New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pentium M vs Pentium 4 - Page 7

post #121 of 386
Thread Starter 

Wow..this is way deep

Quote:
you cannot abstract logic from your sentences. You create sentences out of empirical knowlegde, and therefore your words sound right to yourself. But when someone puts the logic of your words in front of you, you do not recognize it
I really like that one. Once I figured out the meaning of the content I was overwhelmed with the insight behind it. Do not interpret this as sarcasm, 'cause it most certainly is not. The great dashby is not above being impressed from time to time.
Btw, not suggesting EDR is, or is not guilty of this (so please don't get me into this pissing match). Just really liked the message and, if ya don't mind, will probably use it myself at some future/convenient time.
post #122 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltawalkerl
This is how the logic would be, if you did not imply that wealthy people are better.

Let's us list first the kinds of people in our argument: a. those without degree or wealth. b. those with wealth and c. those with a degree.

Let us say that b are not more advanced than a. Let us also say that b cannot also be c. Then there is no arguement saying c is not more advanced than a.

The only way your argument would work is if you assume first that b and only b is more advanced than a:

b and only b is more advanced than a. b cannot also be c. therefore c is not more advanced than a.

So you are implying that only rich people are better than all other people.
Wow! As you'd say. Go write some code, and shutup already. You're putting your foot deeper in your mouth.

Let us also say... as you wrote above, is YOUR analysis and YOUR argument, simply to argue. You're putting anything you can together to win this argument, at the point of making a public fool out of yourself. I've not stated or implied any of the above.
post #123 of 386
Hey, what about Tripod! You guys don't care for the 3 legged dog?!
post #124 of 386
"YOU DO NOT *NEED* AN ADVANCED DEGREE TO BECOME WEALTHY, HAPPY, OR SUCCESSFULL IN LIFE."

If you keep making arguments like that, the debate is pointless. Are you saying that wealth, happiness, and successful are one collective quality? Your argument is so ambiguous that one cannot make anything out of it. Let me prove why we see your argument as implying that "rich people are better":

"I'm simply saying that whoever says that because they have a Ph.D makes them superior to everyone else or all other classes of society, is a joke! To them, I would say, 'Show me the money!'"

Need I say more? Your idea of success or superiority is clearly wealth. A Ph.D who invented a cure for cancer, but who has not made a cent of it, would be inferior and unsuccessful in your argument. You are clearly untrained in reasoning, as you keep contradicting your own arguments.
post #125 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashby
I really like that one. Once I figured out the meaning of the content I was overwhelmed with the insight behind it. Do not interpret this as sarcasm, 'cause it most certainly is not. The great dashby is not above being impressed from time to time.
Btw, not suggesting EDR is, or is not guilty of this (so please don't get me into this pissing match). Just really liked the message and, if ya don't mind, will probably use it myself at some future/convenient time.
Dash, be careful, because in reality, no one put *the logic* in front of me. Rather, Delta interpreted what he thinks he saw in his own mind. You wanna get deep? Again, why are there over 2,000 Christian religions that read the same bible and get a different message?

If you really analyze his retorts, they are his analysis of my words (and even trying to force the issue with use of a,b,c, and ASSuming how a,b,c relate to eachother in his own mind) simply to win an argument.
post #126 of 386
EDR, you seem to know nothing about reasoning. If there exists more than one intrepretation of your argument, that means that it is a bad argument. You are admitting the ambiguity of your statements!!!! That is as bad as you can do in an argument.
post #127 of 386
Thread Starter 

oh no

It looks like I have been dragged into this foray after all. I think both you guys have offered up some very legitimate, if somewhat philisophical, arguments. As debates go from time to time, the contestants engaged sometimes parrot the ideologies of each other w/o even realizing it.
But, hey, I'm just a humble P4 owner..what do I know?
post #128 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltawalkerl
"YOU DO NOT *NEED* AN ADVANCED DEGREE TO BECOME WEALTHY, HAPPY, OR SUCCESSFULL IN LIFE."

If you keep making arguments like that, the debate is pointless.
The debate *is* pointless, as I never intended it to be one. It's YOU who deparately wants the debate and keeps referring to the *argument*. I simply retorted to a comment by some ego maniac A**hole. You and others made it an *argument*.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deltawalkerl
"YOU DO NOT *NEED* AN ADVANCED DEGREE TO BECOME WEALTHY, HAPPY, OR SUCCESSFULL IN LIFE."

Are you saying that wealth, happiness, and successful are one collective quality?
Once again you demonstrate your extreme ignorance. It would help if you new HOW to read first before analyzing other people's words and the meanings behind it. Notice in the above phrase the use of the word "OR". Wealthy, happy, OR successfull implies that all are separate. One OR the other. Had, I worded it as Wealthy, happy AND successfull you just *might* have a claim.

Gees, IF THEN ELSE AND OR. Please dont apply your code writing mentality to everyday written conversation.
post #129 of 386
EDR, I am trying to argue with very strict logic, inambiguous semantics and syntax. I realize that most people cannot argue in this way. I am used to arguing using well-defined statements that have only one intrepretation. I guess you are not willing to do that. This argument may have to be dropped. Keep in mind, however, that in intellectual arguments one must adhere to very specific logic and syntax. It would do well for you to read some works of philosophy, such as Kant's first critique, because you will need this skill of argument if you were to actually argue with intellectuals.
post #130 of 386
Thread Starter 

X your statement is sheer mind-boggling

I do have 3 kids. 3 girls ranging in age from 12-19...2 of them born during my chest-thumping days (means I had time to do the 'ol in-and-out too..but that's prob more than u want to know). The oldest was born previous to that. Guess I should have added that..didn't realize it probably would have made the story that much more astounding.
post #131 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashby
I do have 3 kids. 3 girls ranging in age from 12-19...2 of them born during my chest-thumping days (means I had time to do the 'ol in-and-out too..but that's prob more than u want to know). The oldest was born previous to that. Guess I should have added that..didn't realize it probably would have made the story that much more astounding.
Umm... "'ol in-and-out"? I hope that does not mean what I think it means...
post #132 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltawalkerl
EDR, you seem to know nothing about reasoning. If there exists more than one intrepretation of your argument, that means that it is a bad argument. You are admitting the ambiguity of your statements!!!! That is as bad as you can do in an argument.
Delta, keep on making that fool out of yourself. I haven't admitted to anything, and I think this is going nowhere. I can see you just like to argue, regardless of the facts of the matter. You'll twist anything into anyway to keep it going. That's sad.

And, now talking about reason, quality of arguments and Ph.D into the mix, if you were intelligent you'd realize that *most* theories and *arguments* (as per most great thesis' prepared by Ph.D's) have holes in them to allow for modification and interpretation.

All things evolve, even Einstein's theories. Many scientists have stood their ground for years, to finally admit years later that their *theories* or *arguments* were wrong at the time - oh yeah, we're back to ego again.

So, for you to take the position that no argument can have more than one meaning or interpretation, otherwise it's a bad argument means you aren't even qualified to be posting in this thread. OUCH!
post #133 of 386
Oh wait...you mean the wife, not the daughters? Ok...that's more acceptable.
post #134 of 386
EDR...there is one point that you are mistaken about. The purpose of making an argument is to make as straightforward and unambiguous as possible. Comparing your argument to the bible in terms of the number of interpretations is missing that whole point. Perhaps you will eventually learn the nature of semantics and of arguments.
post #135 of 386
Thread Starter 

Shame on you

Delta, you are sick. Decent debater, but quite twisted.
post #136 of 386
EDR, hopefully no personal feelings were hurt. Since we cannot agree on a mode of argument the argument obviously cannot be carried on. Come on, let's make fun of dashby's statement that inadvertently implies incest.
post #137 of 386
Wow. You guys are really tearing it up this morning. Making me read all these pages of posts and all...

From my perspective, with no disrespect to EDR, Delta makes more sense, but maybe that's from my dealings with strict logic and whatnot before in other more argumentative forums.

EDR, when you say things like:

"I'm simply saying that whoever says that because they have a Ph.D makes them superior to everyone else or all other classes of society, is a joke! To them, I would say, 'Show me the money!'"

It's hard not to assume that you see Ph.D's as not being successful because they don't have "the money", i.e. "money > Ph.D" or at least "having money w/o Ph.D = "having Ph.D w/o money". Delta is simply pointing this unstated assumption and trying to undermine it.

I think what also needs to be said is that most Ph.D's, while aren't exactly successful businessmen, would define their success differently (i.e. having solved a problem that has plagued man for ages), and are hardly poor. Most Ph.D's are paid very well for what they do, and although they may never be billionaires, they would never need to be. The old issue with driving a Ferrari when you can't go above 100mph, or getting a P4 when you rarely need the speed boost.

BTW, while Bill Gates is unarguably wealthy and successful, he isn't much of an innovator. Most of what he did back the MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 days were copied from existing systems, i.e. UNIX and the Mac OS. Gates had excellent vision and foresight, and made the right moves at the right time to get Microsoft to where it is today, but it's off the innovations of others - and highly educated others at that.
post #138 of 386
Thread Starter 

Oh yeah

Let's just go after me again. Didn't realize you guys could see the bullseye on my forehead.
Isn't it interesting, though, what sort of tangents we can get off on? I think the whole "M"-P4 issue was dropped 4 pages ago. At various times it's digressed to educational philosophies, religion, road conditions, and krispy kreme doughnuts. You just got to love it.
post #139 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltawalkerl
EDR, I am trying to argue with very strict logic, inambiguous semantics and syntax. I realize that most people cannot argue in this way. I am used to arguing using well-defined statements that have only one intrepretation. I guess you are not willing to do that. This argument may have to be dropped. Keep in mind, however, that in intellectual arguments one must adhere to very specific logic and syntax. It would do well for you to read some works of philosophy, such as Kant's first critique, because you will need this skill of argument if you were to actually argue with intellectuals.
The fact that you missed the important "OR" in one of my previous statements, and therefore, interpreted INCORRECTLY, means you aren't even following your own advice with respect to specific syntax.

Also, let's stop this pissing contest, but with regard to philopsphy and religion, it's my past time. I've studied it for YEARS. Let's NOT start another debate on that topic.

Finally, please don't make ASSumptions about people and *judge* them too early before you should. Did you get that syntax? The first three letters of the word ASSumption is ... ASS.
post #140 of 386
Thread Starter 

this is important

Any issue can be debated and rationalized in a masterful and commanding fashion dependent on the cognitivational (I'm not sure that's a legitimate word..but I, like Billy Sheakspeare..am creating my own vocab as I go along) ability of said deliberator. Take this work for example:

The Cat in the Hat is a hard-hitting novel of prose and poetry in which the author re-examines the dynamic rhyming schemes and bold imagery of some of his earlier works, most notably Green Eggs and Ham, If I Ran the Zoo, and Why Can't I Shower With Mommy? In this novel, Theodore Geisel, writing under the pseudonym Dr. Seuss, pays homage to the great Dr. Sigmund Freud in a nightmarish fantasy of a renegade feline helping two young children understand their own frustrated sexuality.

The story opens with two youngsters, a brother and a sister, abandoned by their mother, staring mournfully through the window of their single-family dwelling. In the foreground, a large tree/phallic symbol dances wildly in the wind, taunting the children and encouraging them to succumb to the sexual yearnings they undoubtedly feel for each other. Even to the most unlearned reader, the blatant references to the incestuous relationship the two share set the tone for Seuss' probing examination of the satisfaction of primitive needs. The Cat proceeds to charm the wary youths into engaging in what he so innocently refers to as "tricks." At this point, the fish, an obvious Christ figure who represents the prevailing Christian morality, attempts to warn the children, and thus, in effect, warns all of humanity of the dangers associated with the unleashing of the primal urges. In response to this, the cat proceeds to balance the aquatic naysayer on the end of his umbrella, essentially saying, "Down with morality; down with God!"

After poohpoohing the righteous rantings of the waterlogged Christ figure, the Cat begins to juggle several icons of Western culture, most notably two books, representing the Old and New Testaments, and a saucer of lactal fluid, an ironic reference to maternal loss the two children experienced when their mother abandoned them "for the afternoon." Our heroic Id adds to this bold gesture a rake and a toy man, and thus completes the Oedipal triangle.

Later in the novel, Seuss introduces the proverbial Pandora's box, a large red crate out of which the Id releases Thing One, or Freud's concept of Ego, the division of the psyche that serves as the conscious mediator between the person and reality, and Thing Two, the Superego which functions to reward and punish through a system of moral attitudes, conscience, and guilt. Referring to this box, the Cat says, "Now look at this trick. Take a look!" In this, Dr. Seuss uses the children as a brilliant metaphor for the reader, and asks the reader to re-examine his own inner self.

The children, unable to control the Id, Ego, and Superego allow these creatures to run free and mess up the house, or more symbolically, control their lives. This rampage continues until the fish, or Christ symbol, warns that the mother is returning to reinstate the Oedipal triangle that existed before her abandonment of the children. At this point, Seuss introduces a many-armed cleaning device which represents the psychoanalytic couch, which proceeds to put the two youngsters' lives back in order.

With powerful simplicity, clarity, and drama, Seuss reduces Freud's concepts on the dynamics of the human psyche to an easily understood gesture. Mr. Seuss' poetry and choice of words is equally impressive and serves as a splendid counterpart to his bold symbolism. In all, his writing style is quick and fluid, making The Cat in the Hat impossible to put down. While this novel is 61 pages in length, and one can read it in five minutes or less, it is not until after multiple readings that the genius of this modern day master becomes apparent.

So, whatever...just trying to entertain.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Forums - General