On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:43:43 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> I can't believe the reaction of you people to my messages, I thought
> you'd take them with rational, skeptical and critical thinking, but
> you're taking them emotionally, "I'm uneasy", of course, that's the
> point, it's something fucking wrong with the World we live in and we
> should see that and at least discuss it, with off-line people and do as
> much as you can, even if it's just passing the news, so people get aware
> and that makes noticeable changes over time, are things of common
> interest not only for a certain Country but Humanity, I don't believe in
> nationalism, I consider myself a citizen of the World and as such my
> concern for their citizens.

Well, perhaps, but your replies to Doctor John certainly don't convince 
me of anything.

Those kinds of emotional outbursts don't impress and they certainly don't 
convince or help your case or cause.

There are plenty of reasons I didn't engage, but honestly, if those root 
posts had been from someone whose name I didn't even recognize, I would 
have considered them link spam and nothing more.  The only reason I 
reacted *at all* is because I remember you from being around here before, 
and those memories of you were kind.

But how seeing how you're approaching this, my opinion is, shall we say, 
somewhat lowered.

I find that when someone wants to discuss something, they tend to do more 
than just post a link to a story - they tend to include some thoughts of 
their own, some sort of personal interpretation of the content they're 
linking to.

You didn't do that - hence the comment about it looking like "link 
spam".  I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but that's what it looks 
like to me.

And your reaction to others saying that they've blocked you looks like a 
tantrum that I'd expect from a child.

Which makes me wonder if you're going to say anything that's worth my 
time to read, or if you're just going to swear at me for being honest 
about what I'm seeing.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 23/09/2014 23:29, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Doctor John wrote:
>> Indeed , Jim and Chris. I have already blocked this poster.
>>
>> John
>>
> Fuck you asshole

No. That is going too far.
I complain!

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.09.2014 01:43, schrieb Saul Luizaga:

> I can't believe the reaction of you people to my messages, I thought
> you'd take them with rational, skeptical and critical thinking, but
> you're taking them emotionally, "I'm uneasy",

You're entirely missing the point here.

I /do/ take the content you linked to with rational, skeptical and 
critical thinking.

The point here is the way you try to get "your" messages across.

And yes, I also /do/ take that with rational, skeptical and critical 
thinking: There is a certain gut feeling, developed from experience, 
that rings an alarm bell in me - a gut feeling that I partially 
understand, partially don't, but one thing I know is that this gut 
feeling is there for a reason. It is not something that has been 
instilled in me by my parents. It is not something I have been taught by 
some mentor. It is not something that I've adopted from some peer group. 
It is not something I've trained myself to. To the very contrary: This 
gut feeling is the result of a lesson I've learned, personally.


In a nutshell, this whole thing boils down to whether "good" ends 
justify "bad" means, and I think they don't. If you want to make the 
world a less "corrupted" place, using "corrupted" means gets you nowhere.

Now with "good" and "bad" I don't mean the concepts coined by our 
Christian heritage, and when I say "corrupted" I don't refer to the 
concept of corruption as understood in politics. I even go as far as 
saying I'm not talking about moral here, because moral is always 
subjective and emotional. I'm talking about some basal, plain, rational, 
non-judgemental "yup/nope, it's (un)desirable for this to be 
done/achieved/whatever".


So, as I said before: The point here is the way you try to get "your" 
messages across.

And those quotation marks delineate exactly the issue I have with it: 
 From all I read, I can only conclude that those are not /your/ 
messages. It is something you may have been instilled with by your 
parents, have been taught by some mentor, have adopted from some peer 
group, or have trained yourself to make your own - but at the end of the 
day these messages are still /not/ yours: You don't have any personal 
connection with them.

You may not want this to be true; you may not believe this to be true; 
and I may even be wrong about it; but it's that very lesson I've 
learned, personally, that has given me some very sensitive instinct to 
exactly this type of situation.


And I've also learned that evangelizing about someone else's message is 
- as far as "desirability to be done" goes - equivalent to spreading 
outright lies.

Yup, that's right: If you have been taught that E=mc^2, and have not 
done any toying around with this formula whatsoever to see what it does, 
where it comes from and where it is leading to, then whenever you tell 
someone else that E=mc^2, in a certain sense you're telling them an 
outright lie.

Why? Because you, as the one spreading a message, are responsible for 
the message, so it is your duty to verify that what you pass on is legit.

If you don't know whether you're spreading gold or horsecrap, you have 
two possibilities to deal with it: (A) make it clear to the audience 
that you don't know which one it is, or (B) hold your tongue.


As I said, you may not want this to be true; you may not believe this to 
be true; and I may even be wrong about it; but I have the strong feeling 
that you have no own experience whatsoever to back up the sources you're 
linking.

(And again, this is not about whether the message is legit or not - it 
is about the messenger not knowing.)


You may ask, why should (A) a messenger be responsible for the message 
he carries, if (B) anyone has the possibility to check for themselves?

 From my very own experience, I know that ignoring (A) is precisely what 
leads to mass delusions and stuff like the 3rd Reich, because (B) is an 
oversimplifying illusion.

Post a reply to this message

I've learn to be a person of reason and rational, skeptical, critical, 
logical thinking, because that's how scientists and reasoning people 
find how amazing Nature is through Science and that's IMO the best 
approximation to the truth.

I could never insult you for being honest, a rather rare commodity in 
such a cynic, hypocrite, unethical, semi-civilized at best society we 
live in, I appreciate it and you made it with reasoning, which I could 
never reject, let alone insult you out of it.

But you made a mistake: I made about 6 posts with links, and only the 
first 2 had no comments because I thought the title and its repetition 
in the link would have sufficed as such. As I wrote on another post, my 
intention is to give you news, to inform not really discuss, if you're a 
rational person, you'll see something is wrong. I like a rational and 
civilized discussion, but the links had an article where it was 
described and I just give the comment that was appropriated, none if 
that helps better to communicate the idea, as I did in the first 2.

I define asshole someone that in a very unconsidered way makes fast and 
stupid judgements , and that Doctor John was 1, because I had the best 
intentions when I came here to discuss, after a long while, and to 
inform you of interesting things, and I get that attitude, at the very 
least he's being stupid IMO, but yeah, is bad for the spirit of 
conversation to actually go so negative on someone I think, rather than 
just pointing out, and by spirit I mean the feelings and mood.

  I don't mind no-comments if the idea gets through.

I'm glad your memories of me were rather pleasant, my intention is t 
have a good time discussing, and you all should take things for what 
they are, not for what you think they are, because you and at the seems 
what everyone is doing.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 06:40, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I define asshole someone that in a very unconsidered way makes fast and
> stupid judgements , and that Doctor John was 1, because I had the best
> intentions when I came here to discuss, after a long while, and to
> inform you of interesting things, and I get that attitude, at the very
> least he's being stupid IMO, but yeah, is bad for the spirit of
> conversation to actually go so negative on someone I think, rather than
> just pointing out, and by spirit I mean the feelings and mood.
>
>   I don't mind no-comments if the idea gets through.
>
> I'm glad your memories of me were rather pleasant, my intention is t
> have a good time discussing, and you all should take things for what
> they are, not for what you think they are, because you and at the seems
> what everyone is doing.

I too remember you and remember the last image you posted. It distressed 
me greatly. I am glad that you are still with us. :-D

Please be aware that this is an international newsgroup and what might 
pass for a casual remark in America can be considered very offensive in 
other parts of the English speaking world.
If you had said to me what you wrote to the good doctor. You would be 
eating through a straw. That is how offensive I found it.

A quick link to illustrate this:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28339497/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/throwing-shoes-blowing-noses/#.VCJcOBbk05c

Try being a little bit more laid back and not so intense and we will 
welcome your contributions.



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

BTW, calling something obscure when it's not is an argument from 
ignorance, something that scientist won't suppose to do, right?

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> other parts of the English speaking world.
> If you had said to me what you wrote to the good doctor. You would be
> eating through a straw. That is how offensive I found it.

I will say to you what ever I want how ever I want if I see it fit and I 
can help it, you'd be realizing that in person accomplishing your 
physical violence threat is a lot harder than you think it might be, I 
guarantee you that.

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 8:59, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I will say to you what ever I want how ever I want if I see it fit and I
> can help it, you'd be realizing that in person accomplishing your
> physical violence threat is a lot harder than you think it might be, I
> guarantee you that.
>

I disagree, sir. In a civilized world - and I still have the notion that 
we are living in such a world, and I do my utmost best to preserve such 
a world - insulting people is considered rude, low and stupid. In other 
words, it is not better than physical violence. So, no. You /cannot/ say 
what ever you want to others.

Discussion closed as far as I am concerned.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> And yes, I also /do/ take that with rational, skeptical and critical
> thinking: There is a certain gut feeling

This is an oximoron that proves you wrong right there; so no you're not, 
you're having an emotional response, you don't even know what it is, and 
obviously haven't analyzed, but there you are trusting in it, which begs 
the question, isn't this an argument from ignorance?

My only bad did was insulting Doctor John, so don't unfairly generalize 
all my actions on a single mistake, the intentions were demonstrated by 
my acts, and I think they were good enough and I reconsidered my bad deed.

The reason we have common considerations to feelings through courtesy 
and manners is because it's moral, and it's the only reason, because we 
require to treated morally correct so we feel in a non-denigrating, 
safe-to-talk and mutual consideration environment, the core reason, 
being we don't want to be hated, perhaps loved a little but mostly given 
the opportunity of saying our peace with dignity, all those are 
emotional + intellectual reasons, but mainly emotional, reason? human 
dignity, the foundation of our morals and it's OK to demand them as 
natural Human Rights, hence my reconsideration of my emotional outburst. 
If you exclude all emotion you can't get to these moral ground 
intellectually alone because intellectually they're meaningless without 
emotional offense, instead without any emotion, you'll have perfect 
logic, you wouldn't even have a reason to be offended, because you 
evaluate on true or false, probable or improbable and a degree of it, 
you wouldn't even have the concept of offense, I think.

And that I'm not connected actually to the links I posted, that is were 
you're completely wrong, everything is connected to everything, Science 
indicates so, in Nature there isn't an independent system existing on 
its own completely, since we're in this Universe, everything affects us 
somewhat someway. For example there is this popular PhD Physicist that I 
don't recall his name, but he's popular in YouTube too,  that says 
according to Quantum Physics an electron that receives a bit of energy 
that electron can't be in the same state of energy than another, so in 
theory at least immediately across the Universe all electrons will shift 
their energy states to be different, something more intuitive is a 
jungle: everything interacts with everything, is simply obvious, Carl 
Sagan also noticed in his series Cosmos: In order to survive, Earth must 
be seen as a single organism, and an organism in war with itself is 
doomed, or somethings similar, Climate Change another fact proving this, 
so we're connected more than you think we do and most people are as 
shortsighted as you are.

That's why I wrote on another post that people should first analyze my 
post and then take it on its merit, not on what they think it is, and I 
made it easy for anyone to do that by avoiding unnecessary commentary, 
so you as many here are making mostly arguments from ignorance, which is 
exactly what it's not supported by science of reasonable people. You 
should go beyond your instinct, instinct is some kind of warning, nor an 
educated opinion.

I make sure that the ideas I spread are probably correct, I'd gladly 
accept a correction or discussion about it, as long as it's rational and 
not tending to be unnecessarily long.

I've no idea on some messages, but probably true, or maybe true, anyway, 
everything indicates so, it could be a scam, but I don't have a way to 
verify directly, I don't live in USA, most messages are from there, but 
anyway the ideas are the important, eventually they'll be validate for 
its merits, so it's worth to follow somehow.

If I want something to be true or believe something to be true is 
irrelephant, truth will remain to be, regardless, so it's truth the 
goal, hence the analysis to at least have a look and check for its 
validity in your ration opinion or educated opinion if you happen to be 
an expert.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download '10269588_651070054989413_3964025147672603556_n.jpg' (25 KB)

Preview of image '10269588_651070054989413_3964025147672603556_n.jpg'

Thanks for your self-righteous closed-minded claim, very stupid IMO, 
because ironically you're doing exactly the opposite to what you just 
say you are, and helps confirm my point of semi-civilized.

Physical violence is not the same as other types of violence and 
insulting doesn't make you bleed or get your teeth out with pain or 
produce any effect similar to it, so it's not the same. Some people just 
deserve to be insulted, because what they do is insulting, but yes, you 
can insult in a civilized way without resorting to classical coursing 
words, which in deed lower the quality of the conversation, actually I 
can say whatever I want, I should not however, but if you go physical 
with me, believe me, insults will be the least of your concerns.

Post a reply to this message