Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 6:17 am
Still ignorant. You're gay and have never foreplayed with women?
Read it up.
It's ironic that you are referring me to books about this. If the women you foreplay with get erections I strongly suspect you have fallen victim to a sampling bias.
What are you talking about?
I have then given you the link as above.
Earlier I had researched and found only two articles relating to the "Science of Philosophy" [absurd] and I told you I am not bothered about them at all, since they are of no interest to me.
Since you insist, the two links are now presented and they are useless to the point.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 6:17 am
Still ignorant. You're gay and have never foreplayed with women?
Read it up.
It's ironic that you are referring me to books about this. If the women you foreplay with get erections I strongly suspect you have fallen victim to a sampling bias.
Yes! Women get clitoral erections. Women do not get erections.
Clitoral erection occurs when the corpora cavernosa, two expandable erectile structures, become engorged with blood. This may result from any of various physiological stimuli, including sexual arousal.
So if you are using "clitoral erection" as a measure for "sexual arousal" you are going to be getting a bunch of false positives.
Yes! Women get clitoral erections. Women do not get erections.
Clitoral erection occurs when the corpora cavernosa, two expandable erectile structures, become engorged with blood. This may result from any of various physiological stimuli, including sexual arousal.
So if you are using "clitoral erection" as a measure for "sexual arousal" you are going to be getting a bunch of false positives.
Note I started with a general and generally accepted principle. It was you who tried to be a smart alec but failed.
As with any principles there are always exceptions.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 8:14 am
Note I started with a general and generally accepted principle. It was you who tried to be a smart alec but failed.
As with any principles there are always exceptions.
Is that why you threw the weasel word "normal" in the phrase "normal women" ?
In what context is your general principle applicable?
In what context is your "general principle" not applicable?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 6:22 am
Why are you so stupid?
I did google earlier but did not bother to show the links because the onus is not on me to do it.
Note I wrote subsequently,
"If you insist, note Colin Mcgin and some 'Morris' in the early 1900s and the onus is on you to do the research and prove me wrong."
What are you talking about?
I have then given you the link as above.
Earlier I had researched and found only two articles relating to the "Science of Philosophy" [absurd] and I told you I am not bothered about them at all, since they are of no interest to me.
Since you insist, the two links are now presented and they are useless to the point.
If youare not bothered about the Science of Philosophy then why are you contrbuting to the thread?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 2:26 am
To argue a science of philosophy is to argue a philosophy of philosophy given science is rooted in philosophy as it is a way to define reality. With this in mind philosophy becomes a recursive loop.
Why are you so loopy?
What is most pragmatic is we have to get off tangent from any loop to face reality optimally.
To escape loops is to escape recursion. To escape recursion is to escape programming. To escape programming is to escape pragmatism.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 2:26 am
To argue a science of philosophy is to argue a philosophy of philosophy given science is rooted in philosophy as it is a way to define reality. With this in mind philosophy becomes a recursive loop.
Why are you so loopy?
What is most pragmatic is we have to get off tangent from any loop to face reality optimally.
To escape loops is to escape recursion. To escape recursion is to escape programming. To escape programming is to escape pragmatism.
Instead of being so loopy, note the alternative, i.e. a spiral.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 3:59 am
Why are you so loopy?
What is most pragmatic is we have to get off tangent from any loop to face reality optimally.
To escape loops is to escape recursion. To escape recursion is to escape programming. To escape programming is to escape pragmatism.
Instead of being so loopy, note the alternative, i.e. a spiral.
A spiral still necessitates a loop given the beginning of the spiral(point A) always aligns with the opposite of end of the spiral (point B). Point B is always where point A was thus necessitates a loop as a repetition.
To escape loops is to escape recursion. To escape recursion is to escape programming. To escape programming is to escape pragmatism.
Instead of being so loopy, note the alternative, i.e. a spiral.
A spiral still necessitates a loop given the beginning of the spiral(point A) always aligns with the opposite of end of the spiral (point B). Point B is always where point A was thus necessitates a loop as a repetition.
A spiral is never a loop [e.g. ring, rope loop, etc.]
You are cheating yourself.
A spiral is often increasing or decreasing.
In additional the spiral need not be perfectly uniform throughout.
Thus point B is not necessary where point A was which is a ridiculous point.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:12 am
Instead of being so loopy, note the alternative, i.e. a spiral.
A spiral still necessitates a loop given the beginning of the spiral(point A) always aligns with the opposite of end of the spiral (point B). Point B is always where point A was thus necessitates a loop as a repetition.
A spiral is never a loop [e.g. ring, rope loop, etc.]
You are cheating yourself.
A spiral is often increasing or decreasing.
In additional the spiral need not be perfectly uniform throughout.
Thus point B is not necessary where point A was which is a ridiculous point.
The center pole is the fixed point from which newer forms result as variations of said center point:
The spiral of A leading to B which leads to A then to C necessitates the recursion of the original phenomenon into a new form. A spiral is the repetition of one phenomenon into newer and newer forms.
This can be seen more accurately within the progression of numbers: 1 leads to 2, 2 leads to 1 which leads to 3, 3 leads to 1 which leads to 4, etc.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:30 pm
A spiral still necessitates a loop given the beginning of the spiral(point A) always aligns with the opposite of end of the spiral (point B). Point B is always where point A was thus necessitates a loop as a repetition.
A spiral is never a loop [e.g. ring, rope loop, etc.]
You are cheating yourself.
A spiral is often increasing or decreasing.
In additional the spiral need not be perfectly uniform throughout.
Thus point B is not necessary where point A was which is a ridiculous point.
The center pole is the fixed point from which newer forms result as variations of said center point:
The spiral of A leading to B which leads to A then to C necessitates the recursion of the original phenomenon into a new form. A spiral is the repetition of one phenomenon into newer and newer forms.
This can be seen more accurately within the progression of numbers: 1 leads to 2, 2 leads to 1 which leads to 3, 3 leads to 1 which leads to 4, etc.
Any small kid knows the above and that is not looping nor indicate a circle.
You are cheating yourself.
A spiral is often increasing or decreasing.
In additional the spiral need not be perfectly uniform throughout.
Thus point B is not necessary where point A was which is a ridiculous point.
The center pole is the fixed point from which newer forms result as variations of said center point:
The spiral of A leading to B which leads to A then to C necessitates the recursion of the original phenomenon into a new form. A spiral is the repetition of one phenomenon into newer and newer forms.
This can be seen more accurately within the progression of numbers: 1 leads to 2, 2 leads to 1 which leads to 3, 3 leads to 1 which leads to 4, etc.
Any small kid knows the above and that is not looping nor indicate a circle.
"1 leads to 2, 2 leads to 1 which leads to 3, 3 leads to 1 which leads to 4, etc." observes 1 as self referencing itself through newer and newer forms. The original point manifests itself through newer and newer forms.
The center pole is the fixed point from which newer forms result as variations of said center point:
The spiral of A leading to B which leads to A then to C necessitates the recursion of the original phenomenon into a new form. A spiral is the repetition of one phenomenon into newer and newer forms.
This can be seen more accurately within the progression of numbers: 1 leads to 2, 2 leads to 1 which leads to 3, 3 leads to 1 which leads to 4, etc.
Any small kid knows the above and that is not looping nor indicate a circle.
"1 leads to 2, 2 leads to 1 which leads to 3, 3 leads to 1 which leads to 4, etc." observes 1 as self referencing itself through newer and newer forms. The original point manifests itself through newer and newer forms.
So mother give birth to son and then son give birth to mother, then give birth to grandson?
