On 27/09/2014 15:44, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I made 6 topics, that is hardly a flood, you're exaggerating. Maybe too
> much too soon for someone mostly unknown here, but I thought if anything
> they were important to spread and for others in turn.
>
> You search discussion, I search for people to see what's wrong with the
> world so we can do something about it in the measure that our particular
> situations allow us to do.

I would say logically you have come to the wrong place.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 28/09/2014 01:19, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/09/2014 16:38, clipka wrote:
>> Am 27.09.2014 15:16, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
>>> Well those other people don't use logic, don't they?
>>
>>  From my point of view, they seem to be using more logic than you do.
>>
>> You may have used logic /before/ posting those links, and may be willing
>> to apply logic in a discussion about their content. But there's little
>> evidence to me that you're open to using logic on your style of
>> presenting that material.
>>
> 
> 
> My tuppence worth.
> There is more to life than logic. Logic may say one thing but humanity
> or morals might say another.
> 

According to logic, the possible gain in St. Petersburg lottery is such
that you should and could play all your assets.

Yet, it's probably not the wisest move in your life. So, yes, there is
more than logic.

(Even the half-Vulcan in the movies of star-treck seems to get a bit of
it... )

-- 
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Um... just to avoid potential confusion that might be arising out of a 
> single word here: I'm pretty sure "behind" in this context is /not/ the 
> euphemistic term for the lower end of the torso, but simply the back.

> Then again, maybe you know that, and consider the quote to be immature 
> for other reasons.

> Or maybe I'm wrong; I'm no expert in Finnish use of English language ;-)

Nah, it was an euphemism for what Englishmen use the fancier word "arse".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 28.09.2014 08:45, schrieb Le_Forgeron:

> According to logic, the possible gain in St. Petersburg lottery is such
> that you should and could play all your assets.

Actually, no. While there is one short-sighted train of thoughts that, 
based on logic, would come to the conclusion that this is the case, 
there are other trains of thought that lead to a different conclusion.

Still, a healthy dose of prejudice (aka common sense) does comes in 
handy to notice that there's /something/ wrong with that short-sighted 
train of thoughts, and that you should indeed examine others.

(Also, for some nitpicking, the St. Petersburg paradox isn't about how 
much you /should/ pay for a ticket, but only how much you /could/ pay 
for one. Obviously, no matter what train of thoughts you follow, the 
amount you /should/ pay is no more than whatever the lottery decides to 
offer a ticket for.)

Post a reply to this message

On 28/09/2014 07:45, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> According to logic, the possible gain in St. Petersburg lottery is such
> that you should and could play all your assets.
>

I had not heard of  that paradox.

Good job I don't gamble.

> Yet, it's probably not the wisest move in your life. So, yes, there is
> more than logic.
>

I can see people gambling their lives for those stakes. But not money.



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 01:40:29 -0400, 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.

Given the minimalist content in your postings, I wonder how you think he 
was to know what your intention was at all.

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 Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:00:13 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> If it wasn't serious, for sure wasn't indicated in anyway, and your
> fault is that that you thought I would understand it somehow even when
> you probably don't know where I'm from, and for my writing you should
> have deducted I'm not from UK/USA and not taken that ambiguous joke
> ahead.

I'm confused.

You posted several posts with no context, but expected us to extract your 
intentions from the minimal information provided.

Yet Stephen made a really clear statement about *if* you had said what 
you said to Doctor John to him, yet you failed to completely understand 
his intention was not to threaten, but to simply demonstrate that what 
you said was unacceptable.

His intent was surely clearer than yours was with your first posts.

Maybe take some time to think about that for a minute.

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

> But it is a fully valid question to ask, "Why are we the only life form
> in the galaxy to ever leave their home world that we know of for
> certain?" And, applying occam's razor (which is a method deep in the
> heart of science), we find that the most rational, scientific answers
> are: (A) Interstellar travel is not feasible, or (B) Interstellar travel
> has not been discovered yet, by /any/ species in our galaxy whatsoever.

Isn't there a big assumption there that we would be able to 
notice/detect any interstellar travel anywhere in the galaxy? Or are you 
assuming that any species able to do interstellar travel would, for some 
reason, visit our solar system?

Post a reply to this message

> According to logic, the possible gain in St. Petersburg lottery is such
> that you should and could play all your assets.

Only if you fail to take into account the (extremely likely) 
consequences of not winning very much in your logic.

Post a reply to this message

On 29/09/2014 08:15, scott wrote:
>> But it is a fully valid question to ask, "Why are we the only life form
>> in the galaxy to ever leave their home world that we know of for
>> certain?" And, applying occam's razor (which is a method deep in the
>> heart of science), we find that the most rational, scientific answers
>> are: (A) Interstellar travel is not feasible, or (B) Interstellar travel
>> has not been discovered yet, by /any/ species in our galaxy whatsoever.
>
> Isn't there a big assumption there that we would be able to
> notice/detect any interstellar travel anywhere in the galaxy? Or are you
> assuming that any species able to do interstellar travel would, for some
> reason, visit our solar system?
>

I think that the crux of the matter is

>>  that we know of for certain?


With that clause we are on a hiding to nothing. :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message