Printable View
I feel like through your definition we are all religious just as we are all murderers due to the atrocities committed by our forefathers at whatever given point in history. It seems like youre attempting to bend and broaden the meaning of the word and I cant quite understand what your goal is in doing so. All that I can figure is that youre trying to parallel our atheism with christianity /islam/ ect.
^ I'm feeling that type of thing as well. When broadening the definition of something enough it becomes something else. Boil water enough and it becomes steam.
"I feel like through your definition we are all religious just as we are all murderers due to the atrocities committed by our forefathers at whatever given point in history."
This does not follow from my statement. But personally I think that murderers have expressed a possibility which is latent in all of us. I feel no morally superior to murderers or rapists.
"It seems like youre attempting to bend and broaden the meaning of the word and I cant quite understand what your goal is in doing so."
Firstly, there is no consensus on what religion is- no matter what the dicitionary tells you. Secondly, I bend and broaden the defintion in order to make sense of the phenomenom which is incredible complex. Playing with different definitions allows us to see different facets of religion- its functions (intellectual, social, and emotional), its formal features and its substantive features.
"All that I can figure is that youre trying to parallel our atheism with christianity /islam/ ect."
I see no essential difference in a life trying to fulfill Allahs will, and a life trying to accumualate happiness, wealth or destruction.
Maybe the main point of where we seem to disagree, is that while what is typically thought of as religion is something which is brought down on us- while atheism or hedonism is something we choose for ourselves.
I will not go into a discussion about free will, but I feel that both the atheist and the Christian has made more or less delibarate choices on what they believe in their life, and these choices affect how they are and how they act.
It is intrinsic to human behaviour to create schisms- Us and Them mentality. And "Them" is most often inferior to "Us". And since religion is a powerful creator of identity,- religion create conflict- and also since religion is basically "truth"- "non-believers" or people who believe diferently are "wrong".
The above scenario is one which entails conflict. But there are a lot of peace making force in religious activity as well, without considering them now.
Someone post tits to get this thread back on track.
Actually this post proves my point. Tits are not beautiful a priori. An ant walking across the tits of Jessica Alba will not find them beautiful. It is humans who give meaning to tits, because they are signs of fertility. We give tits meaning, a meaning which was not there in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelle
There most definitely is consensus on what religion is, otherwise it wouldn't be in the dictionary. What you're referring to is philosophical, and where it begins to get very complicated. Your argument regresses the topic back much further than is found in practice, and the further back a topic is regressed, the more unverifiable, more indistinguishable, and more 'purely philosophical' it becomes
See, you say religion isAnd I say religion is socially organized superstition, and we're both right, but we're looking at it on entirely different levels and to different degrees.Quote:
a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.
If you regress a topic, any topic, as far back as possible, you will reach the same point as all other topics completely regressed. Kinda like how if you take any object and regress its properties back as far as possible, you will reach the same forces and particles that make up all other objects.
Earlier you statedYou probably should have said 'superstitious' instead of 'God', and now that that's clarified I can point out the contention. I will not agree to any categorical definition of religion that does not include its practical form. What this then means is that non-superstitious people are not religious. IMO, you're essentially saying that because there remain some similarities between how superstitious people are involved with superstition and how non-superstitious people are involved with other stuff then everybody's superstitiousQuote:
All humans are religious- whether we believe in God or not.
I don't think anybody disagrees with this. The disagreement has to do with your equivalence of religion with what we (and pretty much all of academia) consider non-religiousQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot
I love boobs. But there is a limit on how big they are.
A's and B's are fine imo.
and obv inb4 gay
I think a cross-breed of Anne Coulter and Martha Stewart=The Perfect WomanQuote:
Originally Posted by bigred
"Definitons cannot, by their very nature, be either "true" or "false", only more usefull or less so"- Peter L. Berger, "The sacred canopy"
IMO, we need to explore whatever we are trying to understand on different levels and from different vantage points.
David Chidester toyed with the idea that religion is the cultural process of stealing back and forth of religious symbols. If we choose this vantage point we get different findings, than if we for example choose to define religion as something which points to the ultimate- the holy.
This is a small abstract which better explains my point;
"Religious scholars generally agree that writing a single definition that applies to all religions is difficult or even impossible, because all people examine religion with some kind of critical eye, and the term is therefore fraught with ideological consequences for anyone who might want to construct a universal definition. Talal Asad writes that "there cannot be a universal definition of religion ... because that definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes"[5]; Thomas A. Tweed, while defending the idea of religion in general, writes that "it would be foolish to set up an abstract definition of religion's essence, and then proceed to defend that definition from all comers."[6]
It is 7 am, and I am getting tired. But I must thank you Boost and Wufwugy, because it is very nice for me talk with clever people.
Edit: I am sincere, and I know how most people assume irony here- it is not.
so mach tilt. and i had an f great day.
Long story short.
Meaning is perceptual, that is, every being creates their own based on their own frame of reference. I agree that trying to find some "ultimate" larger-than-life answer to the Meaning of Life automatically assumes there is indeed something more grand, which does sound a bit like a religious belief, at least to me. However, I don't think "religion" and "a belief system" are totally interchangeable.
And FYI, the meaning of life is procreation.
Wufwugy- I was thinking about your posts while dreaming tonight. I have this sleeping disorder when I am sometimes conscious throughout the night.
I realized you were touching upon some essential truths about the nature of definitions and how language itself sets the parameters for what is possible to learn about a concept.
What especially resonated with me was the idea that when you regress a topic further and further back into its essentials- you end up looking at a topic which is completely different from what you set out to investigate.
I think this trait of wanting to grasp the essential nature of things, is common among great thinkers- Descartes ended up with his cogito (went wrong from there though), Einstein ended up with his theories of relativity and Hawkins still tries to come up with a theory of everything.
A better example is the evolution of quantum physics. What initially was an examination of the smallest material components- ended with the contention that matter does not exist.
I do think we need to be very wary about boiling things down too much- as we might end up looking at something completely different. But sometimes we need to break the boundaries in order to reach new truths.
We are definitely on the same page here.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
When physicist tried to understand the nature of matter, they assumed it existed. And although their assumption was wrong, they made progress.
Assumptions is basic to western science. Hypotethical deductive method must have assumptions, it is intrinsic to its nature. When trying to calculate the speed of a rolling cannonball on a 45 degree slope- scientists had to assume that the forces in action were constant. As science progressed they learned that some of these forces were not, like gravity for example.
Equating religion with belief system- or systems of meaning is problematic. Essentially, we make "religion" into something which is different from what it initially was perceived to be.
But toying with definitions, make us aware that those existing definitions we do have- is the result of historical discourse,- and thus negotiable.
Religion definitely entails belief systems, but equating the two can be problematic- as you and others have cleverly pointed out. Milk contains fat, but that does not mean milk=fat.
Sir Pawnalot wastes a lot of time ITT
Time and space is an illusion my friend.
Besides, only thing that makes me happy is thinking about issues where there is no definite answer.
Here in this forum I am being myself, and when I see your reactions I know I must always put on an act in real life. It saddens me that people can not like me for who I am.
When I first start to think about something, my mind is completely absorbed into that issue for weeks or even months. Intense focus requires single mindedness, and I am sorry if I can not change my focus as quickly and fluently as you Spoon.
Sorry again for wasting your time. Maybe a better use of my time would be to leave nasty comments in a lot of threads, like you and others do??
read wittgensteinQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot
read richard bach - illusions and seagullQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot
Thanks Daven.
I will defintely go to the library and find Wittgenstein material in addition to that book you mentioned.
Very nice to encounter people who have more to contribute with than "lolwut", "lolz", "frist", "zomg" and "this thread needs tits"! I will definitely read and enjoy your thread soon.
Where are the tits
SP, careful in your hypocrisy.. Just as we are not morally superior to murders and rapist, our philosophical debates hold no more value than "where are the tits" "lolwut?" or "youre such a homo."
I feel you on this. I mean its not only on these forums that I feel like myself, and I think my problem is a bit different from yours. I think that I often come across as argumentative and people get turned off by this, however Im really just being inquisitive. Im taking jabs at things from the other side just to figure out how things work.Quote:
Here in this forum I am being myself, and when I see your reactions I know I must always put on an act in real life. It saddens me that people can not like me for who I am.
Sadly I do think this all ties into our discussion though. I think that the suppression of critical thinking has caused people to harbor a fear of discussion because to them it appears to be an argument. In other words they have been trained to be offended whenever they are challenged.
It's important to note that regressing things back isn't wrong, but that it changes the topic. Science does this all the time. There was once a time when physics didn't address the super large or super small, but now that we have science that does address those we have changed the topic enough to where we make new definitions/topics i.e. astrophysics, quantum physics, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot
Looking at things differently is not wrong, it just needs to be clarified that at some point we're looking at something different than we started out. But like I said, this isn't alien to science. We've been redefining and creating new topics since the beginning of science.
Worst FTR poster contest itt
Did somebody misplace spoon's pacifier?
Can someone explain me, either through a PM or here, how we put in quote boxes?
Boost:
"SP, careful in your hypocrisy.. Just as we are not morally superior to murders and rapist, our philosophical debates hold no more value than "where are the tits" "lolwut?" or "youre such a homo.""
That is true, I was hypocritical there. Moral philosophy is very difficult, and it is easy to come to the conclusion that there is no right and wrong. But to have a sustainable and prosporous society we need some moral guidelines. I do not think my view as expressed in my statement would be helpful to any society.
Boost:
"I feel you on this. I mean its not only on these forums that I feel like myself, and I think my problem is a bit different from yours. I think that I often come across as argumentative and people get turned off by this, however Im really just being inquisitive. Im taking jabs at things from the other side just to figure out how things work."
This is a good thing imo, as long as the other person understands your intention. We often interpret those "jabs" as personal attacks, especially in writing- because we get no visual clues about the intention. If the goal is seeking truth, I think this kind of contention is very fruitful.
Boost:
"Sadly I do think this all ties into our discussion though. I think that the suppression of critical thinking has caused people to harbor a fear of discussion because to them it appears to be an argument. In other words they have been trained to be offended whenever they are challenged."
Yes we get offended, when in reality the other person is helping us getting rid of fawlty thoughts or fawlty logics. On the other hand it is also important to point out the agreements, so that there is common ground to build on.
Put (without the apostrophes between the u and o) [qu'ote] before what you want to quote and [/qu'ote] after what you want to quote.
Or highlight what you want to quote and click the quote button above the typing box
Or click the quote reply to post and look at what it looks like
Hehe, thought about this one. Ill try to assign a range.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
1. Spoon can not stand Sir Pawnalot- 15%
2. Spoon thinks discussion is silly- 10%
3. Spoon is referring to those "lolwuts" and "where is tits"- 20%
4. Spoon realized that his initial question was pretty stupid and offensive- 5%
5. I am clueless as to what his intention is- 30%
6. Spoon is making a harmless joke- with the intention of confusing Sir P- 20%
not even close,its vegetarians because athiests are worse than christians
Impressive logics, but what if we have a vegetarian Christian?
Meat dulls the brain, and vegan or vegatarian diets are excellent for brain function, well being and longevity. What you lose is testosterone, muscle and ego.
So it really depends on what you want to achieve. I never met an unfriendly vegetarian.
can we just ban this homo already?
BBickes, it feels like you're losing control. If you let go, I probably won't let go tonight.
I bring out the worst in people. I am sorry I made you look stupid with your comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bbickes
when you say "people", are you including yourself :?:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot
:lynch: :lynch: :lynch: :lynch: :lynch: :lynch: :lynch: :lynch:
dozer-
I have no clue about how to behave- here or IRL.
People suggested I start posting in the commune to get the hang of social interaction. But with the level of animosity I am experiencing, I am beginning to think it is a waste of time.
I will never be able to remain friendships or relationships with anyone, and I am doomed to a life alone. It is now 6 weeks since I met any humans, and I feel I cant relate to noone.
Sorry for littering your forum. I wish you all the best.
Assuming you're not trolling...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot
Do you have asperger's by chance? trouble empathizing with people?
Like -- when you say or post something, are you able to put yourself in their shoes to judge how well it will be received by them?
You just seem to say a lot of things that basically come across as you saying "well since you're too stupid to understand", or "here's why you're an idiot".
This leads people to assume you're trolling, because a lot of your posts seem intentionally inflammatory. Like you're going out of your way to offend people by belittling them. Finding more than a few examples isn't tough.
If you are trolling, I look pretty stupid here. If not, I'm not sure how much this could even help you so I guess I look stupid either way. I'm ok with that :)
Lol the worst in me.
Also LOL Bigredaments
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
sirpawnalot: i'm not sure if you did, but from the onset of posting on the site you should've made things blatantly clear, i.e. your understanding of others and vice versa.
there's a hell of a lot lost in translation on the internet.
You can fix that for only 1 dollar though!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot
ha, this guy, troll or not, is weird.
You are right, I do have aspergers.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
I was not certain of it until a few years ago, because I was able to cope very well in my youth because of my good looks and athleticism.
Iopq helped me to understand how to use irony and in a PM I joked about being perfectly normal. This PM was posted in my thread "winning in poker" by xxstacksxx and that really fuelled the anger and resentment towards me. People thought I was just trolling and pretending to be someone else.
Still, people who knows how I am struggling keep berating and mocking me. Being honest is not enough, when you have very little positive character traits.
TY for trying to understand.
Hey sirpwns, your last post was actually the very first one of yours that ive read. Very cool. You should stick around. Haters make the world go round, after all.
I would say there's about an 18% chance SirP has Asperger's.
Dude, don't worry about it. A lot of the people around here like being fucking idiots. Just tell them to fuck off, and keep doing what you want to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot
Something necessary to keep in mind is that the more different you are from the norm, the less likely you are to being treated fairly. This is a common trend throughout history, and it applies to every type of unusual character from geniuses to idiots.
It's pretty standard for people to be act before they think. On a side note, my experiences on forums has shown me everything from extremely cool people getting ostracized because the clique were dumbfucks to mentally insane people opening up in profound ways with only those who approach discourse in a considerate manner.
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Thank you wufwugy and a500lbgorilla.
I tell spoon once what I think about him, and he threatens to report me. I can accept that he does not like me, but I think he is being hypocritical when threatining to ban me, when all he does is spreading hatred and bad poker advice.
When I was starting up from 20 USD I read his articles and posts, and I found he a good grasp of the theoretical aspects of the game. Now, about 100K hands later he is still a 100 NL noob, while I am at 200NL and still climbing.
Read it as personal attack if you want- but it is my honest opinion of a player who has reached his capacity in the small stakes.
FWIW, this doesn't need to get into non-sequitur personal attacks. The stakes somebody plays doesn't determine how good they are, there are many factors. Look at it this way: the best sports coaches on the planet are weak and slowQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot
It's mostly due to my horrible spending habits (read coke habit) and my inability to play more than 10-12 hours/week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot
True.
I think Spoon reminds me of myself, and since I am angry at myself for failing at life- I project that anger irrationally onto Spoon.
I am sorry, and the part about giving bad poker advice is not true. But I would be grateful if he could stop treating me as the jerk I am.
Have you had a big downswing yet? Believe me - a climb as rapid of you speak of is probably down to ridiculously good variance, so I'd advise not to invest too much of yourself emotionally or egoically in where your poker game is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot
Out of interest, why don't you interact with people? Do you live in the middle of nowhere in the far north of Norway or something?
FWIW I think you're harmless however irrationally arrogant.
If B is a subset of A and you fail at A, does that imply you fail at B?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot
Do more coke, so you can make more money. To spend on more coke.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Listen man I don't need to hear it, ok? Chip Reese did some lines from time to time to stay awake so what's the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Don't joke about a fake coke addiction spoon. *sniff*
Sir P, I like you. Always have. No homo. Unless you want.
I used to live with a guy who had aspergers. This guy had literally no idea about sarcasm, conversational ambience, subtlety, body language, or any other social nuances that we pick up almost unconsciously. If I hadn't seen it myself, I'd struggle to understand it. It's like being partially sighted but in a social sense.
Christians are way worse than vegetarians too.
1. I am well aware I was running good. Statistically it is possible to run very well/very bad over almost a million hands- unless edge is significant. I have no emotional attachments to the game at all. I even play with a pulsmeter aka "tiltmeter" and quit if there is a change in pulse. There never was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash256
2. One of the reasons I do not interact with people is because I do not want to be a burden to anyone. Listening to me talking 30 min about a narrow topic is not something people want to hear, and since I can not follow a conversation which changes topic every 3 seconds- I would rather just have conversations in my head.
Another thing is that many girls fall in love with me, and it hurts to explain to them I will always fail to live up to their expectations of a normal family life.
Seeing the reactions on this forum validates my thoughts about me being incapable of fitting into society. You say I am arrogant, a douchebag , weird etc, and that is probably right. Being a douchebag intentionally is one thing, but being a douchebag while trying to be as friendly as one can be- is confusing me and the only conclusions I can draw is that there is no need for Sir Pawnalot in this world.
I do not want to be a douchebag,- and since I am I would like to spare good people from my presence.
You'd be a douchebag if you acted the way you do without aspergers. I can only speak for myself, but you're no burden to interact with. There are people like spoonitnow and bankitdrew who I don't fully understand. I dunno how to respond to some people because they're just difficult.
Then there are people like bigred, boost, UG, wufwugy and others around here that are ,for me, easy people to understand and appreciate.
I haven't done more than just skim your post (length of post if not attractive to me), but you seem to always freely offer up deep interspections about yourself which is an ability many socially capable people don't wield.
I think you're cool and you should hang around. I'd like to know someone with aspergers.
rilla appreciates me, what a gay
I have Asperger's, and so does my youngest brother.
Also this was funny and I don't have anywhere to post it:
http://www.demotivateus.com/posters/...nal-poster.jpg
I'd never felt the need to read about Asperger's until I read this thread, but after researching it a little bit it sounds like an online poker player with Asperger's might have a distinct advantage.
New "worse" poll needed?
dude, if that topic of obsession is poker then FTR could well be the place for ya!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot
so long as you don't get offended by people throwing around insults - i've been called stupid on here and in IRC more often than i can count, but that could be because I'm not that good at counting? (kidding)
re the family comment, i've got thoughts on that and I'll write them when i have time. One observation is that there isn't really such a thing as 'a normal family life' - most families are pretty disfunctional, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing!
re the douchebag comments - everyone on here is a douchebag from time to time, intentionally or not. Don't fret about that.
Part of the internet is knowing how you come across, remembering that text is your only primary tool, as opposed to real life whereby tone of voice, gestures, eye movement, space between people, etc. can all be manipulated to alter the context of and reactions to what you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot
I also think it'd be a good idea in general for you to pick up some books on body language and then subtly apply those learned principles to observed social interactions - it's how I learned to socialise.
I, for one, don't think you're a douchebag and several members of the community have spoken up for you. You may need to develop a thick skin, however that's just how it is in pretty much any predominantly male community.
Basically, stick around dude.
Personally, I'm glad to have someone around who can write coherently and whose thought processes go beyond "tits or gtfo".
Tits or ass or gtfo?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warpe
Thanks guys.
I love talking and thinking about poker, and there is many likeminded people here who enjoys that just as much as me.
Unfortunately, even when I just talk about strategy- I get replies like this;
"Words cannot express the amount of tilt sirgetspwndalot posts produce. The closest thing I can think of is:
sdaihfuigsehrjbfhyegtafucjweagfyyw43u9igthedygvbns kjbvhusdagfub"
Ash- I have been studying body language and social behaviour the last months. It does not come naturally, but as any skill it can be taught.
I should develop much thicker skin, and learn to take criticism and verbal attacks better. I usually go into animal mode and contemplate various ways of killing that person.
I am much more positive now after reading your kind replies and I am determined to master social interaction and get back into real life.
Thank you sincerely for giving me a better outlook on life.
fuck you
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
(this is a joke)
I don't think anyone here uses "tits or gtfo" at face value. It's almost always ironically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warpe
Ok, maybe 5% of the time it's at face value. And that's usually only when it comes from the Irish.
(I'm kidding. Don't beat me with your shamrocks or patatahs.)
((Also, trying to judge intelligence by Commune activity is like trying to gauge math skills by watching someone take a piss))
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
I appear way more intelligent in the commune than I actually am.
So you're retarded then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bbickes
I cut myself on a pillow once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bbickes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bbickes
My mommy says I was born extra special =(
Bbickes-
Out of all people here you confuse me the most. :)
Oh, thank you General!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Je1CEPkUM&feature=fvst
Have you heard of self-fulfilling prophecies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pawnalot
And at times on this forum there has been more hatin on me than this thread has been on you, and I'm not a social reject. The internet is weird, the kind of skills that make somebody enjoyable IRL typically are not the same as the internets. Also, I personally have about as multiple of personalities as is possible without actually having a disorder. I've basically chosen to maintain one of those 'personalities' above the others on this forum, and that personality clashes with other posters from time to time
My point is that you're kidding yourself if you think that this thread is in any way representative of how people really view you. Case in point: I get flak on this forum a lot for posting lengthy text, however I also post lengthy text on an entirely different type of forum, and never get any flak. That's because the other forum is full of people who are looking for that type of thing, whereas this is basically a poker forum full of people who don't really want to read much text on issues unrelated to poker.
what happened in this thread