Did God actually create Rabies?

[Myles]

The part I left out, to try to be nice, was me saying that shallow people generally have shallow conversation, and although the jokes take up little reading time, since i usually don't have to spend any time actually laughing, a comment about the lack of profundity of the questions herein is really based on either lack of interest or intellect, not a problem with the questions.

And a wise man could very well end up at the bottom of a well - perhaps there would be an earthquake and part of the wall around it could fall in while he was pulling up the bucket.

Lack of imagination as a route to clear thinking is an over-used avenue.

And that little pearl of an aphorism is a useful reminder for anyone to use their brain, not a static "from authority" bullshit reference



I suggest you take your own advice. You certainly have imagination but it is overactive. I answer a metaphor with a metaphor and suddenly you introduce earthquakes in an attempt to bolster your point. So there's this guy at the bpottom of a well when, for no obvious reason ,he is catapulted to the top of a mountain. He can see more than he could from the well which means that he is 122.5% more correct that he was before.

Think for yourself if you can; avoid aphorisms as they are not arguments which can be used in a rational debate, despite the importance you may attach to them.

 

[cole grey]

So there's this guy at the bpottom of a well when, for no obvious reason ,he is catapulted to the top of a mountain. He can see more than he could from the well which means that he is 122.5% more correct that he was before.

No.
The fool is on the mountaintop.
The point is that the wise man can find valuable thoughts anywhere, and the fool may miss them even when they are right in front of him.

And as a great western teacher once said - " I Pity the fool!!!"

Think for yourself if you can; avoid aphorisms as they are not arguments which can be used in a rational debate, despite the importance you may attach to them.

I can - but the point of a good aphorism and a wise man's thoughts is that they are often the same.

 

[lightgigantic]

Humans suffer more than animals?

its more that they screw up in grander style

 

[lightgigantic]

I think its interesting to see how "special" we consider ourselves.

Imagine if this was describing a human incident:

basically our specialty lies in justice (even an atheist likes to talk about things are not fair) - we can see how things are and we know how things should be (of course we do not all agree on how things should be). While it is arguable that some animals know what it means to do something wrong, they are not sufficiently advanced to participate (even as guilty parties) in issues of justice - they may be trained in various ways but they are not capable of repentance

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't think so.
"Loving" the body wil strenghten attachment to samsara.
"Hating" the body will also strenghten attachment to samsara.

true - hate is simply the other side of the coin of attachment

Most obviously, when hating something, hate nestles in the mind and spreads over the mind, skewing one's thoughts.
And when loving the wrong things, this ends up badly as well.

my point is that whether one hates or loves the body, it still remains as a temporary vehicle of identity of uncertain future

There is nothing wrong with risking a woman's life for the sake of pleasure or giving birth to children?
Pregnancy can lead to all sorts of health complications for the woman, so does childbirth.
And you think there is nothing wrong with that?
If yes, then there is also nothing wrong with taking drugs and killing for pleasure.

killing and the use of drugs also has its proper application - collapsing under a barrage of emotional issues as a result tends to indicate improper use however

It's the body that takes the toll, not the soul? So anything goes?

basically the body is a tool. And as with any tool, if you are ignorant of how to use it properly, hazards commonly arise.

 

[lightgigantic]

That's a valid enough argument. Well, certainly as valid as "I saw it on youtube", probably more so.

its strange how a person such as yourself who has such strong faith in the recorded empirical image can toss it aside (like say, live footage of how animals are treated in commercial enterprise) just to suit your argument.
Are issues about dawkins also invalid if they can evidenced as appearing on you tube too?
(gee, suddenly the whole process of determining truth from fiction has become so much easier)
:shrug:

 

[cole grey]

basically our specialty lies in justice (even an atheist likes to talk about things are not fair) - we can see how things are and we know how things should be (of course we do not all agree on how things should be).

our specialty has to be something other than understanding justice -

"Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness, Study Says"
http://www.primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html

 

[Myles]

No.
The fool is on the mountaintop.
The point is that the wise man can find valuable thoughts anywhere, and the fool may miss them even when they are right in front of him.

And as a great western teacher once said - " I Pity the fool!!!"


I can - but the point of a good aphorism and a wise man's thoughts is that they are often the same.

Find yourself an argument!

 

[cole grey]

Find yourself an argument!

My arguments :
1) aphorisms can be ok
2) asking crazy questions can sometimes be valuable
3) lack of creativity is not a valid means of achieving sensibility
4) consciousness quite possibly needs a varied environment to evolve in
5) monkeys have a sense of fairness

Anyway, please feel free to drop it, i.e. nevermind.

 

[SnakeLord]

its more that they screw up in grander style

So a man loses his balance while going for a ski down a mountain means he suffers more than animals? Make yourself clear, you stated humans suffer more than animals.

its strange how a person such as yourself who has such strong faith in the recorded empirical image can toss it aside (like say, live footage of how animals are treated in commercial enterprise) just to suit your argument.

I just asked you what you had to support your statement that humans suffer more than animals. I don't think some live footage of animals suffering quite qualifies. :bugeye:

If you do, Myles argument becomes all the more apparent.

 

[lightgigantic]

our specialty has to be something other than understanding justice -

"Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness, Study Says"
http://www.primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html

there was the last half of the post that you edited out

"While it is arguable that some animals know what it means to do something wrong, they are not sufficiently advanced to participate (even as guilty parties) in issues of justice - they may be trained in various ways but they are not capable of repentance"

 

[Myles]

My arguments :
1) aphorisms can be ok
2) asking crazy questions can sometimes be valuable
3) lack of creativity is not a valid means of achieving sensibility
4) consciousness quite possibly needs a varied environment to evolve in
5) monkeys have a sense of fairness

Anyway, please feel free to drop it, i.e. nevermind.

I think we should agree to drop it as you clearly do not know the difference between an assertion and an argument.

 

[cole grey]

I think we should agree to drop it as you clearly do not know the difference between an assertion and an argument.

I clearly do know the difference, although in a casual discussion like this, I assumed you were just using common english. If you want a formal "argument" instead of an assertion that aphorisms are ok doke, i.e. not all bad, you are either an idiot or an asshole, or maybe you actually wanted to talk about it.

*important question* Did you actually want to have a discussion defending against any of the assertions i made, when you asked for an "argument", or were you just being a pompous dick? Answer that TRUTHFULLY before anything else. In truth, are you or are you not full of shit?

If you want a formal debate instead of a discussion in which it is assumed that terms like "argument" may be taken in the common vernacular, ask for one - don't just assume.

 

[Myles]

I clearly do know the difference, although in a casual discussion like this, I assumed you were just using common english. If you want a formal "argument" instead of an assertion that aphorisms are ok doke, i.e. not all bad, you are either an idiot or an asshole, or maybe you actually wanted to talk about it.

*important question* Did you actually want to have a discussion defending against any of the assertions i made, when you asked for an "argument", or were you just being a pompous dick? Answer that TRUTHFULLY before anything else. In truth, are you or are you not full of shit?

If you want a formal debate instead of a discussion in which it is assumed that terms like "argument" may be taken in the common vernacular, ask for one - don't just assume.

You have resorted to ad homs because you have nothing better to offer. In a discussion forum such as this an Argument is what it says. If you think it means a row or a brawl, I suggest you are oput of your depth. All the name-calling in the world will not remedy that.

So, find an argument as opposed to making assertions if it is not beyond you to do so !

 

[cole grey]

there was the last half of the post that you edited out "While it is arguable that some animals know what it means to do something wrong, they are not sufficiently advanced to participate (even as guilty parties) in issues of justice - they may be trained in various ways but they are not capable of repentance"

I think it is probably true that an animal doesn't have enough processing ability, or perhaps the will, to keep what happened last week foremost in mind over the cares of the current moment, and participate in a complex form of justice, although I don't know that we know enough about how animals think or remember things to be conclusive.

But monkeys obviously have some sort of understanding of how things should and should not be - like "even an athiest" does.

(even an atheist likes to talk about things are not fair) - we can see how things are and we know how things should be

 

[cole grey]

You have resorted to ad homs because you have nothing better to offer. In a discussion forum such as this an Argument is what it says. If you think it means a row or a brawl, I suggest you are oput of your depth. All the name-calling in the world will not remedy that.

So, find an argument as opposed to making assertions if it is not beyond you to do so !

Your suggestion that sciforums is too deep for me is hilarious. I love it.

And you didn't answer my one all-important question -
" Did you actually want to have a discussion defending against any of the assertions i made, when you asked for an "argument", or were you just being a pompous dick? Answer that TRUTHFULLY before anything else. In truth, are you or are you not full of shit?"

Can you truthfully say that you actually wanted to have a real debate about any of the things i asserted to you previous to your demand for an argument? Yes or no.

 

[Pandaemoni]

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid--
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

--Monty Python's The Meaning of Life

 

[Myles]

Your suggestion that sciforums is too deep for me is hilarious. I love it.

And you didn't answer my one all-important question -
" Did you actually want to have a discussion defending against any of the assertions i made, when you asked for an "argument", or were you just being a pompous dick? Answer that TRUTHFULLY before anything else. In truth, are you or are you not full of shit?"

Can you truthfully say that you actually wanted to have a real debate about any of the things i asserted to you previous to your demand for an argument? Yes or no.

Yes, find me an argument instead of indulging in bluster

 

[cole grey]

[/COLOR]
Yes, find me an argument instead of indulging in bluster

for real, for real?
ok.

Some people have trouble finding valuable insight through the asking of strange and sometimes unanswerable questions. This is due to the fact that they are fools - by lack of intellect or lack of desire to use it.

Have fun with that one.

P.S. it is much better as an aphorism.

 

[Myles]

for real, for real?
ok.

Some people have trouble finding valuable insight through the asking of strange and sometimes unanswerable questions. This is due to the fact that they are fools - by lack of intellect or lack of desire to use it.

Have fun with that one.

P.S. it is much better as an aphorism.

That is still a statement, not an argument. Are you suggesting that, in your view, some people have trouble finding insight ...., or are you putting forward an argument that this is a fact which you can support with evidence ?

You also seem to be suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is a fool. Can you come down from your lofty heights and explain what you mean by a fool in terms other than your personal view.

Are you seriously suggesting that people who have started asking questions lack the desire to use their intellect to evaluate what they have found ? Surely anyone with no desire to use their intellect would not question things in the first place ?

You give me the impression that you are a prig who likes to tell others what a smart fellow you are, but who takes evasive action by hiding behind aphorisms and bon mots when challenged.

Now that you have told us how clever you are, try providing a few answers.