I must admit, you confused me for a second there, but it is all a part of my point.
Being confused for a second was all a part of your point? If it was, then that doesn't surprise me since getting confused is observably your forte!
All that I siad there had supported my point, your reaction was not all to good other than someone whining about bieing wrong, ergo victory for me.
Nothing you had said supported your point. In fact, what you said achieved the
opposite result. Earlier on in this thread, I said:
"Also, one can choose to suppress things that may happen spontaneously (like a boner, for example) but generally such things occur at least sometime
AFTER it begins, otherwise there's no indication of what to suppress and when one desires to suppress it."
Then you responded by saying:
"Not nessesarily, there is the ability to predict, or feel such things starting, then bieing able to supress it."
Your statement is basically agreeing with my statement in saying that certain spontaneous things can be suppressed, but usually only
AFTER it starts (even if it's only a moment after it starts). Hence, my reaction to your erroneous response was apt. I was not wrong,
you were and you at least partially rectified your incorrectness by agreeing with me on this particular point. Good for you. Ergo, victory is mine!
I don't care how many times you've been sick here, I'm not going to wipe up your mess.
Tangent much? I don't know
WHAT relevance that statement has to practically anything in this thread since a) I'm not sick here and b) I haven't caused any kind of mess. I suggest that should stop projecting your own shortcomings onto me because it's not a good look for you!
First you say they are this or that according to what genetics state and now are saying some incoherent babble.
It might be 'incoherent babble' by
your standards, but then again, to me your standards when it comes to stringing together coherent sentences were evidently never very high to begin with!
How on Earth is the statement "If one chooses to be homosexual, then he or she was not exclusively homosexual/not homosexual to begin with. The choice is there, but the classification then becomes different." incoherent babble? Once again XAOTL, you're engaging in projection. That statement was certainly at least no
MORE incoherent than the statements you spew forth in this thread on a seemingly regular basis!
But just because I'm such a nice person, I'll explain further about what I meant about that already simple and straightforward statement I made. I said that if one has
chosen to be homosexual, then to begin with, he was neither exclusively homosexual nor exclusively heterosexual. Then I said that the choice is indeed there, but the classification is then altered from 'heterosexual'/'homosexual' to 'bisexual'. Now what was
SOOOOOOOOOO incredibly hard to understand about
that?
You know what 'bisexuality' is, right?
Right? Y'know, it's that kinda sexual orientation which involves naturally feeling sexual attraction toward people from both genders - something which heterosexuals and homosexuals don't experience. Ring any bells for ya?
Choice has had a large effect on the result, fact. Ergo victory is mine.
Choice has not had an effect on the result that was large enough to be significant, fact. It
never did. Ergo, victory is mine.
depending upon the context in which you are using them for, if it is the effects that concern you, yes they are like chalk and cheese.
Common sense is victorious yet again.
But in the case in which I had reffered them where I had stuck very closely to the origins of either case the two cases had managed ot compliment one another, to form a plausable argument.
Okay, here's your 'plausible argument':
"Yes it dose help my argument, seeing that the individual can choose to not try harder in an uphill struggle to get an A in his/her subjects and be happy with a C. It would have been that individuals choice to study that little bit more, to listen to his teacher that little bit harder becase his disability would hinder learning in an instant and make the process much harder, and each choice after choice after choice would acculmulate to the final result."
Dyslexia has certain drawbacks which are
naturally connected to that learning disability, thus it is profitable to attempt to overcome these drawbacks so as to not struggle in life. But the possible drawbacks which stem from sexual orientations are largely artificial constructions of society. For example, with sexual orientations, some people might say that the lack of an ability to reproduce is a drawback in regard to the sexual orientation of homosexuality. But it is a drawback in his
opinion, which causes him to assume that reproduction is one of the primary functions of human life and anything that runs contrary to this notion is a drawback. This opinion of his is further based on factors such as his values, his culture, his prior experiences, his religious beliefs etc. It is not an inherently biological drawback, since homosexuality has its own biological niche to occupy when it comes to humankind and also when it comes to much of the animal kingdom in general. Moving on, just like you've said toward the end of your most recent post in this thread, there is indeed a reason for everything that is here and that
includes sexual orientations. Each sexual orientation which exists as a part of nature exists because there is a reason for it, because there is some function for it to fulfill, because there is a biological niche for it to occupy.
You on the other hand are rather obviously trying to stand on a crumbling platform, with an argument that had already been disproved; you lose.
You're still projecting your own shortcomings onto me, XAOTL!
That is the primary symptom of one who is failing in an argument. They attempt to transfer the blatant flaws of their own argument onto the other person he or she is debating with. You never disproved my argument for the simple reason that my argument was true, thus there was nothing to actually disprove. My platform is
FIRM, not crumbling. You have attempted (and epically failed no less! ;D) at associating dyslexia with sexual orientations in regard to the matter of choice, when
neither are choices and when only dyslexia can be overcome due to not being innate.
If dyslexic people are taught to read using a genuine, synthetic phonic, remedial programme, then their 'dyslexia'
WILL disappear. Unfortunately, if effective intervention is not established very quickly, the negative side effects of early symptoms such as a dislike of reading and low motivation are likely to persist and fluency is unlikely to ever be achieved. If newly taught skills are not practised extensively, they are bound to dissolve too. I win.
Yet, when you see Darth coming up in that suit, it's just priceless.
When the suit is originally placed onto Darth Vader's body, it is indeed a special moment. When he yells 'NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!', that's not priceless. It's just cliché. Oh, and:
The Empire Strikes Back > all other Star Wars films (and that includes the films of the prequel trilogy).
RAWR RAWR RAWR, RAWR RARA RAWR RAWR.
Nice to see that you're still making the same amount of sense you usually do!
Very clever, just calling yourself ignorant.
Very clever, trying to derive a baseless retort from a statement of mine which never even
remotely hinted at my own possible ignorance and/or lack thereof.
Actually, no. Just kidding. It wasn't clever at all. Any Average Joe can pull that kind of cheap trick. Try again!
The irnoy is that it's coming form you, Ms incohierant.
The 'irnoy' (irony even!
) of that statement of yours
itself is so utterly flagrant that even
YOU, with your evident penchant for incoherancy, should surely notice it! Even despite assuming my gender without providing
ANY justification for why you apparently hold such a belief, you
ALSO called
ME 'incohierant' - which, I assume, seems to be your way of calling
ME 'incoherant' when
YOU YOURSELF can barely maintain your
OWN coherency! Here's a hint from your good pal Rish: when accusing someone else of expressing a particular trait, it usually helps to
NOT express that
SAME trait even
WHILE making that
SAME particular accusation!
Where survival is baised within the confines of the mind, and you come and bring in physical requirements. If you had just the base requiremens that you describe and take out all that I had bought into the argument you have an empty shell that could eat and drink, the wheel would be turning but the hamster is dead.
If there is
ALREADY an empty shell that could eat and drink plus with the wheel turning but the hamster dead, then it is due to
YOUR contributions. Survival is not based only within the confines of the mind because the mind is ultimately an abstract entity (unlike the brain, which is often mistakenly treated as being completely synonymous with the mind). Survival involves the complex interplay of
BOTH body and mind and
BOTH body and mind are essential for survival. In any case, earlier on in this thread, we were talking about how knowledge (and, to a lesser extent, ignorance) are important for a child's
development and it was
YOU who took
THAT particular topic on a tangent by bringing in the issue of individual survival when you said:
"I guess in a way children are not completely unaware of things concerning them, but for the majority are, for example very young babies do not register foreign objects in the distance as they have no relevance to them and as a result are oblivious to those objects in some way. As they grow they realise that those objects have more and more relivance to them,and beign to focus some attention to them rather than maintaining it on themselves.
I fnessesary they would take the path of further investigation to ensure their individual survival, or if things are fine as they are the child will shy away from detailed investigation. Adding onto my argument of nessesity."
Note the underlined statement. That was the moment you took the topic of knowledge and ignorance in relation to the development of children into a tangent and I merely responded to it accordingly! ;D
The advanced needs are a ofshoot of the basic needs of a person, not different, but more specified and more needy.
The advanced needs are akin to a few small trees in a forest, whilst the basic needs are akin to that whole forest itself. The advanced needs arise only through the basic needs,
NOT independently of them. And the advanced needs
ARE different as well as more specified. Are you
ACTUALLY trying to say that the advanced needs of a person are 'not different' to the basic needs of a person? So our basic needs of oxygen, food and water
ALSO happen to our
ADVANCED needs too? Wow..... just..... wow.
You are just pointing out what I had already said, with Knowledge born out of nessesity and reqirements of survival.
No, I'm not just pointing out what you already said. Let's revisit a certain statement of yours which you said earlier on in this thread, shall we (since your memory appears to be failing you yet again)?:
"Holes, that are not there if you know that the basic functions of life are to firstly survive, then to gain personal profit."
So you're basically agreeing with my point about how the most basic function of life is survival. You've also stated that knowledge is born out of necessity and the requirements of survival, which is partially true but you ought to also take into account that knowledge
CAN and
IS also born out of
desire as well. It is dependent on circumstances. Knowledge is born out of necessity to assist us in attaining our basic needs (such as food and water) whilst knowledge is born out of desire to assist us in attaining our advanced needs (such as a house, formal education, money etc.).
And why is ignorance always changing forms, and moving and changing, and bieing born, and in infinite supply? Because it is bliss.
Ignorance is
NOT always changing forms, because ignorance is
merely a
LACK of knowledge. That is
ALL that ignorance comes down to. Lack of knowledge is the
ONLY thing that
HAS defined ignorance, that is the only thing that
IS currently defining ignorance and that is the only thing that
WILL continue to define ignorance. Ignorance is static. Ignorance moves, but it is not always changing forms. Ignorance can
ONLY be defined by what it is
NOT and what ignorance is
NOT is knowledge. However, knowledge
HAS always been changing forms, it
IS currently changing forms and it always
WILL continue to change forms. Knowledge is also being born and reborn according to different climes and times. Also, knowledge is in infinite supply. Why? Because knowledge is bliss and ignorance is ultimately the root cause of
ALL evil!
sigh Funny, because the mind bieing 'there' in a phisical aspect as long as the body is there is questionable, but I shall, for the sake of argument accept it.
You accept the
truth? Wow, that's a change! Good for you!
But must point out that Ignorance remains purely in the capacity of mental thoughts, a subject which your counter argument has very nicely stayed away from.
'Mental thoughts'? Uh, redundant much? Thoughts
DO come from the mind, y'know!
In any case, I realise that knowledge and ignorance are both related to the mind, which is why I've
REPEATEDLY stated how I think knowledge and ignorance affect the mind. Therefore, you are wrong because my counter argument has very nicely stayed
RIGHT NEXT TO the subject of the mind.
. uh, better argument required.
No. Perfection does not require revision.
The first sentence is what I had already stated.
No, the first sentence is not what you had already stated. You said "It is not a theoretical extreme, if you look at everyday life in which there is ignornace everywhere, in order to fulfill the minds requirement for happiness." That is
NOT equivalent to when I said "It is an extreme both theoretical and false if knowledge is not accounted for, since if you look at everyday life, there is both knowledge and ignorance everywhere." You didn't mention
anything about knowledge. Wanna try again?
The rest of the paragraph, well starting with the higher cliabre, I must say that I never knew that there was anything higher than bliss, knowledge, in the long run brings contentment in the best outcomes
First of all, in responding to this cluster-f**k of a statement, I will now mention that I
NEVER said that there was anything higher than bliss. So what is the relevance of perhaps implying that I
did say such a thing? None. As for knowledge in the long run bringing contentment in the best outcomes, what you're basically saying is that whenever the circumstances of knowledge in a situation are satisfying to you, then they're satisfying to you. Your powers of deduction are astounding, Sherlock!
but above that... not really
Yes, really. ;D
if you do consider how with the struggles and shattering of ignorance that as we have agreed upon caused pain, you must know that any benifit would not be able to offset the negatives, which is where ignorance comes in.
The struggles and shattering of ignorance have indeed caused pain, but it is incorrect to say that there is no benefit which is able to offset the negatives. If someone eventually gains
knowledge of an alternative option which is actually favourable to him or her instead of causing pain, then that alternative option can at least
nullify the pain one is feeling (or even put an end to it altogether). That is where
knowledge comes in.
Well firstly it's clear that you do not know how love operates, that you can fall for just about anyone, as is its nature.
When did I state that one cannot fall in love with just about anyone? Never. I said:
"Being ignorant of the knowledge that the person one has feelings for is out of their league ultimately only makes it more painful when the truth eventually comes out (and it does eventually come out, no matter how long it might take) that those feelings one had for another person were never going to bear the desired result, that one's expenditure of time, effort and energy was ultimately in vain and that such an unfruitful pursuit could have been avoided or at least partially prevented by prior knowledge."
Also, when I specifically said "such an unfruitful pursuit could have been avoided or at least partially prevented by prior knowledge", that 'unfruitful pursuit' I was referring to was the spending of one's time, effort and energy in trying to establish a relationship with a person one has feelings for. It was not saying that, through prior knowledge, one could have (or even
SHOULD have) not felt the feelings one had felt for a certain person. You have misconstrued what I have said. Ergo, your point is moot. Ergo, you are wrong.
If we do not know of our enemy and they do not know of us, are they our enemy? The answer: No. Ergo you are wrong.
If someone feels hatred toward a certain group of people for whatever reason or even just toward people that hold a certain set of beliefs or ideologies, yet does not
know about the specific details of the existence of each of the individual people who he claims to feel hatred for, then they are still his enemies but in name only. So the answer is 'yes' in a nominal sense. Ergo, you are wrong.
Unfairly used an abused, ow, looks like you just turned into the
.
Wow, comparing my opinion that the power of the mind is being wasted through not being able to absorb new knowledge/refusing to absorb new knowledge to an Orwellian concept? Even
I didn't think you were capable of being so obtuse. Clearly, I overestimated you!
Dude, I couldn't care
less about what thoughts people have in their minds.
ESPECIALLY the thoughts
YOU have in
YOUR mind!
Did you think otherwise and assume that I actually
care about the thoughts you have in your mind? If so, then you should move beyond your unwarranted self-importance!
The knowledgeable can live, and will continue to live but will find that, ignorance will always come to comfort them.
You are speaking on behalf of other people and yet I have never found that ignorance will always come to comfort me. Not even
once. That is not the effect that ignorance has on my life. Ergo, you are wrong.
Extreme behaviour is dictated by the enviroment that one is surrounded in, and ones opinions of extreme adjust.
It is also determined by one's mental state.
sigh Knowledge binds us to our reality, showing us what we can and can't do, there is quite possibly a brilliant life out there, but it is knowledge that binds us to what is in our capability.
It is also knowledge that shows us how we can blaze beyond our
CURRENT capability and set a new standard for ourselves in terms of our capabilities. And if there is indeed a 'brilliant life out there', how can that 'brilliant life out there' be enjoyed without a certain degree of knowledge? Ignorance can delude a person who is living in the direst financial conditions (for example) into thinking that there is
NO 'brilliant life out there' other than the life he already has, that there is nothing further for him to aspire toward. Knowledge, however, would show to him that there are indeed greater frontiers in existence for him to possibly stake out. Knowledge can show us our limitations - but it can also show us how to
CONQUER those limitations. Knowledge is capable of bestowing upon us the path to true freedom, justice and ultimately the bliss which is the birthright of every single man, woman and child on this planet.
You can keep thinking that there is a brilliant universe out there, but ultimately are not living in knowledge but in ignorance.
WTF is this supposed to mean? That if I think that there is 'a brilliant universe out there', I'm living in ignorance? That assertion is just plain
STUPID on
SO very, very,
VERY many levels!
Firstly, the opinion that there is 'a brilliant universe out there' is just that; an
opinion. Secondly, I don't know if you know about this, but opinions are actually
subjective. Therefore, if one chooses to opine either that there is a brilliant universe out there or that there is not a brilliant universe out there, both of these opinions do
NOT relate to knowledge and ignorance, since knowledge and ignorance are connected to objectivity,
NOT subjectivity. Knowledge and ignorance express themselves through objectivity. I thought this would've been
BASIC knowledge, even for you!
In an entirely reasonable manner you say?
Yes, that is what I say because that is what is
true.
it is not gray if you do not balance the black and the white, it was evident that your comments towards ignorance was ultimately there to support knowledge, when you say things in the grey they slant towards a black and white view, and ultimately is not gray.
It was evident that I have made comments supportive
AND not supportive of
BOTH knowledge and ignorance, but it isn't my fault that the benefits derived from knowledge last longer than the benefits derived from ignorance. That's just the way things are. Thus, my views are not black and white, they are reasonably gray.
Then you have a faulty memory, I suggest you contact your doctor.
So says the person who apparently
continually forgets previous things I've said in this thread and, as a result, constructs easily refutable straw-man arguments based on erroneous reasoning and baseless assumptions!
My memory's not faulty, but if you wanna project the faultiness of
YOUR memory onto my own memory, then go right ahead!
and in case you hadn't noticed, power was not centeral argument, but rather a sideline point used to form a strenghthened argument.
you just missed the point.
As the picture above indicates, I not only
DIDN'T miss the point, I hit it dead-on. ;D
Ther is no mond that can be that dynamic, people need constants, something that is always there, something that is not everchanging, but anchors them as a constant in an everchanging world.
There is certainly a 'mond' (a mind, even!
) that can be
that dynamic. Reality is ever-changing, the
only true constant is the sanctuary of knowledge. Paradoxically, though knowledge
itself is constant, the
contents of knowledge are themselves ever-changing!
Reality is dynamic and everchanging as are our curcumstances. It is ignorance that anchors by blocking out some everchanging things in reality.
Yeah, it blocks out the knowledge that things are ever-changing in reality for maybe five seconds, five days, five weeks, five months, five years etc. Either way, it's a temporary length of time, it will eventually come to an end soon enough. Reality is ever-changing and this is ever-changing nature will touch ignorance too, so that such ignorance shall someday be shattered.
An ego is another form of ignorance.
Ignorance is the condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed, whereas ego is the condition of being conceited. Nup, the definitions don't match up! Wanna try again?
Wow, what a weak argument, using the word generally will not change the absolution in the things that you have said.
My argument isn't weak, since it got my point across successfully. Also, there would only be absolution in the things that I have said if I used correspondingly absolute terms such as 'always' and 'never'. But I didn't. I've already told you that
EVERYTHING in this world is relative. Your point is moot. Move on!
It would.
After the great war the debt on the German peoples was greater than they would have been able to pay in generations. Germany has hyperinflation and was in near chaos, during that time the great depression had arrived and any form of aid that was coming into the nation had been cut off, many ermans had said how Hitler had provided order in a time of chaos. During the end of WW2 Germany was in a much better position than before, the Soviet East and the Capitalist West had Germany as a border and investment was bought into the reigon. The effects of WW2 include the ending of hte Great Deprssion, the crippling of colonial powers to the pint where their colonies could not be managed, resulting in independance. the rise of the USA as a global superpower. The formation of the only Jewish state, and the European Union whose intervention fuels faster growth in deprived region an highlights the need for free trade beetween its regions.
Yeah, thanks for reminding me of what I was already taught in my history classes back when I was still in high school. Also, TL;DR.
The persicution of minorities was innevitable as such mindsets are commonplace amongst populaces that occure high unemployment as Germany had expirienced during the period prior to WW2.
High unemployment is not a valid excuse to persecute minorities. In Germany during the period prior to WWII, many Jews held fairly high-paying jobs. They were doctors, lawyers, accountants etc. Certain unemployed non-Jewish Germans were resentful about this fact, basically thinking "I've lived here my whole life, I've worked hard and I love this country, so how dare these Jews just come into our country and steal jobs away from us fellow Germans". This is an unfair line of thought. Many Jews at that time were also born in Germany, they also worked hard in their jobs to earn money and put food on their table and they also dearly loved Germany. But it was ignorance that made certain non-Jews in Germany think in this
profoundly distorted manner. Their ignorance was not going to
STOP the high unemployment in Germany at that time, nor was it going to stop the Great Depression in general. So why should they continue to feed and fatten their own ignorance? There was no decent reason to continue doing so. It was counter-productive.
Unemployment and racism have a corrolation, and as employmen goes up so dose racist activity.
Correlation does not imply causation. In any case, gimme an official source.
Take a look at rise in support for nationalist(racist) governments now that there is a global recession, in fact it is a trend for such things to happen. SOuth Africa before the Recession had outbreaks of racist behaviour, corralating with the unemployment levels that had occured there, and the increase in migrnats to the region creating a larger gap of unemployment. It was not a fact of ignorance, but something that varies as situations change.
It is a fact of ignorance in the sense that racism will not breed higher levels of employment, racism will only breed even
MORE racism. Like begets like.
Obscure? Then you clearly have absolutely no idea of the situation at the time.
Oh, I do have an idea of the situation at the time. It just isn't helping your argument very much.
Survival was the situation that was a priority at the time, of state and religion and self. Nations across Europe, the middle east and northern aftrca were extremely different from the hollywood version that we have shoved down our throats. Whilst there were Some statistically multicultural naitons such as The Kingdom of Sicily and The Sultanate of Egypt, ultimately they followed a single line of culture and their religion was a part of that. No matter how multicultural a nation may be, such a thing would not ensure its survival. When fighting against someone that was single minded, bieing enlightened and giving way would not ensure survival, as is evident by Crusader incursions into the holy lands. Where the only effective armies were the ones that were ruthless. The Byzantine is a example of how a nation could fall under the weight of invading Turkish forces, seeing as how Byzantine lands were strongly orthado christian, instead of Catholic. The reason as to why there was a reconquesta was because invading islamic troops were pushing up onto French lands, to provide a buffer they were retaken, another example is how the Island of Sicily was retaken with full support of the Pope due to its proximity to the Papal capital of Rome.
At the time there was no such thing as peacefully coexisting, it was an everchanging map with invasions and counter attacks to a king like day and night. Multiculturalism was something that they could not afford, to survive they had the nesessity to be ruthless, any further complications could jeprodise things. An example was as to how the Roman empire had changed to Christianity in the wake of its rapid spread through the empire, they had to change the state religion in order to maintain order.
It was nothing to do with farytales, or be giving, because the person that you give to would ultimately stab you in the back, it was a question of survival.
Following a single line of culture (and that includes religion) and forcibly spreading it elsewhere is imperialism. That people would stab you in the back for the sake of their own self-preservation does not make such behaviour any less barbaric. Also, the fact that circumstances had been made such that the people of those cultures would ultimately get stabbed in the back for the sake of one's survival essentially comes down to ignorance and lack of trust in a more peaceful way of existing.
It won't change the damage it did, and the scars that last to this very day on people. Men women and children that are still effected by the effects of that bomb.
So? What's your point? Neither knowledge nor ignorance can change the damage the atom bomb caused, nor the pain it caused to men, women and children even to this very day since we obviously can't go back in time to stop a war which
itself began as a consequence of ignorance.
From initial ignorance came WWII and from the outbreak of WWII came the horrible knowledge of devastating weapons such as the atom bomb.
We want things that provide pleasure, we take knowledge because we need it. The two coincide only in the way that you require knowledge to expirience some types of pleasure, but ultimately it is not the knowledge that provides the happiness, it it the act.
It isn't the knowledge that provides the happiness itself, but it
is the knowledge which provides a path
to that happiness.
No, duh.
If you already knew that, then you could've made it more clear that you did. Though I guess clarity was never really your forte.
Ignorance is bliss, it is the knowledge that shatters ignorance that provides pain.
Ignorance is not bliss. Any happiness that ignorance can provide, knowledge can also provide and knowledge can also provide it indefinitely because any happiness derived from ignorance is like a castle built out of a sand; a wave will knock it over soon enough. As for the knowledge that shatters ignorance providing pain, it depends on
what exactly is being 'shattered'. For example, if someone was erroneously convinced that they had cancer for whatever reason yet he or she eventually went to a doctor who told him or her that he or she did
NOT have cancer, then he or she might be inclined to feel joy as a result of his or her ignorance being shattered and replaced with that particular knowledge.
A few generallys dose not make a point, something more useable wold be a lot better to show how gray you are about things, if you indeed are.
I have already adequated described what I feel are the advantages and disadvantages of both knowledge and ignorance to show how gray I indeed am about things.
So you are trying to prove
what?
I am supporting my position on knowledge and ignorance, not necessarily trying to 'prove' it.
Sheesh, you don't just miss my point, you can't seem to make one yourself.
Sheesh, I not only
DIDN'T miss your point, but I also hit your point dead-on and made an excellent point myself! ;D
That is what led me to that conclusion, your inability to make a proper point.
My ability to make proper points is evident. You were misled to an incorrect conclusion!
Yet in the balance of ignorance and knowledge human ignorance will always be in greater amount.
No, human ignorance will not always be in greater amount in the balance of ignorance and knowledge since both knowledge and ignorance are kept in infinite supply. Also, ignorance is merely a lack of knowledge, whereas knowledge can be whatever it is directed to. Also, when new knowledge appears, it removes the ignorance which was previously in that position.
Then practice what you preach.
I always do.
Do you?
My point being what I've already said. I'll repeat it for you though, since you seem to have become forgetful (again!
):
Ignorance is constant in the way that there will always be some, and in osme cases there will be ignorance that could last the rest of ones life.
Knowledge is also constant in the way that there will always be some and there is
ALWAYS some knowledge that will endure for the rest of a person's life. However, the extent of one's knowledge and ignorance is never constant. It is always shifting in accordance to new knowledge being gained and absorbed by the mind. Whenever new knowledge is gained, the ignorance that was in its position is replaced and filled up with that new knowledge.
Fair enough.
But I guess that's the choice that all have to make, and look at the oppertunity cost.
Yup.
What? What, is there a difference? No there isn't, they are the same. What are you on about?
First of all: failed tags are failed.
Anyway, yes. There is a difference between knowledge and an appreciation for diversity. They are
not the same.
ANY Average Joe knows that and so should you.
That is what I am on about.
I had already mentioned that the deviding line between the two is very thin.
Then why the confusion from you?
My point being what I've already said. I'll repeat it for you though, since you seem to have become forgetful (again!
):
Your perception to how forums work astounds me.
Your perception to how spelling works astounds me.
But it dose mean it is big and easy, which is often the biggest plus avalable.
But it is not always the biggest plus available, nor is it usually the most reliable either. It is not an avenue that any reasonable and rational person will take
willingly.
So your point is nothing. What I've suspected for a while now.
No, my point was something and that 'something' was exactly what I intended it to be - that the so-called 'happiness' derived from ignorance is ultimately both superficial and temporary, because it is akin to a castle made out of sand. The wave of knowledge will knock it over sooner or later.
and you go against your support of knowledgein general, into my stance of knowledge that extends from nesesity. I sense a U turn.
I'm not going against my support of knowledge in general, I am in fact
strengthening my support of knowledge in general. Also, I'm not going into your stance of knowledge that extends from necessity. My stance is still that knowledge arises due to both need
AND desire alike. Also, there is no u-turn. Sorry if that depresses you!
I never said that one must know every minute detail about everything and to think otherwise is folly. In fact, earlier on in this thread, I already explicitly stated "I am aware that absolute knowledge cannot be reached in our lifetimes (because absolute knowledge is, by its very nature,
infinite)."
There is no u-turn. Too bad for you! Too sad for you!
Ignorance is not the pain, it is knowledge remoivng that ignorance that brings the pain.
Ignorance is
OFTEN immediately the pain and
ALWAYS eventually the pain. As for knowledge removing ignorance being responsible for bringing the pain, it depends on
what kind of ignorance is being removed. Like I've already mentioned as an example, if someone was erroneously convinced that they had cancer for whatever reason yet he or she eventually went to a doctor who told him or her that he or she did
NOT have cancer, then he or she might be inclined to feel joy as a result of his or her ignorance being removed and replaced with that particular knowledge.
I didn't think one typo would cause you to be deviated so far.
It didn't deviate me at all, it only momentarily confused me. Something
you could've avoided. But that's okay, I forgive you!
I was hoping for that kind of response.
I was hoping for your kind of response. And you delivered. Bravo! You're a star!
Yet blissful in his stagnated life.
No, not blissful. Merely content
at best. And even
THAT mere contentment will not endure.
Awww
Anyway, now I'll address a statement that you edited out for some bizarre reason:
Well, you havn't learnt anything so far, the things I've said about deeper meaning?
I've learnt plenty of things so far, hombre. And that includes things related to deeper meanings. That's what a quest for seeking knowledge is all about!
Sometimes you have to look at things from a different POV, even if that means becoming what you dislike to see a more complete picture. The thing is that on the walls on the internet you do see people, like sheep following the rest of the pack, people that throw things that they don't agree with in the bin then burn that bin, it used to be that Homosexuality where the pro homosexuals provided the counteracting argment, now it's the other way round. But throughout there has to be someone that says that things may not be as it seems, that there are reasons and causes and a load of different things.
Mmhmmmmm.
It's like that with ignorance, with all saying how bad it is, yet ignoring that it is there for a reason. This is the greatest irony, where someones shunning of ignorance causes them to oversee what it is used for in our everyday lives, how it is interconnecting with knowledge. By supporting ignorance, I help take it away as people start to think about it for themselves and begin to appreciate the greyness of the human condition.
Mmhmmmmm.
I may not agree with something, but it is not right to leave it defenseless, because for everything that is there, there is a reason for it.
I do agree with you that everything is here for a reason. That is the truest thing you've said in this response of yours so far. Keep up the good work! ;D
So don't make the assumption, think about it for a moment.
Make
what assumption? Think about
what for a moment? Indirect statement is indirect.
I realised something about you too, that whilst you prove the benificial traits of knowledge, you don't seem to have any information about knowledge or ignorance other than the shallow view that is spurted out by people who, essentially are more ignorant than they are willing to accept.
Nah, I already have all of the information about knowledge and ignorance that I need and it isn't shallow either. It's awesome! ;D
Seen that one already. Here's a nice irony demotivator for you: