yeah.

what he said. >_> is this another of these amusing 'disable html in this post' moments?

Like I said on 4/26/07, i consider this discourse to be an exemplary form of addressing this topic.

But seriously, how do you stay "on topic" and what is the point? If I asked this question, can't I moderate?

Everyone is just going to ignore this topic anyways, so why not let if fr!@#in live?

If you don't like it, can't you just peruse another topic?

*shrug*
As absolutes are necessarily unattainable, all of philosophic exchange is necessarily the art of implementing gray matter.
Including that statement.
That's how I approach debate or argumentation, as I really don't bother to differentiate between the two.
For the sake of concession, I'll utilize argument.
*shrug*

I do not believe in the potential for win or loss in schemes of existence, much less within a competetive implementation of murk and mire. I do this because I garner amusement, not because I hope to accomplish anything meaningful or sound or self-qualifying.

I do not discount the viability of philosophy or logic within said scheme. I discount the implementers' ability to implement successfully. There is nothing wrong with being interested in the world and making banter of it, I find, however.

That being said, I will turn my gaze back a duo of pages.

Upon reading the last post in our discussion, I really do bore of repeating myself, but apparently I speak a 'language' of my own.
Probably a coded term communicating something to the effect of: "Hey, listen to that guy, wonder which dealer f*cked him over."
Either way:

My comment was precisely assaulting your treatment of one convention without respect to others. If you treat the conventions simultaneously you find the same things occuring in distinct, yet comparable, parralels.
Therefore the question of 'Is this really OK!?' is moot.
The people who relate in RL situations that are of the same age very likely could fail to do so in a net setting, for various hindering reasons, just as the 18 and the 50 year old very likely could fail to in real life.

They respect the function of the convention because conventions are malleable but not eradicable. The world being an amalgam of paradigms precludes utterly open-ended interaction. Paradigms and perceptive faculties being founded upon induction alone, the very premise of deduction being founded on induction, in fact, means that the cognitive world functions on preconceived and perishable notions. To ask otherwise is laughable.
*pauses to, once more, meekly chuckle*

It is an admirable thing, I suppose, to point out this place in the human race and question it - Most change is wrought of questions. However, I do not find the question to operate with the world's own ministry in mind. Essentially, when abstracted to the fact that it calls into question the preconceived notions of real life it is then merely calling into question prejudice in general.
Therefore, to call into question prejudice in one arena by speaking comparatively of an arena which has surmounted the prejudices of the former, while merely instituting its own, is besides the point of prejudice.
Asking if it's OK!? for two people within one convention to seperate themselves from each other based on that convention is flimsy. No matter which convention you are in, this occurs.
Question the prejudices, sure, that's fine.
All well and dandy to get people to think open-endedly.
Go for it.
I find your question to be weak and laughable, as I've said, however.

I suppose that was directed at me; if it was not, please ignore everything below this sentence.

[spoiler]When I said 'on-topic', I was not expressing my personal view on on-topicness. I was saying that based on the general rules and definitions of keeping on-topic that exist in the Mag. My personal view on this subject even differs a lot from the forum's one in a few aspects, but since we are all here, we have to respect the forum guidelines. Then, as for how do you stay on-topic and what is the point, I believe the best person to answer that would be a moderator or administrator. Btw, I have the feeling one of them will anser your post too, so it's okay.

Honey, I do not like this argument of yours and thus I am avoiding this topic.

I respect very much others' personalities. My answer back there was merely supposed to state that I'm impressed there are people here having a lot of fun with that cosmical debate. That's all. I didn't want to interrupt you guys, perhaps I only intended to easen the mood a little bit. Perhaps not, who knows?

Of course, you're still free to continue discussing. Do not mind me.[/spoiler]

Initially, I’d like to say that since you are choosing to respond to these posts, you must not significantly bore of repeating yourself. I will continue to function as though you are well aware that you can disengage at any time.


A-I don’t agree, I think the things themselves are different even if they are analogous across conventions.

B-I am questioning then and now the validity of the hindering reasons to be reliably maintained as ‘hindering’.

C-Why can’t a convention be eradicable?

D-Do you maintain this by induction alone. If so, why rely on it as opposed to anything that is not it?

E-Are you using induction or deduction to reach this conclusion why do you maintain your answer justified?

F-So you are admitting that your perspective that notions or conventions are preconceived or prejudicial is itself preconceived and prejudicial, by default leading to no perspective, a lack of knowledge or as a perspective not reliable to anyone including yourself?

G-I wasn’t asking otherwise. If anything I was appealing to these preconceived notions. Would you not agree?

H-‘flimsy’ is ‘flimsy’.

Having said that I again assert that I am not asking “if it's OK!? for two people within one convention to separate themselves from each other based on that conventionâ€

“A-I don’t agree, I think the things themselves are different even if they are analogous across conventions.â€

Sorry that it has taken me so long to respond.

[quote="N.L.Y."]“H-‘flimsy’ is ‘flimsy’.â€