, otherwise your argument at quite a few points is just not valid. But we are not talking about the absolute truth. We are speaking about religion and its views on homosexuality, the views of hinduism on beef, And more random philosophical quotes at the bottom for the jokes. All of which are relative views on topics, and there is no intergalactic truth in it as they are views, and when you are talking about human views it is the views of the populous that are weighted more heavily. (I was gonna use a real religion, than realised the cops would bomb my house down ) I thought you were looking at the sand? You threw salt into a charity bin... I never knew the Red Cross was asking for donations of salt. Good to know we feel the same about each other. Not exactly. Thanks for making a ass out of you and me. (It would be better if it was a bean and not a Pear... beans are jokers, like that other bean... Mr Bean) Not usually, 'the only constant in the universe are atoms and empty space.' That's the reason all morality is relative, because truth is so fickle. Entirety and everything. If I could change the wording of the quote to match your words I would, but then it wouldn't be a quote would it luv? 'Explore this issue in its entirety, I belive you said that. Now for your sake, I'll adapt the quote, He who explores everything explores nothing. It also works with a load of other words, and seeing as I've already started... He who knows everything knows nothing He who dose everything dose nothing He who is everything is nothing He who has seen everything has seen nothing We can only hope that it will comp true. XD
|
|
|
Post by Rishi on Apr 15, 2009 2:45:33 GMT 12
I'm glad to know you think that way. Religion assumes the notion that it was created by god. This statement assumes the notion that all religions embrace a concept of 'God', let alone the notion that this particular concept of 'God' created that particular religion (or even just 'religion' in general) - both of these notions are quite simply untrue. Buddhism and Jainism, XAOTL? If you are going to refer to religion you are going to have to understand that little bit I already do. And if you are going to refer to religion, you are going to have to understand that little bit I typed in response to that previous statement of yours which I quoted. just because you think so dosn't mean that every single religious person is on the same track as you. This statement, when stripped of its elaboration, is essentially telling me 'not everyone thinks the same way as you'. Thanks for pointing out the obvious, I really appreciate it. Problem with your argument is that it is wrong. Nope. You seem rather content with taking away one half of religion and keeping hhe other. I'm content with extracting the few gems of wisdom I find in religion in general and discarding all of the other bullsh*t. I'm starting to see that this isn't really a proper argument, if your side is going to be the morals in which you belive, rather than the reality of the situation. I'm well-aware of the reality of the situation and I'm equally well-aware that I don't need to compromise my morals as a result of this fact - and I haven't compromised my morals either. I did. Perhaps you didn't notice it because you took it at face value? Well I must credit you for shortening it, it has given a breath of fresh air, and really cleaned up your argument a lot more.. Thanks. five seconds it took, so not much time wasted. [sarcasm]That's a relief.[/sarcasm] It gives reference to the contenxt in which I had used the word, a word that I found hard to put down what It meant on my own, so I used another source to solve my problem. Defining the word 'long' was problematic for you? Sure, I understand how defining some words can be problematic..... but ' long'? Err, okay..... No, I don't need to wish. I know. Choice lies within the mind and nothing more, all actions that come from the mind, eye colour is decided by our DNA, not by our consious actions. All emotions are regulated by the mind, the bit down below to some small degree but ultimately the mind has control over it. Not all of our actions and emotions are chosen. For example, getting a boner generally isn't a choice. It just happens. And sometimes tears flow spontaneously. We have the ability to make PLENTY of choices in our lives, but not everything that we feel and that happens to us comes down to choice. It's not really that simple. You just don't get it do you? Au contraire, my friend. I get it, but I am sceptical as to whether or not you get it. and I said that your example didn't work. My example did work and does work. Why? Simply because it is applicable to daily life. You don't seem to understand the difference beetween choice and otherwise. I understand the difference, I know that there's a line between where there is choice and where there is lack of choice. Where as I here am talking about choice. Pure and simple. YOu have replied in a way that our actions are generaly instinct driven, and that there is no free will in the matter, hwere as I have said that most consious matters of thought that go through the mind must go through a process of choice. I have said earlier on in this thread that homosexuality is not chosen, but that does not mean that we have absolutely no free will whatsoever. Though one's sexual attraction (or lack thereof) comes unbidden, much of what we do, think and feel is chosen through one's mind. Instinct (instead of choice) is responsible for some aspects of who we are, but not all aspects. It would for anyone but you. It wouldn't for me as well as anyone else that seeks substance over style in an argument. Yes. At least we're getting to know each other a lot better. Easy there, XAOTL! But the entertainment that we're providing is gold ;D I completely agree with you! ;D Don't want to dissapoint our fans now do you? No I don't and I hope you feel the same way too. and you've taken something that was otherwise very simple, and pissed a philosophical argument all over it. And you've taken something that was not as simple as it seems at face value but was in fact quite multi-faceted and tried to infinitely simplify it. I already know that everything I've posted in this thread is well done, so there's no need for reminders! Good to know you agree with the truth. Personally I find that if it's philosophy with god/afterlife, and any of that. Then it's religion. Without the supernatural stories, then it is generally Philosophy. If this is what you genuinely believe, then we are on similar wave-lengths about the distinction between philosophy and religion. No, I already did. The reason I chose the rear spoiler was because its implications are very relivant to the discussion. It effects the rest of the car, but only slightly, if it fell off it wouldn't matter. I know why you chose the rear spoiler as an example to get your point across, but as I've already told you, the parts/aspects of religion/homosexuality/meat-eating that I've discussed in this thread are of more relative importance to religion/homosexuality/meat-eating as a whole than a rear spoiler is to a car as a whole. If you were speaking of the integeral parts of the car you would be focusing on more centeral yet individual bits of the topic like... the Dali lama, or the general view of the religious populous. I've mentioned various things which are integral parts of these issues pertaining to religion/homosexuality/meat-eating, such as verses from the Vedic writings - which form the bedrock of the astika schools of Hinduism. If that's not integral to this discussion, then I don't know what is. Just kidding. I DO know something that's integral to this discussion - verses from the Vedic writings! The only thing that you've said is not a rear spoiler is the part where you've mentioned traditions by state. Otherwise it is not much. Other than traditions by state, there are also the verses from the Vedic literature. That's also not a 'rear spoiler'. And the concept of tritiya prakriti. Oh, and some of the beliefs of the nastika schools. But yeah, other than that, it probably isn't much! The spoiler dose not make the car a car. If the spoiler is a part of a certain type of car, then it makes that certain type of car the certain type of car that it is - regardless of how seemingly insignificant that spoiler might be. The only difference here is that the points I've made in this thread are of more relative importance than your example of a spoiler. If it is orthadox and mainstream it will continue to matter more than the fringe no matter what your sanction. If it is fringe, it will continue to matter more than the orthodox and mainstream depending on the context of the belief system it is attached to and vice versa, regardless of your sanction. Since when did the edges hold anything together? Edges hold plenty of things together, from tables to quilts. That's like saying without a windscreen wiper and a rear view mirror the car will fall apart. (to continue down the car road) Ah, but I'm not referring only to your car analogy. That's the difference here. But an identity nevertheless. At least you acknowledged that it was superficial nevertheless! A whatever from me is a whatever from me. A whatever from you is a whatever from you and a win for me. Anyway, if you wanna show apathy, go right ahead. ;D Don't big yourself up too much on this. I can big myself up whenever I want, but I choose not to right now since the fun's only just begun! But still... Nice pic. No. yeah I kinda figured that out. I kinda figured that out too. The question is that have you figured out that it is still frowned upon? I have always known that it is still frowned upon, just as most things are frowned upon depending on what culture and what period of time one is referring to - hence the relative nature of morality. The question is that have you figured out that it is still not taboo? yes, but only when nessesary... or as a joke. I used emphasis because I thought it was necessary. But we can use emphasis whenever we want. Agreeing with two conflicting views, that first, from your own experience, many people eat beef in a single Indian state in order to show to me that all Hindus do not listen to the no Beef rule, I conceded that there are exceptions, but generally the case is that Beef is forbidden. Firstly, although I provided one example, I never said that many people eat beef only in a single Indian state. There are numerous abattoirs in various states of India where cows are slaughtered and despite strong opposition from the majority of Hindus in regard to these abattoirs, their existence is mainly argued in support of religious freedom. You then continued to say how my reference is pointless, then you agreed with the fact that the majority of Hindus do not eat beef. I didn't say your reference was pointless, I said that your comment about how alcohol being banned in Gujarat and Maharashtra unless you have some documentation to say otherwise was irrelevant (which it was), since we were (and still are, to a certain extent) discussing meat consumption - not alcohol consumption. And I didn't just recently agree with you about the fact that the majority of Hindus do not eat beef because, dude, I've been to India more times than I can remember and I've known about the fact that the majority of Hindus do not eat beef since I don't even know exactly when. Sometime during my very early childhood years. What I am saying is that there are exceptions but the majority view of Hindus is that beef is something that is not to be consumed. This is what I am saying as well. I know the majority view, a hell of a lot of people already do, so I turned my attention to the views less known and less acknowledged. This is the point of my argument, whilst you continue to poke at my example and saying how they eat beef where you went. I was simply providing an example of an exceptional circumstance, which was and still is the point of my argument. Which I find is a useless thing to keep on coming back to as I would rather move on I'm more than ready to move on, the only reason I haven't done so already is merely because you haven't done so. This is evident in this statement of yours I'm currently responding to. It takes two, man. as I had already said that I was only giving my own experiences in reply to you giving yours. I know and I've already addressed your experiences. The vedic writings may be on either side but as I also said previously, that s so that it allows the student of the religion to choose a path for themselves. Yes! There are many paths to a destination. I have also said theat the maority view had chosen the path of staying away from consuming beef. I've said multiple times in this thread that I've never denied that the majority of Hindus do not eat beef and condemn its consumption in general. This is not the path I choose to follow, but I nonetheless respect the paths which run contrary to my own. I had also said that the view of the majority had a greater weight on such things as morals,and other thought based views. True, but that will change with time. I am confused as to what view exactly you are with, I'm getting a hint that you agree with my view, but if that was the case you wouldn't drag this on. Therfore I am at the conclusion that You agree and yet at the same time disagree with my point which is nothing but dragging this conversation into somewhere it dosn't need to be. Are you saying that I simultaneously agree AND disagree with your view? If so, then the posting of this image has now become obligatory: Dude, if I agree with your views, I'll tell you about it. If I disagree with your views, I'll also tell you about it. There's no need for you to over-analyse my views! The reason this is such a good argument. Agreed! What's better in an arguent than two stubborn people, eh? Well three I guess, but I don't think there is anyone as stubbourn as us. Agreed! My experience says that people would rather gossip and think about what to have for lunch. Then our experiences obviously differ. I was pointing out to arguing over the difference beetween Rajput and Kashtyria. Do you really want to discuss that? Only if YOU really want to discuss that! the rest of it is all right, but digging into that hole would just not be needed. It might not be needed, but if it is desired, then I would be more than happy to fulfill that desire! I'll savour every moment. You and me both, XAOTL! You and me both! But you were the one who said 'I have all the time in the world to read and refute your arguments. ' (COD FTW! ;D) I did indeed say 'I have all the time in the world to read and refute your arguments', but that doesn't necessarily mean that I NEED all the time in the world to read and refute your arguments. I can do that in a fraction of that time! Also, enjoy your 'COD' (whatever that acronym stands for, if it's an acronym that is). Yeah, it's VERY clear [/sarcasm] It is indeed clear - minus the sarcasm. ;D No, I already did. Firstly you have choosen to explore everything to the best of your ability. Yes. Yes I have. Secondly you have stuck to the fringe, giving it an unbalenced amount of focus whilst staying away from the centeral views and points. I have acknowledged both the central/mainstream views and the fringe views. The focus I have given on the fringe is not unbalanced, as that focus was only given for the purpose of opposing mainstream views which I disagree with. I have agreed with some mainstream views and EVERY time I have supported either a mainstream view or a fringe view, it has been AFTER I have compared both the mainstream view and the fringe view in question thoroughly. To make an informed decision you must be able two opposing yet equally valid sides and arguing either one. I have done this. My decisions are informed. Three you have already said that you had made up your mind since you made your first post on this thread, therefore weather you are capable to sway your opinion to see the other side of things, or even entertain the thought of another side of seeing things is questionable. When I said that my mind was already made up since I made my first post in this thread, that was SPECIFICALLY in response to the connection between Hinduism and vegetarianism when you asked me to make up my mind. But since you don't seem to remember what I'm talking about, allow me to refresh your memory: I'm not actually denying that the majority of Indians (read: 'Hindus') embrace vegetarianism. That is a fact. I was basically telling you that I'm well-aware of the mainstream view of meat consumption among Hindus and that it was something I have not denied even before I made my first post in this thread. My intention was simply to clear up any possibly ambiguity there might have been about what I think and know about meat consumption among Hindus. You responded to me by saying: They do, they don't, make up your mind. And the rest is history. But thanks for taking my statement out of context. That was very honest of you. Four, the argument here, I have to say, is not about you. I already know that the argument here is not about me, but it's definitely perpetuated by me. It is becoming rather pointless fighting against your own ideology (or religion tailored to you, as I have said previously) My personal ideology is in no way dependent on religion, nor does religion have any kind of monopoly on the beliefs that constitute my personal ideology. Any coinciding of beliefs considered 'religious' in nature with my personal ideology is incidental. whilst I fight for the actual side of a topic And so do I. We have disagreed plenty of times and agreed occasionally, but we know what we believe and we are both supporting what we believe. that dosn't nessesarily represent what I think the world should be, but how things are if I like it or not that is the reason that I have shown actual real things that are in my references. I know I'm an idealistic person at heart, but I nevertheless know the way that the world IS - almost the polar opposite of the way that I wish it was. So no, I'm very intensely aware of the general current state of the world. I have also shown 'actual real things' in my references as well, so I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. To fight against what you think things should be is folly on my part as it would be a unwinnable fight. Unwinnable or not, I like reading about what you think things should be like. So Pick something real and something that is sizeable enough to matter, otherwise your argument at quite a few points is just not valid. Dude, everything I have chosen to mention in this thread is real and sizeable enough to matter - if it wasn't real and sizeable enough to matter, I wouldn't have mentioned it. Simple. But we are not talking about the absolute truth. Yes, we're not. If I was talking about the 'absolute truth', I would've said 'Absolute truth conquers an argumentum ad populum'. But no, I only said 'Truth conquers an argumentum ad populum'. This point of yours is moot, as it lacks a firm foundation. We are speaking about religion and its views on homosexuality, the views of hinduism on beef, And more random philosophical quotes at the bottom for the jokes. Yeah, it's kinda like that. All of which are relative views on topics, and there is no intergalactic truth in it as they are views Yes. and when you are talking about human views it is the views of the populous that are weighted more heavily. That is generally true, but know that just because a view might be a view of the populous, it does not automatically mean that such a view is true or even reasonable. (I was gonna use a real religion, than realised the cops would bomb my house down ) Is this some unfunny joke I've missed? I thought you were looking at the sand? I never said I was looking at the sand. Assumption much? You threw salt into a charity bin... Yeah, salt in packets. Who knows who might think it's useful to them? ;D I never knew the Red Cross was asking for donations of salt. Neither did I. Some confirmation might be nice. Good to know we feel the same about each other. Couldn't agree more! Yes, exactly. You gave me an inaccurate 'either/or' decision to make. It was a dichotomy and a false one at that. But at least I'm courteous enough to point it out for you! Thanks for making a ass out of you and me. An ass might have been made out of you, but not me. And if you were indeed made into an ass, please stop. It's not a good look for you! (It would be better if it was a bean and not a Pear... beans are jokers, like that other bean... Mr Bean) Um, oooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy...................................... Not usually, 'the only constant in the universe are atoms and empty space.' Well, considering that 99.9% of an atom IS empty space, that quote is kinda redundant. Who said that quote anyway? That's the reason all morality is relative, because truth is so fickle. This is one of those few occasions where I completely agree with you. 'Explore this issue in its entirety, I belive you said that. Now for your sake, I'll adapt the quote, He who explores everything explores nothing. It also works with a load of other words, and seeing as I've already started... He who knows everything knows nothing He who dose everything dose nothing He who is everything is nothing He who has seen everything has seen nothing I agree that at a deeper level of Reality, ‘everything’ and ‘nothing’ are just two sides of the same coin. Purna (‘fullness’ in Sanskrit) and shunya (‘emptiness’ in Sanskrit) are ultimately one and the same. Thanks for quoting Midnight out of nowhere. Geez, THAT was relevant! lol Hey look XAOTL, I can be irrelevant and quote Midnight out of nowhere too: You haven't seen disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on Apr 15, 2009 7:36:26 GMT 12
This statement assumes the notion that all religions embrace a concept of 'God', let alone the notion that this particular concept of 'God' created that particular religion (or even just 'religion' in general) - both of these notions are quite simply untrue. Buddhism and Jainism, XAOTL? Note my earlier statement regarding exceptions. Nice to know. The question isn't if you're aware of it or not. It's if you're going to apply that knowledge. Touche. I'm glad to hear - minus the sarcasm. In the way in which I had expressed it. You can always supress a boner at any time, it's just something you don't usually do. and tears can also be surpressed at any time, depending on ones focus. So there is choice in the process. But your example is like chalk and cheese bieing put together as I had said. One is a mental process of thought, whilst the other is not. Lets have a history lesson then, say the recent years in which such acts were forbidden after post colonial law and religiously supported taboo against such acts. Whilst I'm not saying that there had been no homosexuals then at all. Through such knowledge of punishment if they would have gone down that road many who would otherwise be homosexual had made the choice to raise a family with a wife/husband, (even if there would be the slight doubt of their lifestyle they would have stuck with it to the end). Now look at modern times, there are few (altough not everywhere) cases of lesbian women becoming hetrosexual/bisexual when finding the right man and vice versa, even the changes in sexuality in the opposite direction when someone had found the right partner and chosen to be with them. That depends if I'm getting money from them or not. No I took something nice and straight-forward, and portrayed it in an adiquate way. Not. Various things have been mentioned, not many though. Not really. Get me something big and I'll listen. Something that is truly there, listened to , followed, and rooted down so much that it will not be blown over by a gust of wind. something like the facts that even you have agreed to as common knowledge. The spoiler is to give a sense of prespective, in order to link in with the discussion. If you havn't figured that out than... I don't know what to say. Common Sense states otherwise. a table or quilt will not fall apart if I took away the edges, (the legs on a table maybe) but otherwise it would still be a table/quilt, just a bit smaller, and without the edges.. the quilt may have some loose strings though. No you got your tables and quilts. so that's a draw. I'd prefer to show humour, but you didn't seem to take that too well. *recalls the off-handed 'Apart from the no beef rule ' joke I made.* Provided by Google ;D I know that. You were the one who made the point in the first place. I'd like to think I've answered that question. With having said, 'yeah I kinda figured that out' earlier. you always think it's nessesary to use emphasis. (and usually it's funny ;D) So the no beef rule is big among Hindus... some small exceptins.Thank you for aggreeing with my point. Acceptance from Rishi is a victory for me. ;D and I already said 'there are always exceptions' It could also change the other way. I find that in things like this, it is best to ignore the future if it comprimises the here and now. That's the vibe I'm getting. As do everyones. Thanks, but no thanks. Call Of Duty, and thank you. I will enjoy it. Enjoy Street Fighter. Not. I'm not spporting what I belive. I'm supporting that which is clear to see, regardless of my own ideology. If I started to talk about that, we'd be here for weeks. Would you? Really? I don't think so. When you speak of the views of religion, people, morals. You're not in Real science, but Social science. In Social sciences, there is always room for a bit of argument, and always an exception. No obvious truth, only clear trends and ideologies held by the populous. In such a case it is the majority that must be focused upon primarily, and with the most attention. and that is the beauty of diversity in human nature. Knowing that there is no absolute certainty. Rather funny joke. You missed it by a mile. You didn't seem to stop talking about the stuff. Hey, maybe out there, there is someone crying in bed because they have run low on salt. That's where you come in. Nice job at making an ass out of yourself right there. Albert Einstein It was in reply to her... a little joke knowing who she's probably talking about. That was the reason I quoted it. What's your problem? [/quote] Are you suggesting something? or did I miss the joke.
|
|
|
Post by Rishi on Apr 15, 2009 21:46:07 GMT 12
Note my earlier statement regarding exceptions. Duly noted. Glad you feel that way. The question isn't if you're aware of it or not. It's if you're going to apply that knowledge. I've already applied that knowledge. And now onto the next thing you've said: Thanks. I appreciate your honesty. I'm glad to hear - minus the sarcasm. Okay. In the way in which I had expressed it. In the way in which you had expressed the word 'long'? Okay, sure..... You can always supress a boner at any time, it's just something you don't usually do. and tears can also be surpressed at any time, depending on ones focus. So there is choice in the process. Yes, you can suppress a boner. But this is AFTER it first occurs. Same deal with suppressing tears. You can suppress 'em, but it's AFTER it first occurs. So there is some limited choice in the process, but instinct is ALSO a part of the process as well. And that is precisely my point. But your example is like chalk and cheese bieing put together as I had said. One is a mental process of thought, whilst the other is not. My example was meant to contain two almost completely opposite things to illustrate a point - that some aspects of our lives are determined by instinct/genes, whilst others are determined by choice. Lets have a history lesson then If you insist. say the recent years in which such acts were forbidden after post colonial law and religiously supported taboo against such acts. Whilst I'm not saying that there had been no homosexuals then at all. Through such knowledge of punishment if they would have gone down that road many who would otherwise be homosexual had made the choice to raise a family with a wife/husband, (even if there would be the slight doubt of their lifestyle they would have stuck with it to the end). But that does not mean that the sexual orientation of the homosexual man/woman had been changed, it simply means that their homosexuality had been suppressed due to oppressive societal circumstances. They had made a choice they would not have made otherwise due to oppression. Now look at modern times, there are few (altough not everywhere) cases of lesbian women becoming hetrosexual/bisexual when finding the right man and vice versa, even the changes in sexuality in the opposite direction when someone had found the right partner and chosen to be with them. If a 'lesbian women' (redundant, you can make things a tiny bit easier for yourself and just say 'lesbian'! ) found the 'right man', then she was not exclusively a homosexual in the first place. She was a bisexual, even if she was and/or still is unaware that this is her sexual orientation. In the sexuality spectrum, bisexuality is obviously situated toward the centre and those who identify themselves as homosexuals but eventually choose to be with someone of the opposite gender and vice versa have made this decision as a result of their bisexual orientation. Also keep in mind that such people and such instances regarding them are not the norm, they are the exception. That depends if I'm getting money from them or not. Fair enough. Personally, I've never been very fussed about money. Oh well, different strokes for different folks I guess. No I took something nice and straight-forward, and portrayed it in an adiquate way. No, I disagree. No, I already did. Various things have been mentioned, not many though. I can mention more things if you want. Not really. Get me something big and I'll listen. Something that is truly there, listened to , followed, and rooted down so much that it will not be blown over by a gust of wind. something like the facts that even you have agreed to as common knowledge. I've already provided you with something significant enough to 'not be blown over by a gust of wind' in regard to the relation that meat-eating and homosexuality have with Hinduism other than traditions by state and the concept of tritiya prakriti - verses from the Vedic writings. Considering that the most widely agreed upon prerequisite for being classified as a 'Hindu' is acceptance of the Vedas as being divinely revealed, inerrant scriptures, what I've provided you with is of very notable significance. That most Hindus do not thoroughly follow the wisdom of their own scriptures is not my problem, it is theirs. The spoiler is to give a sense of prespective, in order to link in with the discussion. If you havn't figured that out than... I don't know what to say. I figured out what your 'spoiler' example was about from the moment you first posted it in this thread. Time to move on to your next statement: Common Sense states otherwise. Just because it is common doesn't necessarily mean that it is a thing of sense. 'Common sense' is often merely disguised chauvinism. Sometimes genuine sensibility is associated with 'common sense', but not always. In any case, my point is still true regardless of whether or not it is accepted by so-called 'common sense'. a table or quilt will not fall apart if I took away the edges, (the legs on a table maybe) but otherwise it would still be a table/quilt, just a bit smaller, and without the edges.. the quilt may have some loose strings though. In regard to a table, it would most likely fall apart if its edges were taken away and in regard to a quilt, its design and appearance would become skewed if the edges were removed or even just hastily altered in some way. At any rate, that's just one example out of various possible examples. No you got your tables and quilts. Yes. Yes I do. ;D If you say so. I'd prefer to show humour, but you didn't seem to take that too well. *recalls the off-handed 'Apart from the no beef rule ' joke I made.* I love humour, but we nonetheless have our own unique senses of humour, as evidenced by me not finding any humour in your so-called 'jokes'. Thanks for enriching me with that information. Good. You were the one who made the point in the first place. I know. I'd like to think I've answered that question. Ditto. With having said, 'yeah I kinda figured that out' earlier. Also, with me having said 'I kinda figured that out too' earlier. you always think it's nessesary to use emphasis. If the only requirement for using emphasis is an exclamation mark (as you seem to be implying), then no, I don't always think it's necessary to use emphasis. (and usually it's funny ;D) Thank you, I aim to please! So the no beef rule is big among Hindus... some small exceptins.Thank you for aggreeing with my point. That was a point I've clearly agreed with you on since very early in this thread. Acceptance from Rishi is a victory for me. ;D I had made my agreement with you on that particular point quite obvious since MUCH earlier on in this thread, so I personally wouldn't call that a 'victory' - unless you think a mutual agreement in a debate is a 'victory' (which you certainly seem to think! ). Also, in any case, I strongly encourage you to aim for loftier victories! and I already said 'there are always exceptions' Yes, there are indeed always exceptions, paradoxically even with the apparent rule that there are always exceptions! It could also change the other way. It could change either way. But your point is nevertheless valid. I find that in things like this, it is best to ignore the future if it comprimises the here and now. Occasionally, planning for and focusing on the future can compromise the here and now, but I personally find that they are usually worthwhile things to do. That's the vibe I'm getting. Err, no, I don't simultaneously agree and disagree with you. As do everyones. That depends on what aspect of one's experience is being delved into. We are all unique individuals, so in that sense no two experiences are exactly the same, yet experiences can still be shared, similar or even virtually identical in terms of their content. Sure. Call Of Duty, and thank you. You're welcome. Good, I hope you do. I will! No, I already did. I'm not spporting what I belive. I'm supporting that which is clear to see, regardless of my own ideology. I'm supporting both what I believe and, to a lesser extent, that which is clear to see, regardless of my own ideology. If I started to talk about that, we'd be here for weeks. I'm fine with that. Yes. Yes. I also don't think so. I know so. When you speak of the views of religion, people, morals. You're not in Real science, but Social science. In Social sciences, there is always room for a bit of argument, and always an exception. No obvious truth, only clear trends and ideologies held by the populous. In such a case it is the majority that must be focused upon primarily, and with the most attention. This is all, for the most part, true, but it doesn't clearly explain what led you to assume that I was referring to 'absolute truth' when the views of religion, people, morals etc. are about as FAR away from being 'absolute' as they can possibly be. and that is the beauty of diversity in human nature. Knowing that there is no absolute certainty. I deeply agree with you. Diversity in general is beautiful and so is the uncertainty which pervades it. Rather funny joke. You missed it by a mile. If that so-called 'joke' was rather funny, then I wouldn't have missed it (be it by one mile or over a thousand miles!). Oh well, better luck next time I guess! You didn't seem to stop talking about the stuff. If mentioning sand in a grand total of TWO of my posts (lol) makes you think that I didn't seem to stop talking about sand, then... uh... I think only this image could be adequate for this occasion: Hey, maybe out there, there is someone crying in bed because they have run low on salt. That's where you come in. If someone's desperate for salt, I'd be happy to provide them with some. I aim to please. Nice job at making an ass out of yourself right there. Nah! Really? I expected better from him then! It was in reply to her... a little joke knowing who she's probably talking about. That was the reason I quoted it. Okay, thanks for the clarification. I have no problem. I'm a good widdle boi! Are you suggesting something? or did I miss the joke. I'll leave all of that for you to decide.
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on Apr 16, 2009 3:12:17 GMT 12
By what the definition I had qoted had said. Unless you had gotten to Urban Dictionary, laughed and missed the quote from it. Before as well. Just keep thinking no, look away, perhaps find/think of something to distract you. Then you're all fine from embarrasment. and I had said that mental processes are subject to thought/choice. Yet the choice had been made and quite a few had managed to lead happy fulfilling lives. The exception... yes I had hinted at that fact. (altough not everywhere) in my slightly euphamistic brackets. The euphamism because I don't like how I'm in your territory now. But to the topic at hand, the connotations that I had said say that the person who you end up with for the rest of your life could always be something that you had not been searching for. Ones sexual preference can be changed if someone turly enjoys bieing with that other person. If they are bisexual because of them changing their opinions, who's to say that anyone is this or that if it is what you do at the end that matters. Ever hear the one about the man who changed his sex because the woman he loved was a lesbian. Yet at the same time she was a transexual. One day you may learn how much value money has. Not. That is your decision to make. The fact that they have not chosen, I wouldn't think is their problem, their bliss maybe. Alright then, if you're going to be like that. Let me rephraise it. Mainstream is more important to look at than the fringe. Then it's a very low quality table. The way that your humour is just constantly recycled? I didn't ask you. You did, I answered, then you dragged it on with that, why? I didn't imply that an exclamation mark is the only form of emphasis, you just read too far into something that isn't there. Emphasis could be embolded/underlined/italicized words as well, in which case... Usually that is the way debates end up, with some form of mutual acceptance (or at least in the more civilised debates). and the fact that it had ended up quite close to where I had based my first, not serious sentience. I'd call that a victory. I was beggining to wonder when you'd discover that bit. It depends on what kind of person you are, on who looks at the journey or the destination. Ha, Funny. [/sarcasm] Not. Too bad I'm not all that fine with it. Something about voicing your deep held opinions on the internet just dosn't feel right. You hear the guns clicking in the background when you start. Then before you know it, bang bang bang. You 'know so', do you? Well That's a very nice thought. Too bad it's not true. Absolute truth... I though what I said was reffered to views held by the populous and the truth held by the minority and weighting them accordingly. It's either that it wasn't funny, or that you have no sense of humour... I'd say it was more of the latter [/quote]If mentioning sand in a grand total of TWO of my posts (lol) makes you think that I didn't seem to stop talking about sand[/quote]the fact that you mentioned it in two of your posts. Mention the same thing more than once, you will be remembered for it, one of the rules of the internet. Yeah, but then you have to get transport, postage, packaging, and taxes. At the end of which it would have been more fruitful to just donate some money. and you've done it again there. ¬.¬ Didn't get it. You're a boy?
|
|
|
Post by Rishi on Apr 16, 2009 6:15:21 GMT 12
By what the definition I had qoted had said. Unless you had gotten to Urban Dictionary, laughed and missed the quote from it. I can't remember the last time I've been to Urban Dictionary, so I'll just take your word for all of this. Before as well. Just keep thinking no, look away, perhaps find/think of something to distract you. Then you're all fine from embarrasment. You can suppress a boner and/or the flowing of tears by reducing it or even stopping it as it begins to occur, otherwise a boner and/or the flowing of tears never even began to occur. In such cases, all one then has to do if he does not want to get hard/teary sometime in the foreseeable future is to engage in something which evokes an opposite response. and I had said that mental processes are subject to thought/choice. And I had said that some of the things that make us who we are and make us do what we do is due to our instincts/genes, whilst everything else ultimately comes down to choice. And thought/choice ARE mental processes, as how else could thought/choice operate save through one's mind? Yet the choice had been made and quite a few had managed to lead happy fulfilling lives. That point is barely relevant (if at all) as the choice they had been coerced to make does not really change their sexual orientation since their birth. The exception... yes I had hinted at that fact. (altough not everywhere) in my slightly euphamistic brackets. The euphamism because I don't like how I'm in your territory now. What territory? What on Earth are you talking about? But to the topic at hand, the connotations that I had said say that the person who you end up with for the rest of your life could always be something that you had not been searching for. Perhaps. Ones sexual preference can be changed if someone turly enjoys bieing with that other person. There are people out there who are uncertain of their sexual orientation. They feel as though they could 'swing' either way. These are the bi-curious people (ie. those who are uncertain of their bisexual orientation, but not necessarily dismissive of their bisexual orientation). If someone who identifies himself or herself as being homosexual/heterosexual but truly enjoys being with another person of the opposite gender or the same gender, then they were bisexual to begin with despite what they have identified themselves as. If they are bisexual because of them changing their opinions, who's to say that anyone is this or that if it is what you do at the end that matters. They are not so much bisexual because of them changing their 'opinions' as they are bisexual because of them having the propensity to feel sexually attracted toward people of both the male and female genders. Ever hear the one about the man who changed his sex because the woman he loved was a lesbian. Yet at the same time she was a transexual. Source? One day you may learn how much value money has. When did I say anything that implied that I don't already know how much value money has? Earlier on in this thread, you asked me something about how I don't want to disappoint our 'fans' to which I responded by saying 'No I don't and I hope you feel the same way too'. To refresh your memory yet again, you responded to this by saying: That depends if I'm getting money from them or not. I responded to this statement with: Fair enough. Personally, I've never been very fussed about money. Oh well, different strokes for different folks I guess. Protip: Saying 'Fair enough. Personally, I've never been very fussed about money. Oh well, different strokes for different folks I guess.' =/= saying that money does not have much value No, I already did. That is your decision to make. Thank you. The fact that they have not chosen, I wouldn't think is their problem, their bliss maybe. If ignorance is indeed bliss, then it is merely counterfeit bliss. Knowledge is true bliss. Mainstream is more important to look at than the fringe. Sometimes, yes. Then it's a very low quality table. Perhaps. Either way, it's still a table. The way that your humour is just constantly recycled? Recycling is a good habit to have and maintain. Besides, I'm not specifically trying to be funny in this thread, in this forum in general and even in my life in the outside world in general. But thanks anyway for your compliment, I choose to accept it! I didn't ask you. You did, I answered, then you dragged it on with that, why? Actually, you did ask me something: The question is that have you figured out that it is still frowned upon? You asked me that question, I simply answered it. I didn't imply that an exclamation mark is the only form of emphasis, you just read too far into something that isn't there. I know you didn't imply that an exclamation mark is the only form of emphasis, it was just something I chose to point out anyway. Emphasis could be embolded/underlined/italicized words as well, in which case... I completely agree with you. Usually that is the way debates end up, with some form of mutual acceptance (or at least in the more civilised debates). and the fact that it had ended up quite close to where I had based my first, not serious sentience. I'd call that a victory. I don't call it what I would consider to be a 'victory', but if you wanna feel proud about something, go right ahead! I was beggining to wonder when you'd discover that bit. 'Discover'? I have always known it, my friend! It depends on what kind of person you are, on who looks at the journey or the destination. To me, the journey is the destination. Thanks. [/sarcasm] No, I already did. Too bad I'm not all that fine with it. Why not? Something about voicing your deep held opinions on the internet just dosn't feel right. Feels right to me. You hear the guns clicking in the background when you start. Then before you know it, bang bang bang. Zuh? You 'know so', do you? Well That's a very nice thought. Too bad it's not true. Too bad it IS true (for you, perhaps)! Absolute truth... I though what I said was reffered to views held by the populous and the truth held by the minority and weighting them accordingly. And I did indeed weigh them accordingly. It's either that it wasn't funny, or that you have no sense of humour... I'd say it was more of the latter I'd say that it was COMPLETELY the former (with complete and utter CERTAINTY, no less!). the fact that you mentioned it in two of your posts. Mention the same thing more than once, you will be remembered for it, one of the rules of the internet. The only rules of the internet I take into account are rules 1, 2 and 34. At the end of which it would have been more fruitful to just donate some money. If salt is requested more than money, I'd be willing to supply it in relation to its demand (even though money could, of course, be used to purchase salt). and you've done it again there. You're welcome! Ah. Am I?
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on Apr 17, 2009 5:51:04 GMT 12
You can suppress a boner and/or the flowing of tears by reducing it or even stopping it as it begins to occur, otherwise a boner and/or the flowing of tears never even began to occur. In such cases, all one then has to do if he does not want to get hard/teary sometime in the foreseeable future is to engage in something which evokes an opposite response. Well I am saying how choice is very relevant to ones sexual orientation, and how it is personal preference that leads down that road. Ones sexual orientation is just what they have done/will do. I refuse to belive that one is subject to the constraints of their DNA to be constrained to one way of thought or another, adabtability is a trait of humanity and through it things such as language (regardless of birth place), skills(regardless of which you're better at), culture(regardless of skin colour). The choice is the choice, and natural instinct to be preferential one way can be replaced by a consious will if the person is willing to go through the process. Your territory... the bit at the fringe. Bi-curious, well there is another of those unnessesary madeup words. If a woman had been attracted by women for all her life, then met a man, fell deeply in love and married him... what dose that make her? CSI. It was the hundredth Eps. Hit a nerve there did I? What I said there wasn't meant to be taken THAT seriously. Not. Bliss dose not discriminate. Nor can it be faked. The ignorant are happy because they have no knowledge of how depressing things are. well it went like this: and that is how you drove us round in a circle. I will Even before I said the quote? You're welcome. ;D Not Bieing an Admin on an Advanceshipping site I have to watch out, I know about what happened to the others and I'm not gonna shoot myself in the foot. Like whenever you say something you shouldn't... like the 'R' word... Religion, or the 'P' word... Politics. There is always one who will start to get angry. No you did not. Naughty Naughty. ;D Or you could ust store it... not have to buy any salt for a while as you have stockpiled, and give the remaining money to charity. You didn't do it there. I don't know... Which are you?
|
|
|
Post by Rishi on Apr 18, 2009 3:05:41 GMT 12
Well I am saying how choice is very relevant to ones sexual orientation, and how it is personal preference that leads down that road. It is generally one's personal preference that determines how they'll express their sexual orientation (ie. in terms of their actions and emotions), but their sexual orientation itself doesn't come down to mere personal preference. Ones sexual orientation is just what they have done/will do. Not exactly. One's sexual orientation is where one's sexual attraction is directed. What one has done/will do to express their sexual orientation is their sexual behaviour. I refuse to belive that one is subject to the constraints of their DNA to be constrained to one way of thought or another, adabtability is a trait of humanity and through it things such as language (regardless of birth place), skills(regardless of which you're better at), culture(regardless of skin colour). I agree with you to a certain extent, we are usually not constrained by DNA to be constrained to one way of thought or another and we are a very adaptable species. But our sexual orientation is not merely chosen, it is in place relatively early in one's life-time. It is innate. This is not simply my own stance on this issue. Many psychologists and psychological organisations agree with this stance. For example, the American Psychological Association released a statement on homosexuality in July 1994. Their first two paragraphs are: "The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgement, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals. Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments." The choice is the choice, and natural instinct to be preferential one way can be replaced by a consious will if the person is willing to go through the process. One cannot sporadically switch between heterosexuality and homosexuality unless one is already genetically predisposed to engage in such a process (ie. having a bisexual orientation). Your territory... the bit at the fringe. My territory - wherever I want it to be, 'fringe' or otherwise. Bi-curious, well there is another of those unnessesary madeup words. www.allwords.com/word-bi-curious.htmlTry again. I thought you would've known that with all of the tangents of diversity in human nature, there would be a term like 'bi-curious' out there. And guess what? There is. Furthermore, it is a legitimately recognised term too. If a woman had been attracted by women for all her life, then met a man, fell deeply in love and married him... what dose that make her? Bisexual. She had the propensity to gravitate toward either heterosexuality or homosexuality all along. CSI. It was the hundredth Eps. I don't watch that show. I'm not even slightly surprised that your source is a TV show. No, not at all. Sorry if that disappoints you! What I said there wasn't meant to be taken THAT seriously. How seriously is 'THAT seriously'? If you think that me simply asking you the question "When did I say anything that implied that I don't already know how much value money has?" and then providing you with a couple of quotes is an example of me taking something very seriously and/or an instance where you've 'hit a nerve', then you need to accept a more accurate definition of the word 'seriousness'. No, I already did. Bliss dose not discriminate. Nor can it be faked. The ignorant are happy because they have no knowledge of how depressing things are. No, bliss does not discriminate. Bliss can also not be faked. However, bliss is not found wherever ignorance is. The ultimate result of ignorance is misery and misery ALONE - whether it is felt immediately, in a few days or in the distant future. You say that the ignorant are happy because they have no knowledge of how depressing things are, but happiness is not bliss. Bliss transcends even happiness. Happiness is mundane in comparison to bliss. The ignorant will someday realise their ignorance because the truth ALWAYS comes out. ALWAYS. When the ignorant realise how depressing things TRULY are (and they WILL eventually realise how depressing things TRULY are), it will hit them like a ton of bricks. There is nothing surer than that. Why not tell them the truth as soon as possible and at least minimise the sadness they would experience as a result of hearing such revelations? I would. Besides, I'd rather live KNOWING about how things really are (even if it's depressing - which a lot of it is, in my opinion) since a life built around a lie (or even a collection of lies) is a life that's only half-lived. No need for reminders. I don't need 'em (besides, I've done most of the reminding in this thread..... for you, no less). and that is how you drove us round in a circle. You started the circular motion - I simply chose to perpetuate it by responding. Good for you. ;D Fixed. Even before I said the quote? Yes, I have always known that there are exceptions to everything - even to the notion that there are exceptions to everything. There's no requirement for quotes when something is already self-evident. That's nice of you, I choose to accept your welcoming. ;D No, I already did. Bieing an Admin on an Advanceshipping site I have to watch out, I know about what happened to the others and I'm not gonna shoot myself in the foot. 'Others'? Like whenever you say something you shouldn't... like the 'R' word... Religion, or the 'P' word... Politics. There is always one who will start to get angry. Religion and politics are two broad topics that people get very passionate about and I'm quite certain that it will always be like that. But I think that discussions about these two broad topics should continue in general, even if someone gets angered as a result. Discussion is good. Discussion is healthy. Yes I did. Naughty Naughty. ;D Perhaps, but at least I'm honest about it. Or you could ust store it... not have to buy any salt for a while as you have stockpiled, and give the remaining money to charity. Or I could just give salt as well as extra money, since a bit of generosity usually doesn't go astray. Ambiguous comment is ambiguous. I don't know... Which are you? I'll let you think of the answer to that question yourself.
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on Apr 18, 2009 9:16:23 GMT 12
It is generally one's personal preference that determines how they'll express their sexual orientation (ie. in terms of their actions and emotions), but their sexual orientation itself doesn't come down to mere personal preference. Yet it dose not disprove that any commitment to a relationship is made in choice, regardless of underlying genetic preference. In the end, actual commitment of any action is only validated and acted upon through choice. Your 'territory' is wherever you choose to stick too and have made somewhat of a niche in that area when describing your views/opinions. It's not what you want it to be, it is what it is. Yet I'd say that the person who made the term was not really running on all cylinders. Saying bi-curious rather than indecisive, or dosn't know yet, is just un-nessesary. In fact it is such an unessesary word that I dare you to find one sane person who would use it to describe themselves. Yet if she had stuck and had not leaned anywhere near to the hetrosexual in the beggining of her love life, or had ever been tempted by it in any way. Would that mean that she is Bi-sexual even if, after her marrage she had been attracted only by women. Even if she dose love the man, finding that he is an exception to her sexual orientation. Now, how did I know you were going to react like that? To use an age old quote: Take a chill pill. Not. No ignorant person has regretted his lack of knowledge. It is the knowledge alone that brings the pain. In comparison, Knowledgable people have regretted their knowledge to entertain the idea of ignorance, if they have not been able to, they are not very knowledgeable. Knowledge is power, and shares similar traits. As power seeks more power, Knowledge seeks more knowledge, and like power, without wisdom knowledge corrupts; it dose not result in happiness, only corruption. I went forward, you went back to the beggining. Gracious in defeat arn't you? That's very nice to hear. Not. Those who came before me; In the position of an Advanceshipping site Admin. It would be folly if I didn't learn from what happened to them. Religion and Politics are two of the most evil topics to discuss, only because people get so passionate about it. You go into these worlds at your own risks. or you could spend it on yourself and help the economy for everyone. In relation to how the thread of words had progressed it is not ambiguous. Do you have too? Can't you give me a little hint?
|
|
|
Post by Rishi on Apr 19, 2009 3:37:03 GMT 12
Yet it dose not disprove that any commitment to a relationship is made in choice, regardless of underlying genetic preference. I never said it disproved anything. I provided you with the first two paragraphs of a statement released by the American Psychological Association over a decade ago simply to give an example of how it is recognised by various psychologists through their own research that we are genetically predisposed to one sexual orientation or another and that such an orientation establishes itself relatively early in our lives. In the end, actual commitment of any action is only validated and acted upon through choice. Ah, but a sexual orientation is not an action. And it is not a choice either. Your 'territory' is wherever you choose to stick too and have made somewhat of a niche in that area when describing your views/opinions. Of COURSE my 'territory' is wherever I choose to stick to and the same thing applies to you too. It's called a 'stance' and they're kinda crucial for debates. Furthermore, even if I've made somewhat of a niche in a particular area when discussing my views/opinions, I am still completely satisfied with my stance in this debate. It's not what you want it to be, it is what it is. My 'territory' only is what it is because I want it to be. Yet I'd say that the person who made the term was not really running on all cylinders. I'd say otherwise. Humans have a natural urge to attach labels to things. It isn't necessarily related to any kind of mental ineptitude at all. Saying bi-curious rather than indecisive, or dosn't know yet, is just un-nessesary. Saying 'indecisive' or 'dosn't [ sic] know yet' instead of 'bi-curious' is at least EQUALLY as unnecessary (if not more!). Hell, 'indecisive' or 'dosn't [ sic] know yet' both contain more letters than the word 'bi-curious' and hence take marginally more time to type (a second more time if you throw in a letter 'e' in 'dosn't'). In fact it is such an unessesary word that I dare you to find one sane person who would use it to describe themselves. Overreaction much? To use your own words: Yet if she had stuck and had not leaned anywhere near to the hetrosexual in the beggining of her love life, or had ever been tempted by it in any way. Would that mean that she is Bi-sexual even if, after her marrage she had been attracted only by women. Even if she dose love the man, finding that he is an exception to her sexual orientation. Yes, I say that she would still be bi-sexual because quantity is irrelevant (eg. one man like in your example or even a million men in general). Now, how did I know you were going to react like that? How didn't you know? What you said was asking for it. To use an age old quote: Take a chill pill. I don't need a pill to chill, I can do it on my own and save money in the process. No, I already did. No ignorant person has regretted his lack of knowledge. This statement assumes that you know what transpires in the minds and hearts of 'ignorant' people everywhere all the time. If such is indeed the case, then I am indeed impressed. Fortunately for both you and I, your statement is categorically false. In any case, I know for a fact that at least some 'ignorant' people ('ignorant' already being such a broad term as it is) have regretted their lack of knowledge. For example, my 26 year old cousin has rather severe epilepsy and as a result is unfit to learn how to drive. He is ignorant of driving knowledge, but that doesn't mean he is unregretful of this ignorance. It is the knowledge alone that brings the pain. False. It is both knowledge and ignorance that are capable of initially bringing pain, but it is ONLY from ignorance that such pain endures. If it is knowledge alone that brings the pain, then I am a masochist of the very highest order as I am a passionate lover of a VAST variety of fascinating fields of knowledge. If there were no seekers of knowledge in this world simply because knowledge can sometimes be uncomfortable, if humanity was not as inquistive as it is, then we would still be sh*tting from trees. Fortunately however, what you have said is not only absurd but categorically false too. In comparison, Knowledgable people have regretted their knowledge to entertain the idea of ignorance Whether one considers me to be 'knowledgeable' or not, I have NEVER regretted the knowledge I have acquired throughout my life so far and I NEVER will. One who seriously entertains the idea of ignorance by seeking it and sheltering it, such a person is only nominally alive. He or she is as good as dead. Ultimately, knowledge bestows growth and ignorance bestows stagnation. If you truly love ignorance, enjoy stagnating. if they have not been able to, they are not very knowledgeable. One cannot adequately be aware of the concept of 'knowledge' without also being aware of its polar opposite concept - that of 'ignorance'. One cannot define one of these concepts without awareness of its polar opposite concept. One cannot know what knowledge is without ignorance to compare it to and vice versa. But that does not imply that ignorance is to be sought after. Knowledge is power, and shares similar traits. As power seeks more power, Knowledge seeks more knowledge, and like power, without wisdom knowledge corrupts; it dose not result in happiness, only corruption. What you basically seem to be saying here is that if knowledge is not used wisely, then it results in corruption. Inversely, if knowledge is used wisely, then it results in happiness. Geez, thanks for pointing out the blatantly obvious! At any rate, you yourself have acknowledged that when knowledge is utilised wisely, it does not result in corruption. Thank you for REINFORCING one of my main points! I went forward, you went back to the beggining. Quite the contrary! You were the person who initially asked me "The question is that have you figured out that it is still frowned upon?". You needlessly revived a point that had already been well-established much earlier on in this thread, all I did was respond to it and ask you a similar question: "The question is that have you figured out that it is still not taboo?" Gracious in defeat arn't you? Yes, I am gracious in both victory (like right now) and defeat (rarely in my imagination). That's very nice to hear. You're welcome. Y'see, XAOTL? Now you know that there's no need for quotes when something's already self-evident. Thus, knowledge CAN be painless! No, I already did. Those who came before me; In the position of an Advanceshipping site Admin. It would be folly if I didn't learn from what happened to them. Religion and Politics are two of the most evil topics to discuss, only because people get so passionate about it. I wouldn't go so far as to call topics pertaining to religion and politics 'evil' (at least not when it comes to religion and politics in and of themselves), but they certainly have a tendency to cause a lot of turbulence. Still, there are lots of interesting facts and beliefs one can learn about when discussing religion and politics. You go into these worlds at your own risks. Yes, indeed. or you could spend it on yourself and help the economy for everyone. I could do both and still be of assistance during this current global economic recession. In relation to how the thread of words had progressed it is not ambiguous. Ambiguous statement is still ambiguous. Looks like you're on a roll, huh? No, darling. I merely choose to. Can't you give me a little hint?
|
|