- 8,332
- 216
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
Did I say they are the greatest thing ever? No. So something's better. Now what? A diamond is trash. That's what. You really got me! Good job.
A Diamond is Forever...or is it?... DeBeers got ya'll again!
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by sillyputty,
- Start date
Did I say they are the greatest thing ever? No. So something's better. Now what? A diamond is trash. That's what. You really got me! Good job.
- 7,000
- 12
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2009
I was actually going to suggest Jordans as an example.
Now I'm actually very interested in this. How did DeBeers manage to get people to pay SO MUCH MONEY for diamonds? Did they somehow set the price and adjust the supply to meet the demand? Who came up with the idea that diamonds were worth thousands of dollars, it had to be DeBeers, correct?
And marketing alone caused people to really, really want them even for seemingly ridiculous prices?
So say I wanted to do something similar. First off, I'd need a monopoly on something. Say I chose a pair of shoes. Nike South Beach Lebrons. Say I amassed every single pair of South Beach Lebrons in the world, and they're all in my closet. Now, how do I pump the price of these up? How can I market these, and get people to think "damn, I NEED these"? It seems different from diamonds... I can't picture telling someone I was selling the Lebrons for $5000. So even with the monopoly, how do you create the demand, the hype?
And once the hype is created, do I just manipulate it as I see fit? As soon as people want it, I control the prices? So instead of selling them at $5000, I sell them at $10,000 and cut off some of the supply, making them even "rarer". Now, people are forced to play into my hand?
This is actually very interesting to me. How the hell did DeBeers manage to play marketing, psychology and economics to establish dominance on an industry...
- 4,407
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2003
I'm sayin though straight Philosophy 101 !%#...
Honestly to me it seems like he feels like he has stumbled on some secret estoteric information that allows him to inform us that "nothing has meaning", I mean wow... how existential... You don't need to be a genuis to reach such a conclusion, I could go to solitary confinement and get comparable enlightenment
I think critical thinking is great but IMO when you reach that "it's all meaningless" point you've OD'd...
- 14,778
- 35,688
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
I'd recommend you watch "The Century of The Self" (the whole documentary can be found on youtube). You'll find the answers to some of your questions, especially regarding how a corporation like DeBeers was able to convince people to pay anything for their products.
- 2,418
- 586
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2010
When putty and meth are in the same thread, their respective expansive vocabulary makes my head want to explode.
- 814
- 13
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
And there in-lies the point.
I must admit, I never read your posts. Though I do find it funny when people try hard to argue intelligently online, but butcher colloquialisms and basic grammar. You eem hyphenated it an' errythang
- 11,910
- 515
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
devildog1776
Banned
- 4,949
- 139
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
im saying if you buy a tennis bracelet with 10k white gold , the majority of the price will reflect off of what the dealer is selling the diamonds for being that precious metals have an actual value where as diamonds have value between the buyer and seller... the bracelet cost roughly 2Gs with about 1/4 of the price in the actual gold and the diamonds make up the rest of the price... you'll always beat them down because once your the buyer with cash you have control of the situation while the jeweler is trying to at least break even on this piece that been sitting there for 1.5 yrs...
do this :
go to the district price a gold chain and price a tennis necklace.... look like you have cash, im not sure how your going to portray but i can... talk the talk , walk the walk,
convo goes like this :
Dealer : a my man i got a good price for you
You/ME : lets se what you talking about
D: these diamond earrings are blah blah blah, 2600 dollars
You/me : this looks great i got cash and willing to spend if the price is right,,
dealer: ok i give you 2200
you/me : smirk
Dealer : you no like price??
You/me : nope,
Dealer: how much you wanna spend?
You/me : not sure but 22 is still knda high, lemme see something else
Dealer: why you no like?
You/me : yeah im just looking around...
dealer ; ok ok , 2000
You/me : i got 1575 cash right now
drops cash on table...
Dealer looks at cash..... "gimme 1600 and its yours"...
pulls out 25 bucks and walks out with a 1000 dollar discount on some earrings that were marked up 200 percent to begin with...
I learned from my moms growing up watching her buy jewels
sillyputty
Banned
- 3,634
- 21
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
Again, you in your life (yes i'm telling you how you live) don't make any decisions based on faith. You know you don't. Don't lie either. Everything you do is based on your ability to honestly assess a situation based on outcomes you predict will happen. You don't draft basketball players based on faith. You don't make turns at stop lights based on faith. You don't cook dinner based on faith. Every decision you make is influenced by a degree of evidence from past experiences and used to reasonably make predictions about the future.
You can deride the validity of empirical inquiry as much as you want, because I said it, but you know that you rely on it more than you're willing to admit.
You're smart enough to know that its unreasonable to make assumptions that we can not substantiate or provide consistent and valid evidence for. Otherwise, the claim or conclusion isn't supported.
For instance, there is a common saying that hot water freezes faster than cold water...but as of yet, NO ONE has been able to PROVE that even though it seems entirely reasonable. You can look it up if you'd like. So right now, even though we might be inclined to assert that, we can NOT because we honestly can't prove it. To make wild assertions is intellectually dishonest.
(Why do you like typing "YOU" in all caps%@@ cracks me up)
To put the right em-pha-sis, on the right syll-a-ble.
You also realize money isn't real but you know that it makes your girl smile...so again, you're using something that doesn't exist to get your girl something with an empty meaning to make her smile...so is her love for you real?
I mean honestly...you know its all a game, but some how that validates the emotions your girl feels? That makes no sense.
If a million people believe in a god, that doesn't mean I have to believe in a god. Thats basically what you're saying.
I understand that they DO believe in that god, but that doesn't mean I have to respect their belief or support it in any way.
artificial or not this is the world we live in... if you can succeed in convincing the rest of the world that diamonds are overrated, it'd be no sweat off my back
So you are complacent with reinforcing empty meanings in materialistic things?
I mean its one thing because I like a nice leather belt myself...I like the texture and color of it. It something I am attracted to. But i'm not going to insinuate that I could not do without a leather belt that I couldn't with a nylon one or a heavy rope.
The utility of diamonds don't even match that of belts though.
Basically what I'm saying is that you don't HAVE to accept artificial meanings embedded with things. Your response is, "oh well," even though you know its all a farce.
Social norms I don't practice? I believe in certain parts of South america they have Siesta after lunch... I don't practice this b/c my boss would give me illestif I tried that...we are all products of our environments and the best thing we can do is accept that and accept each other
Being a product of your environment doesn't mean that at some point you can't influence your environment. Once again, your answer to challenging the status quo is to essentially claim that there is nothing you can do.
I agree...
On top of that, I suggest people look into Nicky Oppenheimer's background...Currently they run a company called Anglo-American.One of the biggest mining outfits in the world. Even reading his personal history might change how you look at diamonds in general.
But the disdain for De Beers, even though they're not as big as they used to be is not as unfounded as you make it out to be. They're merely the most notarized in an industry famous for its inhumane business practices.
We could talk about how the whole business ends up in places like Antwerp, Belgium etc...
Not sure if specious... or just bitter.
"Society panders to [women]" because of Disney movies? Yeah, and Soul Plane proves that society panders to people of color.
Again, the sarcasm doesn't reach.
I don't see why this point would be specious when its almost used as a de facto argument in the nature/nurture assessment of gender identification OR why I would have to be bitter in this conclusion as well.
The disney princess complex is something that has been studied for years.
This is to say that many classical images from old disney movies of what little girls should expect growing up from their mates includes unrealistic expectations of being princesses with materialistic accouterments. There are countless studies and deconstructions available that out line these things that little girls pick up and embrace as being indicative of larger societal means of interaction. To deny the imagery and stories and the impact they've had on sculpting the minds of segments of the youth population.
Are you willing to deny that images of men as bumbling idiots or women that are always justified in their banter are not influencing the actions of their viewers? Women that NEED materialistic satisfaction in order to feel justified?
Come on MM, you know better than that and you know there is evidence of it as well.
Using the straw-man of Soul Plane only speaks to stereotypes. While it might be accessible to youth, it was not marketed to them so to assert that it was made from the outset to serve as a guiding and formative piece of media, is inaccurate.
Its funny that you think I "target" people...I really don't. But a hit dog will holler. I'm not responsible for someone being upset or disagreeing with me. Thats on them. Are they offended or hurt when they hear a joke that they laugh with or they gather a perspective they agree with? Everyone or no one is as free to feel whatever they want to about any or everything I say.
Again.
The only thing I KNOW is that what I don't know. I'm not going to sit here and make up answers for everything, nor will I try to. I will happily explain areas where I feel that I'm unaware of something. But what I wont do is accept answers on baseless premises and debunked perspectives.
I'm not searching for meaning... I also would like to see where I said that as well. You assert thats what I'm doing because it would make it easier for you be a contrarian to my perspective.
I'm not.
If I learn how something works, does that give it more symbolic meaning? I don't think so. Learning how to combat the accretion of protein deposits in the spines of dialysis patients (work i've done) doesn't mean that there is some intrinsic MEANING in that work. There is no innate emotional or symbolic work thats been done. All we've managed to do is manipulate what was already there into desired outcomes. There is no superficial outset to assert that this MEANS something. What it might equate to is a longer lifespan of the patient or reduced visceral pain.
You may be able to argue that trying to make our lives longer is pointless since we all die in the end and that our pursuit of doing anything for any purpose, material or not is pointless, I might be inclined to agree with you...which is why I RECOGNIZE the nihilistic perspective but I prefer the existential one from time to time.
I addressed that first sentence above.
Honestly, if all religions were just variants of unsuccessful cults with limited resources and influence, I wouldn't care less about them. BUT, since religion has managed to be incorrect on literally every statement it has ever produced and has lead to the disruption of the autonomy of those who seek to distance themselves from it, I see a need to reject its influence, if not challenge it for its assumed entitlement of society.
If we as a society value things that are true, real, and consistently valid because of their utility (something that I admit is ultimately a cultural ideal, not universal), then religion does not, nor will it ever fall in those categories. Its premises and relevance is cultivated on a preference for unsubstantiated conclusions and cultural unethical practices that forces it to change over time.
Religion is a vestige of large scaled mental perversion that is hindering the growth of collective knowledge and ethical evolution.
But let you tell it, the pursuit of knowing anything is itself meaningless (as a true nihilist would state) even when you stand to benefit from it in your basic desire to stay alive for as long as possible. Everything else is just something we use to occupy our time.
On a fundamental level, taking the time to ask any question at all might be a self-delusion.
Since none of it ultimately matters.
As i've said before, my point is not to tell people how to live their lives...I really dont care.
But in knowing that these "precious" stones are no more intrinsically special than a vast array of other items with their own qualities and properties does serve to hinder the blind allegiance to the pursuit of gathering them. These rocks aren't unique or particularly useful.
Gold is more useful than diamonds...only because of its uses in electronics and its other metallic properties. Thats not to say that gold itself is not meaningless. It is. It doesn't carry any emotional attachment or intrinsic symbolism. Those are things that we as a society grant upon those things. Thats the point.
People can do whatever they want with these items...but don't treat them as infallible entities of representation of vague concepts and expect for them to replace even more nebulous concepts of love or support or appreciation.
Its the reluctance to call things what they are and to constantly remind ourselves of our own bias and ability to lie to ouriselves that leads us down the rabbit hole of irrationality.
Physicist Richard Feynman has a quote that I like to defer to from time to time... "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and that you are the easiest person to fool"
Me asking someone why they like diamonds and addressing things like bias and influence for selecting diamonds over sapphires is different than be addressing someone over their belief in non-material, supernatural, and unsubstantiated conclusions by means of religion.
One addresses how you come to value certain things. The other addresses the standard people use to make assertions and draw conclusions.
An assumption you've made, that I havent?
Keyword: "Seem"
You're not certain, but this is only your guess.
Its my goal to be as objective as possible while realizing that its pretty much difficult to do so.
But if I admit the limits of my own subjective perspective, as i've done time and time again, how does this invalidate the questions I ask or the perspective I introduce?
But to say I have a false sense of objectivity? Do we really want to go there? I mean lets be honest, is your response an attempt at doing so? Is defending diamonds as a innate symbol of love and trust and other emotional concepts instead of trying to come to the conclusion that these are things which have meanings given to them instead of them being intriniscally worthy of those things, different? I know you said you would never purchase a diamond yourself for your own reasons, but where in there highlights your attempt to be objective?
I don't call diamonds meaningless because I don't find meaning in them... I call them meaningless because they are things which have meaning given to them by different people. Thats two different things. One asserts that I can't find meaning because I lack perspective and the other assumes that I have the insight to know why others find meanings in diamonds.
I disagree.
My perspective towards religion isn't to even challenge it, more so than it is to encourage consistency.
If you have a bar for determining validity but lower that bar when it comes to religion, your internal system of determining truth and validity is inconsistent. You wouldn't believe in the loch ness or big foot or santa but given the same criteria for a judeo-christian entity, the bar for validity gets dropped far below other concepts that would easily be dismissed.
I think everyone should be free to believe what they want...but they should not be surprised when others find fault with the inconsistency in their reasoning. One can not assert that Shiva does not exist without honestly taking a look at jehovah/yahweh/etc., especially citing the vast comparative histories available for one to make that sort of assessment.
Additionally, it seems that people are hung up on how I say things and not what I say. I don't automatically have to respect any thought or idea out there. Respect is earned. But regardless of how emotional one might get regarding someone's critique on their stance, it does nothing to address the sheer validity of their statements.
It might hurt someones feelings to say that diamonds are meaningless, but it doesn't change the fact that diamonds are simply something with meanings people gave them. Thats all they are.
I'm going to try to address this in such a way that doesn't clearly indicate that i'm disagreeing with you for the sake of doing so...
But honestly, I think I leave all of my beliefs or standards up for debate. I am more than willing to change my mind on any perspective when given the tools to view things in a different light. But as of yet, with respect to diamonds or religion, no one has done that.
If you conclude that allah is the one true god, yet ignore the lack of evidence to substantiate the claim, why is it that I might appear to hold myself to a different standard?
can it just not be that the claims made are unsubstantiated? Why must it be a reluctance on my half to be agreeable? When does the burden of proof suddenly get shifted to me?
The point is, in this debate of the "meaning" of diamonds, nothing has been said to suggest that diamonds are anything further than clear rocks (clear based on the accepted human range of visual acuity in the EM-spectrum) with human emotions granted upon them.
This was something I never understood.
Its as if a message board only exists to have agreeable opinions. I don't force anyone to read what I write or to reply to me. I can not claim any responsibility for how people feel reading what I write. If it gets you upset or if it elates you. I have no bearing on that outside of what everyone allows themselves to feel.
Its as if you're willing to assert your own emotional standards for that of the entire community. I understand your position as a moderator to ensure the viability of the community by way of preventing out right anarchy, but seeking to limit discussion on a topic that doesn't interest you (even on a private message board) doesn't seem to be consistent with the desire to allow a difference of opinion, even as respectful as this conversation has been.
Your eye.
The visible spectrum of human light acuity ranging 390 to 750 nanometers.
Not that of every other species.
Again, meaning you conferred upon it. If I found that on the street, I wouldn't know anything about what you think of it.
Why do you wash your hands? Because culturally its a ritual? Or is it to rid your hands of germs that can hurt you?
The things you do in your daily life you find to be useful in some way or another, but you don't do things that you don't find utility in.
Those things are meaningless to you. They lack the intrinsic worth for you to invest your time doing them.
That is a lot of physical alteration to go through for nothing.
I thought you just said "who am I to say it is meaningless" ?
This is my point. Even the things that we choose to do are considering meaningless by others...if its all relative then its all meaningless outside of what we can universally observe and consistently prove.
Eh...The feeling of sticking with your parents from birth doesn't limit you from doing anything, no matter how much you might feel it might.
Kinda like the elephant and the pike story.
Well two reasons.
1. It really doesn't mean anything, you are right there.
2. If so many people hold it to be true, then whats wrong with testing it to see if it really IS true? If they are going to shove it in the face of so many others, whats wrong with taking a step back and challenging the validity of it?
I mean if its true, then it will prove itself, right?
Except it doesn't.
Why does it matter that X believes in a God, if it doesn't mean anything?
The same reason that it doesn't matter if spiderman exists. I really don't care ultimately.
...but I DO care when people's faith in spiderman wants to change how we teach our kids science and biology, things that are empirically and consistently reinforced through experimentation and refined and replicated inquiry.
I don't believe in spiderman, and I have no problem with your belief in that...but don't assert that I need spiderman on my dollar bills, or in our pledge of allegiance (a whole other story), or that its reasonable to thank spiderman for saving your life instead of the doctor who spent 10 years of his life figuring out what to do in that exact moment.
If spiderman is real, then it won't have to be challenged...it would already exist and there would be nothing to debate...it would stand on its own. It would exist without the need to even make additional conjectures.
But if its not, then why prevent it from being investigated and applying a measuring stick to it?
I sure don't.
Yep...kinda depressing though. It only gets you down if you let it.
Uh...sure.
Just keep me out of it.
It all doesn't mean anything, right? Oh wait...
You've asked this question before and I answered it.
I don't care if you wear magic underwear or are trying to reach Xenu.
I really don't.
But don't push it on the rest of us OR act like we are incapable of assessing the validity of those claims.
Again, you assert that just because you THINK something then you deserve respect for it.
That couldn't be farther from the truth. Having an opinion on something doesn't command respect.
I don't have to respect your faith as much as you don't respect me praying to spiderman...or wearing diamond chains.
But I will protect what I think is your right to believe whatever you want. There is a difference.
I will concede any thing that someone might have against my stance when presented with information that allows me to change my stance.
I will admit my bias, my subjectivity, or my influence whenever I can, but as of yet, can you show me where diamonds are nothing more than clear stones that people give their own meanings to?
Its...a fact.
Its a fact because people assign qualities to that item. "good" and "bad" are relative terms. They do no exist independently of that rock.
Ben Baller might say that stone is trash while Joe Smith might think he discovered the Hope Diamond.
If it's a fact, then what does intrinsically look good as a FACT?
Thats the point. Nothing does. You assign your own qualities to everything. Others just make judgements relative to that.
I'm not saying he is not factually correct in some of his arguments. But so many of these debates are one opinion vs. another in which he refuses to accept that there MIGHT be a view contrary to his own.
I do that quite frequently but it seems that many are reluctant to admit that because they focus on disagreeing with me and making jokes at me, including you, instead of addressing the point at hand.
Agreed.
That would only be fair.
He seems to treat his beliefs as absolutes, even as I openly ask him if it is completely implausible to him that there may just be another perspective.
I actually don't.
Again, if you assert something back it up. I've changed my mind tons of times as i've been able to learn new things...but what I haven't done is accept what you've been saying JUST because you have an opinion. Having a stance doesn't make what you say suddenly important.
Oh really? Such as?
WOW.
Proof.
Dude is SHOVELING words into my mouth.
So why are diamonds meaningful outside of being rocks with varying ranges of clarity?
Even I am able to say that he may be factually correct in some of his arguments. You bring up religion. There seems to have been some massive religious debate on here that I am not aware and don't care to be as I am not particularly religious.
Eh.
But I have no problem with people believing what they want.
Nor do I.
But that doesn't prevent them from being free from criticism or inquiry.
There are?
It's one thing to disagree with people. It's another thing to tell people what they think, what they believe, what is important to them and what isn't. My guess is THAT's why he "catches heat"
I try not to do that but for instance I just left you hanging in the music forum because I just got tired of responding to you honestly, even though I really don't think you have a point.
I mean how can you say something like "i like some rick ross songs" yet when I call you a fan of some of his music, you reject the word "fan" ...really dude? I mean its the moving of goalposts like that that makes me just not reply some times when there is a blatant reluctance to be honest about certain thigns.
Again, people just like to take issue with the emotional side of the argument instead of actually addressing the key point of the argument.
A bunch of people start getting defensive (you've done it too, so don't front) and calling other people names instead of taking the time to sit back and really understand what the other person is getting at.
I don't even think some of what I think is actually right to be honest with you...but a lot of it is as consistent and valid as it can be. Thats
So...would you like to offer another perspective or would you just like to make fun of the conclusion reached?
Are you something more than a collection of synchronous cells floating on a rock around one of many stars?
I'm at fault for that?
There is nothing profound about this diamond topic or any other thing (religion) that sillyputty decides to post about. Is it interesting? A good read? Thought provoking? Without a doubt.
I'm glad you like it.
But that's about all it is--there are no unquestionable truths revealed here or in any other thread created by this dude. Opinions--that's all it is.
Diamond = Carbon rock
Is that an opinion?
I mean honestly, I'm not trying to uncover something profound here...just offering another perspective on "diamonds"
Does anything you're saying actually invalidate any point i've made?
I mean its like saying a 16 year old can't be right about something that a 40 year old can't.
Hilarious.
Diamonds aren't particularly special when we evaluate other aspects of their physical properites like heat resistence, YET when I offer this i'm the bad guy.
I'm not trying to change your opinion. Diamonds are special to you, because of meanings you gave it. But without those meanings, its essentially a really hard carbon rock with no meaning.
OK...does that invalidate the conclusion?
Seems like someone is content living by the standards someone else set for him...
I must admit, I never read your posts. Though I do find it funny when people try hard to argue intelligently online, but butcher colloquialisms and basic grammar. You eem hyphenated it an' errythang
My apologies...it should have been "therein lies" xyz...
I get lost in typing a bunch at times.
You see it too, right?Originally Posted by DAYTONA 5000
why so defensive?
- 541
- 176
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2011
i think that just may be the longest post, without pics, i've ever seen on nt
- 6,598
- 309
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2002
- 22,873
- 29,675
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2003
- 7,355
- 15
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
Too bad this won't change anything
- 6,506
- 6,222
- Joined
- May 15, 2008
sillyputty
Banned
- 3,634
- 21
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
I get lost in typing a bunch at times.
Word?
Yes, when I leave a typo that is.
Not when i'm making a point.
Nice job at extracting your own context though.
- 814
- 13
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
My apologies...it should have been "therein lies" xyz...
I get lost in typing a bunch at times.
Accepted. You're not so bad after all
Moheezy
formerly mizzoe33
- 11,450
- 9,408
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
I actually watched the documentary, very eye opening. It was also very disturbing to realize how easy a population can be influenced by simple advertising. I highly recommend everybody to at least watch the first two hours of this four hour documentary.
It highly influenced my mentality and decision making the past two years.
- 7,371
- 29,055
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
To take a page from your Internet bookmarks, "moving the goalposts." You said that Disney princesses are proof that society panders to women. Sexism is "pandering" now?
Maybe next semester you should invest your elective in a women's studies class.
Or perhaps you just used the wrong word. It wouldn't be the first time.
"Notarized" <> Notorious. Your veneer's peeling. And don't blame autocorrect - everyone knows you didn't type all that out on a phone.
Here's my problem: you just went off on some "live and let live," "you can smoke weed and eat cheerios all day because nothing really matters and I can't judge you" bit, but as of last week you were still on here trolling anyone and anything religious, and you're at least as judgmental as any religious zealot I've ever had the misfortune of meeting.
And it's not so much that you disagree; it's how you disagree. Rather than accept that you have a different standard of evidence and that you're more inclined toward empiricism, on this one subject you guzzle down the kool-aid and fancy your beliefs to be "objective." They aren't.
Empirical science negotiates collective "truths," nearly all of which are continually reevaluated and frequently reinterpreted. Its goal is not to achieve objectivity, but to reduce subjectivity for pragmatic purposes through the establishment of consensus standards. You reference "sociology" and "epistemology" by name, but your understanding seems to go no deeper than that. Otherwise, one would think you'd demonstrate a broader perspective on the limitations of empirical knowledge.
What you have is a preference, however understandable, for empirical knowledge. That's perfectly fine. However, you seem to think that your preference is objectively "better" than someone else's, which is sheer narcissism. (Or that empirical evidence speaks for itself, which it doesn't, or that it's objective, which it isn't.)
First of all, shame on your philosophy professor for not including Plato's cave, because your understanding of "how something works" is provisional and relative.
Second, although you acknowledge that you've made a subjective value judgment in choosing to devote your efforts to extend the lives of others, I don't think you'd particularly welcome or appreciate nihilist hecklers stalking you every day to ridicule your decision. They could call you logically inconsistent for "recognizing" nihilism but selectively applying other values and beliefs when you deem it appropriate.
It wouldn't be much fun (or even much use) to try and discuss something that's meaningful to you, helping others, if you had to constantly ward off harassment from people who felt you foolish for "wasting your time." Over time, you'd probably find it pretty discouraging. It would seem kind of petty for someone who doesn't even have values to peck away at something that you feel gives your life meaning and purpose, and a means through which you attempt to make life better for others, wouldn't it?
That's just it - I'm not pretending to be objective. As much as I value logic, I don't believe it, let alone modern science, to be objective or universal. Such traditions are less global than local, though, in a cosmic sense, what's global is local. We habitually ignore underlying uncertainties and assumptions within the bedrock of our collective reasoning for the sake of convenience.
You do seem to think you have the insight to know "why others find meaning in diamonds," or why people believe in gods. Apparently you think they're all just weak-minded sheep who've been duped into worshiping false idols to add meaning to their gray, dreary, pointless little lives. (This, I suppose, in contrast to you, someone who is "independent minded" and supposedly drinks from the font of knowledge.)
On one hand, you believe you can claim that other people's views are invalid because they're objectively "wrong" - because they're founded in a lie - and on the other hand you say "there's no such thing as truth." Well, if there's no such thing as an objective truth then why is your truth any more valid than someone else's fabrication? If you know that you "don't know," then how do you "know" that someone else is wrong?
You want to be an empiricist, but you don't want to accept the weaknesses that come with that. You want to be a nihilist, but you also want to believe in something. Yet everyone else is inconsistent.
When your views are at issue, you just sort of offer this meek, dismissive shrug and say, "I know only what I don't know." When someone else's views are at issue, you lock on like an attack dog and refuse to let go.
You may know only that you don't truly know anything, but this isn't to say that you have no beliefs. There's plenty of weakness in those beliefs, plenty that you, too, take more or less on blind faith. You have a rationale behind your preferences, sure, but this in and of itself only accounts for why your preferences suit you better than the alternatives you've considered.
You can make an argument for why others would be better off if they shared your beliefs, but it's egotistical to think that 1) your beliefs don't, themselves, represent a form of faith and 2) that your beliefs are in any sense objectively better than someone else's.
One can't help but wonder if you'd be less condescending and didactic if you gave more consideration to the subjectivity of your own positions.
That's right - because I'm not a rigid absolutist and I allow for the possibility that my perspective is not perfectly aligned with objective reality.
Why do you even care about how "logically consistent" other people's beliefs are? Logic is an abstraction. If your beliefs have no intrinsic meaning and Tim Tebow's beliefs have no intrinsic meaning, how petty is it to say "my meaningless beliefs are more meaningful than your meaningless beliefs, because they more consistently adhere to my chosen criteria"?!
Didn't you just say, "But there is an ultimate paradigm that arises once you're ultimately aware that you have created everything you hold dear from nothing...and none of it matters. "?
This logic that you hold so dear is, itself, an abstraction created of whole cloth by human beings to serve a particular purpose.
As Nietzsche wrote in On the Genealogy of Morals, “perspective seeing is the only kind of seeing there is, perspectival ‘knowing’ the only kind of ‘knowing.’"
Ironically, nobody on this forum has been anywhere near as aggressive in imposing their beliefs on others as you, and your beliefs are, at best, inchoate. You're still sitting here wrestling with your existential crisis (and thanks so much for choosing to have that here, by the way), teetering between "nihilism" and "existentialism," but you have no qualms with lecturing the rest of the community about how to maintain logical consistency? Really?
You don't even know what you believe well enough to defend it. All you do is criticize what other people believe and hide behind the hegemony of your own inherited standards as scientific defaults. And yet everyone else is a sheep for failing to question their beliefs.
It's been over a year already. When is this phase of yours gonna end? You don't know if you're a nihilist or an "existentialist." You don't know if you're an absolutist or a relativist. How long will we have to suffer through the rebellious phase of your intellectual adolescence?
Most teenagers lash out at their parents or at "the establishment" as a means of achieving individuation. They don't necessarily know who they are yet so much as they know that they "don't want to be like everyone else," and, in order to be distinct, they often feel impelled to prove that they're different from their parents.
We get it. You're not religious. You're an "independent thinker" who parrots reddit posts.
You know who you remind me of? You're the guy in the Jordan forum who "discovers" that Will Smith wore Jordans on the Fresh Prince of Bel Air and just HAS to start a topic about it. I'm all for critical thinking and I'm sure this stuff really IS new to some people, but at least the guy in the Jordan forum doesn't try to make the handful of people who DIDN'T watch the father episode of the Fresh Prince feel like idiots for missing out on such a "life changing" experience. Why can't you just share something that you find interesting without attempting to ridicule others? Why does that "special" thing you just learned have to make you better than everyone else?
If all of this stuff is so new and fascinating to you, you're a hair's breadth away from that same "base" state of ignorance as the people you hold beneath contempt.
Yeah, this from the guy who just said "a kicked dog will holler." So, you go around punting puppies for the fun of it and now you're claiming that "you're not responsible" for their reactions? Well, that's convenient.
This message board doesn't exist only for agreeable opinions, but, then, it also doesn't exist as a shrine for YOUR opinions. At what point, exactly, is it abusive? If someone follows you around and heckles you, it's clear that they have a low opinion of you and/or your values/beliefs. Are they entitled to that opinion? Sure, but that doesn't make it right for them to stifle you and deny you the ability to enjoy the community.
You don't let other people breathe. This is THEIR forum every bit as much as it is yours. You've had the opportunity to say the same thing about 1,000 times now, yet you seem to feel it's your duty to harass people who have different beliefs or standards of evidence than you do. I actually agree with many of the basic positions you've taken and even I find your posts to be obnoxious. You're poisoning the well and making it that much harder for well-intentioned people to have a meaningful exchange on issues of mutual interest.
You're not even close to the first to raise these topics on NikeTalk, but you have a knack for making them FAR more acrimonious than your predecessors' versions.
In hindsight, I actually preferred it when you were just trolling the music forum and writing 10,000+ words a week to argue about Kanye West with anyone foolish enough to pay attention to you. Ever since you "discovered" that religion is a form of mythology you've just been unbearable.
Clearly, being "thoughtful" is not the same as being considerate, as you've consistently demonstrated an abject lack of consideration for your fellow users.
If you want to sit around in the r/atheist echo chamber for the rest of your life and make fun of the "sheep," that's on you. It would certainly explain why you're having the exact same conversations, almost verbatim, that you were having a year ago. That doesn't affect me in the least. However, just as you don't like having Christianity imposed on you, I don't appreciate you imposing yourself on our users in such a selfish, counterproductive way. Every topic that includes you doesn't have to be ABOUT you and your "right" to express your opinion doesn't trump all other concerns.
I keep waiting for the light bulb to go off, for you to show an ounce of consideration for other people. I've given you every opportunity - and then some - to express yourself respectfully and you continue to disappoint.
If you're truly as arrogant as advertised, you probably think that everyone who complains only does so because you're just so darned smart and it makes them feel bad. ("They complain about me because I burst their bubbles" or some such.) I hate to break it to you, but your opinions aren't revolutionary. NikeTalk has seen them all before and it's not a question of shooting the messenger. Consider for a second that maybe, just maybe, all of the complaints aren't just about what you think you "represent."
It could be that you're just rude.
I assume you only behave like a bully online, because you wouldn't last very long doing this to people in real life. You wouldn't get much of anything accomplished at work or school if you seized upon even the slightest excuse to mock others for their beliefs. If you can't find a way to coexist with others despite difference, you're condemning yourself to a very lonely, isolated existence.
- 6,378
- 1,505
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- 923
- 42
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
so cubic Z s actually a better stone than a diamond?
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
silly putty & meth posting on da same thread = migraines from eye strain tryin to read.
- 12,703
- 71
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
quick question, are meth and silly arguing or agreeing with each other?
- 12,503
- 925
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
4
41239
Guest
not at all, but you put hella emphasis on it, maybe you were tryin to flex with your bank acct, idk, think of any rich girl who has had diamonds their whole life, they wouldnt smile
i wasnt tryin to go at you, ill admit tho you were comin off as a sugar daddy and even though shes yours i cant relate, but you are so right and wrong at the same time, you put value into whatever, you cant tell me if someone dropped a billion dollars in your lap you would be happier than a family who finally had their first child after trying to reproduce for years, your mindset fuels capitalism and even though we all live and abide by the rules not everyone gets the same kicks out of money and what it buys
4
41239
Guest
sometimes its part of their religion to have unshaken faith, but just because they argue their point doesnt mean they havent already asked themselves the same questions sillyputty asks them
i mean seriously, everyone has questioned their religious faith at some point, idc about exceptions, their stubbornness is their choice to believe what they want to and they dont have to prove it to anyone, and atheism is extremely popular, its not nearly as famous as some religions but it is extremely popular, if anything he probably gets heat because people say he attacks them rather than saying something like "yea that doesnt make sense because you cant prove it" he makes assumptions and tries to impress them on whoever hes arguing with and thats where things go wrong, hes not "opening minds" people already do that themselves and choose what they want
