Are you under the delusion that what you are doing here is philosophical examination of human understanding? You’re just lurking in your den and whenever something new is up, you jump out, and start bragging and accusing others of all sorts of groundless accusations like someone being hypocrite, or stupid or confusing and so on. Now, I have checked many of your posts and there are loads of them. This is the reason why after more than 10000 posts, you still haven’t learned the most rudimentary rules of discussion. Lots of times, you’ve been asked to demonstrate, why you are opposing an opinion, in a logical way, to receive only the repetition of the words “you’re confusing” or “you’re stupid” etc. from your side; that’s the goon’s way. From now on, I’ve decided to keep an eye on you, to find out the psychological grounds of your ‘objection complex’ and explain it to you, in order for you to behave more orderly, in a place considered to discuss philosophy not pseudo-intellectual hooliganism. It is ridiculous that you are preaching the advice of Sun Tzu, while you are fighting others, most of the time. The only occasions that you agree with someone, is when you want to pretend that you are positive.
Is SpheresOfBalance, who is talking about ‘change’ , a hypocrite or are you, who spend most of your time, groundlessly objecting what others say or do, many times of which, without the slightest understanding of what they’re talking about; all that being a kind of masked fighting, and at the same time, preach advice of Sun Tzu against fighting? Maybe you are so stupid to think that what Sun Tzu said was only related to that level of the war between two countries.
I would be willing to bet that you are to blame for accepting categories based on invented labels just like everyone else.
Does that betting habit come from your background of frequenting casinos? At any rate, that's not considered a philosophical manner of speech.
Science creates its own system - one that does not take those factors into consideration, but seeks to invent its own that works regardless of culture, and personality.
What you have in mind is not science. you cannot reject science with dumb, fallacious, pseudo-philosophical arguments.
No there is not a right one. Because 100% of literate people pick a different one. If you are going to insist that thre has to be a right ONE, then there can't be TWO right answers.
Maybe you need to read it again. I don't think you get it.
What you can't understand is that when you say "there
can't be TWO right answers" you are referring to only one 'there'. That connotes only one context. whereas I explained to you very clearly that you might have two or more contexts in each of which, the meaning of 'right' might be different. It is true that there is no absolute right or wrong answers, but there can be relative right or wrong answers. To someone in a moving train, who can't see outside, the train might look stationary; whereas to someone standing by the railway, it is moving. Asked whether the train is moving or not, each one of them would reply differently, and they are both right answers. therefore contrary to your understanding, there can be two right answers.
You can read this as many times as needed to understand.
You are confused.
Another groundless assertions of yours. you're accusing someone of confusion in a situation that you have no clue what he is talking about.
Has anyone ever called you stupid?
Yes, but only those with an IQ under 90.
I think this conversation is over.
This is a blatant evidence of your arrogance. You start an argument, and after having said whatever you wanted to, without referring to the details of my arguments, which you ignorantly state is wrong, proclaim the end of conversation, unilaterally. Do you really think you are that important a person? You know, there is a name for that?
rantal, I apologize for going off topic,I had no choice.