Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Bosco1 on January 31, 2023, 01:29:13 PM
-
"Existential Absurdity" is When a Person Claims a Given State of Affairs, e.g., "Law", as the Reason for Action/Inaction
Police; prosecutorial officers; judges; citizens, all think they can be determined in their actions/inactions "by law".
There is a basis in twentieth century existential ontological rationale regarding how a human act originates, which overthrows the common notion that "law" is determinative of human action and inaction.
Human action/inaction happens only on the basis of the nothing which is the intended, not yet realized, future, of a particular intended project of a particular human being. Hence, anyone making the claim that existing written "law" is an originative/determinative agent of his or her action/inaction, is mistaken.
-
This looks exactly like what you posted in the other thread that was locked. You may have tightened up the language a bit; it's a little less unintelligible (that's good.)
What is your quest? Are you here for a discussion, (which seems to have previously run its course), or are you hear to preach? In either case, this topic seems exhausted already.
-
https://youtu.be/g3QP2UsgybA (https://youtu.be/g3QP2UsgybA)
-
Police; prosecutorial officers; judges; citizens, all think they can be determined in their actions/inactions "by law".
*Citation Needed.
-
Sartre has his eye on you
(https://www.biography.com/.image/ar_16:9%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_1200/MTE1ODA0OTcxNzc4Mjc4OTI1/jean-paul-sartre-9472219-1-402.jpg)
-
Sartre has his eye on you
(https://www.biography.com/.image/ar_16:9%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_1200/MTE1ODA0OTcxNzc4Mjc4OTI1/jean-paul-sartre-9472219-1-402.jpg)
That would require an afterlife, which I'm pretty sure would invalidate most of his writing, so I kinda hope he does. Pretty chilly in Hel though.
-
That would require an afterlife, which I'm pretty sure would invalidate most of his writing, so I kinda hope he does. Pretty chilly in Hel though.
This will probably blow a certain person's mind but it looks like he had a change of heart at the end.
According to Pierre Victor (a.k.a. Benny Levy), who spent much of his time with the dying Sartre and interviewed him on several of his views, Sartre had a drastic change of mind about the existence of god and started gravitating toward Messianic Judaism. This is Sartre's before-death profession, according to Pierre Victor: "I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to god."[90] Simone de Beauvoir later revealed her anger at his change of mind by stating, "How should one explain this senile act of a turncoat? All my friends, all the Sartreans, and the editorial team of Les Temps Modernes supported me in my consternation."
-
I'm told that's common when, at the edge of the dark, you notice the abyss looking back.
-
Besides the joke had more to do with his eyes. He's got that Marty Feldman thing going.
-
This looks exactly like what you posted in the other thread that was locked. You may have tightened up the language a bit; it's a little less unintelligible (that's good.)
What is your quest? Are you here for a discussion, (which seems to have previously run its course), or are you hear to preach? In either case, this topic seems exhausted already.
I am without excuse or justification for my being present! Here I am introducing a new phrase, i.e., "existential absurdity". I simply enjoy writing responces. It is actually an infinitely rich subject and nowhere near exhaustion; if people here can be kind and open-minded test subjects...
-
Test subjects :O
-
I am without excuse or justification for my being present! Here I am introducing a new phrase, i.e., "existential absurdity". I simply enjoy writing responces. It is actually an infinitely rich subject and nowhere near exhaustion; if people here can be kind and open-minded test subjects...
Now I can't tell if you are a bot or an idiot. Most bots can spell correctly, but most idiots don't try to use words they don't how to define.
вы русский
你来自中国吗
-
So what's your response to Sartre apparently having a change of heart before he died?
If you're as you have indicated on this forum and many others a follower of Sartre shouldn't you follow Sartre?
-
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MVLFO6wd5Qg/TFn8SH-KAjI/AAAAAAAABBY/OO_VEKm4C2A/s400/rabbit_pancake.gif)
-
So what's your response to Sartre apparently having a change of heart before he died?
If you're as you have indicated on this forum and many others a follower of Sartre shouldn't you follow Sartre?
Sartre was absolutely free to express his feeling regarding a creator! Which does not undo his theory of the originative mode of human action.
If you saw another treatise of mine which a member posted on the locked thread, I speak of a creator...
-
So you're just picking and choosing parts that you like.
-
So you're just picking and choosing parts that you like.
I have not studied everything Sartre ever wrote! ''Being and Nothingness''; ''Search for a Method"; "The Imagination" are the few texts which I have long studied. What of Sartre have you perused?
-
Took enough of a look to know it was discredited decades ago. If it really ever had any credit that is.
-
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MVLFO6wd5Qg/TFn8SH-KAjI/AAAAAAAABBY/OO_VEKm4C2A/s400/rabbit_pancake.gif)
The original tractor picture is more of a reconstructive indication of Sartre's true desires.
-
Took enough of a look to know it was discredited decades ago. If it really ever had any credit that is.
Oh, really!? Be specific now. Who discredited B&N!? Where?
-
I suggest you change the subject because this is going nowhere again.
You're obviously not convincing anyone here.
No you're not making headway with anyone.
-
Oh, really!? Be specific now. Who discredited B&N!? Where?
Why would I bother? You're only here to preach not listen. You haven't listen to a single person yet on any other forum. Why are you here?
Seriously, why are you here?
-
Police; prosecutorial officers; judges; citizens, all think they can be determined in their actions/inactions "by law".
I'm with dogmush - I don't think this premise is true at all.
-
The original tractor picture is more of a reconstructive indication of Sartre's true desires.
:laugh: I almost went with that one.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fherohog.com%2Fimages%2Fposters%2Frespect.jpg&hash=1d0afb389d6f00e38ef4fc020d01ac1007ae9200)
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fherohog.com%2Fimages%2Fposters%2Ftrolls2.jpg&hash=acc0449948138037c7452159a408c0f85090499d)
-
(https://imgs.search.brave.com/LcosUOJoa6qEnIe4T-_IGXAuBScG7bmvAlWBjHwWqcE/rs:fit:500:418:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9waWNz/Lm1lLm1lL29oLXNo/dXQtdXAtc2FydHJl/LTExMDYwOTcxLnBu/Zw)
-
Why would I bother? You're only here to preach not listen. You haven't listen to a single person yet on any other forum. Why are you here?
Seriously, why are you here?
You've blindly claimed Sartre is discredited and cannot back that foolish claim up with facts. That is plain hot air.
You concentrate only on my person and never never ever on my position. You are not at all competent.
I am here to interact with other persons regarding the existential absurdity of law. But all you all are capable of is attacking my person, which clearly demonstrates your profound ignorance and barbarity!
-
I didn't want to do this, but...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fherohog.com%2Fimages%2FHumor%2Fzardoz.jpg&hash=5ac3feb20c5f78887c8dc394afe100458feeb842)
-
I am here to interact with other persons......
Persons or Test Subjects?
-
(https://www.ghostofthedoll.co.uk/retromusings/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Bosco-1940-Life-4-Apr-1-004.jpg)
-
Readers of the novel (Don Quixote, by Cervantes --230RN ) do not laugh with Don Quixote, but rather at him. Unlike the title character, readers are acutely aware that Don Quixote, who is committed to enacting the imagined into real life, has in turn, lost complete touch with reality. Indeed, so famous are scenes of his clashes with these imagined giants, that from this novel grew the popular expression, “tilting at windmills.” A direct allusion to the S (satirical --230RN) character and his relentless quest to defeat the giant windmills, to tilt at windmills means to either attack imaginary or perceive imaginary enemies.
(Bolding mine)
https://spectator.org/tilting-at-windmills-or-a-warning-for-our-times/
(https://www.pablopicasso.org/images/paintings/don-quixote.jpg)
Don Quixote de la Mancha Pablo, 1955
Good luck with your windmills.
Terry, 230RN
Pic credit in properties.
-
Sartre was absolutely free to express his feeling regarding a creator! Which does not undo his theory of the originative mode of human action.
If you saw another treatise of mine which a member posted on the locked thread, I speak of a creator...
Anyone know a Calvinist? I'm going to need to tag them in here.
-
I'm with dogmush - I don't think this premise is true at all.
Bosco has proven to be an abysmal communicator, comically overstates his case, and has repeatedly demonstrated a weak and flawed understanding of what he's claiming deep insight into, but let's steelman Bosco's position for a moment.
It is true that people regularly outsource their decision making to one degree or another through subordinating their own will to an external authority. Some do so based on religion, or a political ideology, or a military hierarchy. He is correct that the people tasked with judging and enforcing the law are going to sometimes - maybe even regularly - make decisions based not on their own careful analysis, but based on the particular rulesets they've chosen to subject themselves to. In fact, we are such creatures of habit that one of the few times we are forced to consciously work through the ethics of a particular decision are when multiple rulesets are in conflict and they don't have an ingrained, pre-calculated response to a situation.
Granted, the above is all solidly within "well, obviously" territory, and is no great insight, but if you squint just right you can sort of work his new revelation into making the above argument.
-
You've blindly claimed Sartre is discredited and cannot back that foolish claim up with facts. That is plain hot air.
Says the Hot Air Balloon Commander
-
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/x383/WLJohnson1/Forum%20stuff/.highres/trollkid.jpg)
-
Note the underlined
He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature despite attempting to refuse it, saying that he always declined official honors and that "a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution
So why don't you follow Sartre?
-
We're trying to get you to change the subject to something other than this pointless preaching into the abyss
But you won't.
-
{snip}
It is true that people regularly outsource their decision making to one degree or another through subordinating their own will to an external authority. Some do so based on religion, or a political ideology, or a military hierarchy. He is correct that the people tasked with judging and enforcing the law are going to sometimes - maybe even regularly - make decisions based not on their own careful analysis, but based on the particular rulesets they've chosen to subject themselves to. In fact, we are such creatures of habit that one of the few times we are forced to consciously work through the ethics of a particular decision are when multiple rulesets are in conflict and they don't have an ingrained, pre-calculated response to a situation.
{snip}
This I believe is why there is so much polarization in US politics today. People want to identify with one side or the other in order to simplify the decision-making process on a particular topic. This is also why it is so difficult for most people to accept a point of view not their own. It makes sense from an energy-saving aspect that once a person decides their stance on a particular topic, 2A for example, that they not reevaluate every time it comes up. I'd like to think most people would reevaluate if more information becomes available, but in my experience, this isn't the case.
-
This I believe is why there is so much polarization in US politics today. People want to identify with one side or the other in order to simplify the decision-making process on a particular topic. This is also why it is so difficult for most people to accept a point of view not their own. It makes sense from an energy-saving aspect that once a person decides their stance on a particular topic, 2A for example, that they not reevaluate every time it comes up. I'd like to think most people would reevaluate if more information becomes available, but in my experience, this isn't the case.
I’m sure that comes into it, but I think the bigger factor is that we don’t want the people around us to think we’re “going soft,” or letting the side down, or turning into “one of those guys.” It’s also possible to be so angry with, or disgusted by, the other side that we can’t stand to admit they’re right about just this one thing. I think the latter motivation might be even stronger if it’s specifically Trump or Obama or Hillary Clinton that’s right. (OK, I’m kidding. Clinton would never be right about anything.)
-
I’m sure that comes into it, but I think the bigger factor is that we don’t want the people around us to think we’re “going soft,” or letting the side down, or turning into “one of those guys.” It’s also possible to be so angry with, or disgusted by, the other side that we can’t stand to admit they’re right about just this one thing. I think the latter motivation might be even stronger if it’s specifically Trump or Obama or Hillary Clinton that’s right. (OK, I’m kidding. Clinton would never be right about anything.)
That's interesting. I agree that those are motivations for many people and that all of us are capable of feeling that way. But I don't see them as a bigger factor. Probably because I'm less concerned with any "image" others have of me. Perhaps less concerned than I should be . . . . although I do draw the line at going out in sweats.
-
Bosco has proven to be an abysmal communicator, comically overstates his case, and has repeatedly demonstrated a weak and flawed understanding of what he's claiming deep insight into, but let's steelman Bosco's position for a moment.
It is true that people regularly outsource their decision making to one degree or another through subordinating their own will to an external authority. Some do so based on religion, or a political ideology, or a military hierarchy. He is correct that the people tasked with judging and enforcing the law are going to sometimes - maybe even regularly - make decisions based not on their own careful analysis, but based on the particular rulesets they've chosen to subject themselves to. In fact, we are such creatures of habit that one of the few times we are forced to consciously work through the ethics of a particular decision are when multiple rulesets are in conflict and they don't have an ingrained, pre-calculated response to a situation.
Granted, the above is all solidly within "well, obviously" territory, and is no great insight, but if you squint just right you can sort of work his new revelation into making the above argument.
I argue that while these systems of authority influence behavior, behavior is not originated from them. They are specifications that one is expected to adhere to, compliance is typically enforced by coercion, but the decision to follow or not follow them still lies within the free will of the individual. It is still their choice. I'll grant that most people at some point (myself included) decide to comply with these systems by default because it's easier, smoother, and often in their self interest even absent coercion - and while it might appear that their actions are originating from said authority, they are actually freely and voluntarily choosing to follow that ruleset.
I'm a pretty strong "internal locus of control" guy, so my perspective is tinted by that. I'm generally happy to follow laws, but am acutely aware that I'm choosing to do so and that I can break said laws if I judge the risk and consequences to be more tolerable than compliance.
-
He rode a blazing saddle
He wore a shining star
His job, to offer battle
To bad men near and far
He conquered fear and he conquered hate
He turned our night into day
He made his blazing saddle
A torch to light the way
When outlaws rule the West
And fear filled the land
A cry went up for a man with guts
To take the West in hand
They needed a man who was brave and true
With justice for all as his aim
Then out of the sun rode a man with a gun
And Bart was his name, yes, Bart was his name
He rode a blazing saddle
He wore a shining star
His job, to offer battle
To bad men near and far
He conquered fear and he conquered hate
He turned our night into day
He made his blazing saddle
A torch to light the way
Brad
-
I argue that while these systems of authority influence behavior, behavior is not originated from them. They are specifications that one is expected to adhere to, compliance is typically enforced by coercion, but the decision to follow or not follow them still lies within the free will of the individual. It is still their choice. I'll grant that most people at some point (myself included) decide to comply with these systems by default because it's easier, smoother, and often in their self interest even absent coercion - and while it might appear that their actions are originating from said authority, they are actually freely and voluntarily choosing to follow that ruleset.
I'm a pretty strong "internal locus of control" guy, so my perspective is tinted by that. I'm generally happy to follow laws, but am acutely aware that I'm choosing to do so and that I can break said laws if I judge the risk and consequences to be more tolerable than compliance.
I don't disagree, but it is the "compl[iance] by default" that might make it appear to sometimes be the genesis of an action. I'd also note that not everyone has the same internalized locus of control as you. Locus of control was something I remember my dad talking a lot about when I was a kid. Realistically, many people do simply let others or outside ideologies do a large part of their thinking for them.
Also, if someone is in a position where they have to do something unpleasant or confrontational (pronouncing or executing punishment, for instance) being able to claim that one's decision is made strictly in accordance to a higher authority might well be a way to defer responsibility either to one's own conscience or when speaking to an aggrieved party. If Bosco were to hear such justifications and take them literally it might explain how he has gotten to where he is.
-
Bosco has proven to be an abysmal communicator, comically overstates his case, and has repeatedly demonstrated a weak and flawed understanding of what he's claiming deep insight into, but let's steelman Bosco's position for a moment.
It is true that people regularly outsource their decision making to one degree or another through subordinating their own will to an external authority. Some do so based on religion, or a political ideology, or a military hierarchy. He is correct that the people tasked with judging and enforcing the law are going to sometimes - maybe even regularly - make decisions based not on their own careful analysis, but based on the particular rulesets they've chosen to subject themselves to. In fact, we are such creatures of habit that one of the few times we are forced to consciously work through the ethics of a particular decision are when multiple rulesets are in conflict and they don't have an ingrained, pre-calculated response to a situation.
Granted, the above is all solidly within "well, obviously" territory, and is no great insight, but if you squint just right you can sort of work his new revelation into making the above argument.
Pure malarky in your first paragraph! I am a fabulously fantastic writer; I am fairly/accurately stating my case; I possess an absolutely excellent comprehension of Sartre's theory of freedom. You insultingly denigrate me and, falsely set yourself up as an authority on Sartre, incompetantly putting me down. But your steelman position is cool...
-
Pure malarky in your first paragraph! I am a fabulously fantastic writer;
Perhaps you're trolling us after all. You are an abysmal writer. The only person on any of the forums you post on, or anywhere in the world, actually, that thinks you are a good writer, is you. You continually create pots of polysyllabic alphabet soup that very inefficiently (don't) get your points across.
It's what I would expect from someone who took four decades to get a four year degree from a third rate university. Come down off your high horse. The legs are wobbly.
-
Pure malarky in your first paragraph! I am a fabulously fantastic writer; I am fairly/accurately stating my case;
I must disagree with this - communication involves conveying information from one party to the next. If you consistently have difficultly communicating ideas in writing to other people, then by definition you are not good at written communication.
-
I am a fabulously fantastic writer
:rofl: :rofl:
Assertion made, and negated, in a single sentence.
Brad
-
I must disagree with this - communication involves conveying information from one party to the next. If you consistently have difficultly communicating ideas in writing to other people, then by definition you are not good at written communication.
I have no difficulty writing the ideas I am positing. I am simply making the error of thinking the reader educated enough to follow/comprehend existentialist constructs. I am positing excellently; my readers are merely not toughminded enough to follow.
-
I have no difficulty writing the ideas I am positing. I am simply making the error of thinking the reader educated indoctrinated enough to follow/comprehend existentialist constructs. I am positing excellently poorly; my readers are merely not toughminded indoctrinated enough to follow.
FIFY
-
I have no difficulty writing the ideas I am positing. I am simply making the error of thinking the reader educated enough to follow/comprehend existentialist constructs. I am positing excellently; my readers are merely not toughminded enough to follow.
If your audience can't understand you, you're not communicating effectively.
-
... I am a fabulously fantastic writer; I am fairly/accurately stating my case...
Duane, I hate to be the one to have to tell you this. Your writing is neither fabulous nor fantastic. You may be a positively swell fellow but out of sympathy for all us test subjects take the time to study and incorporate (even just a little bit of) Strunk & White and Zinsser.
Please.
-
You're confusing, like so many nowadays, indoctrinated with education.
-
Pure malarky in your first paragraph! I am a fabulously fantastic writer;
(https://media.tenor.com/Wsjcowm9ucMAAAAC/jim-halpert-nope.gif)
I am fairly/accurately stating my case;
(https://media.tenor.com/wlzaJuwJuu8AAAAC/sunny-frank.gif)
I possess an absolutely excellent comprehension of Sartre's theory of freedom.
(https://media.tenor.com/kaTQDMl29dgAAAAC/donald-trump-nope.gif)
You insultingly denigrate me
(https://media.tenor.com/lUa20gCxERoAAAAC/seems-legit.gif)
But your steelman position is cool...
Build on it, then. What did I get wrong? How can it be improved?
-
Mark Twain: “Don’t use a five dollar word when a fifty cent one will do. ”
five-dollar word
Unnecessarily complicated or pretentious words that smug aholes use to assert their perceived intellectual "superiority."
Brad: "Frankly, the film's quality was substandard at best, leading to an inherent dissociation and disconnect to myself as a paying audience member. It was almost insolent in its pandering. Thus, I can only describe the experience in viewing the film as one of a cataclysmic nature."
Tina: "So, you're saying you didn't like the film. What's with all the five-dollar words?"
Brad: "That statement is a gross oversimplification of my feelings regarding what should be a work of art. I'm merely trying to open and nurture a dialog , so that we may enjoy eachother's company in the spirit of natural, healthy debate."
Tine: "You're just trying to impress me and get in my pants, aren't you? Ain't happening."
Brad: "Well... *expletive deleted*it."
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=five-dollar%20word
Term fits your style of writing very well
Note the underlined. Sound familiar anyone?
-
Reminds me of the famous Dr. Sheldon Cooper who said "you know me to be a very smart man. Don't you think if I were wrong, I'd know it?"
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRatMPUAhU4
-
We’ve got a past good discussion here you might be interested in
https://tinyurl.com/mr438787
-
Think we're missing the larger question here.
What are you doing in England?
-
taH pagh taHbe
-
taH pagh taHbe
:facepalm:
-
:facepalm:
Romulan
-
The idea that human action and inaction originates from a person's intended future and particular projects, rather than from external sources such as laws, is a central tenet of Sartre's existentialist philosophy. Sartre argues that individuals have complete freedom and responsibility for their actions, and that external factors such as laws and societal norms do not determine behavior. Instead, individuals create their own meaning and purpose through their projects and the choices they make.
However, this view has been criticized by some as ignoring the influence of objective, external factors in shaping human behavior. Some argue that laws and societal norms play a significant role in determining human actions and that individuals are not always completely free to act as they choose.
The notion of "existential absurdity" refers to the feeling of meaningless and purposelessness that arises from the realization of the freedom and responsibility of human existence. According to Sartre, individuals must embrace their freedom and create their own meaning, despite the inherent lack of objective purpose in existence.
Overall, the idea that human action originates from a person's intended future and projects, and the concept of existential absurdity, are key components of Sartre's existentialist philosophy. However, they continue to be debated and discussed within the philosophical community.
-
The idea that human action and inaction originates from a person's intended future and particular projects, rather than from external sources such as laws, is a central tenet of Sartre's existentialist philosophy. Sartre argues that individuals have complete freedom and responsibility for their actions, and that external factors such as laws and societal norms do not determine behavior. Instead, individuals create their own meaning and purpose through their projects and the choices they make.
However, this view has been criticized by some as ignoring the influence of objective, external factors in shaping human behavior. Some argue that laws and societal norms play a significant role in determining human actions and that individuals are not always completely free to act as they choose.
The notion of "existential absurdity" refers to the feeling of meaningless and purposelessness that arises from the realization of the freedom and responsibility of human existence. According to Sartre, individuals must embrace their freedom and create their own meaning, despite the inherent lack of objective purpose in existence.
Overall, the idea that human action originates from a person's intended future and projects, and the concept of existential absurdity, are key components of Sartre's existentialist philosophy. However, they continue to be debated and discussed within the philosophical community.
.
He's making progress with dogmush!
-
"I have no difficulty writing the ideas I am positing. I am simply making the error of thinking the reader educated enough to follow/comprehend existentialist constructs. I am positing excellently; my readers are merely not toughminded enough to follow."
If you recognize your error and admit of the futility of trying to make us follow or accept your thinking, why do you keep doing it? Einstein supposedly said, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and getting the the same results." (Or the equivalent sentiment.)
Are you, therefore, insane, according to Einstein's notion? Or does the concept of insanity merely parallel "law" according to your insights?
I can appreciate your missionary zeal. As Jesus said, "Follow me and I will make you a fisher of men." Mat 4:19
-
A) Bot that someone let loose on the world.
B) Troll with way way way too much time on their hands
C) Crazy old hippie trying to give their empty life meaning by trying to convert people to the one and only faith and any push back forces him to stare more and more into an empty abyss.
D) Someone who is really this dense
-
Way back in my mind I still harbor the persistent idea he's a master prankster. A bit bonkers for carrying it this far, but on the other hand, the farther he can carry it, the funnier it is to him.
I was also going to post about Sheldon Cooper's "I'm so smart if I were wrong I'd know it." I also remember them wanting to get into that building and along come two girl scouts (or whatever) who ran a finger up and down the call buttons next to the front door. The funniest part was that they were scrambling in a panic to get in before the door closed, when all they had to do was run their own finger up and down the call buttons if it closed on them. Way duh.
Then the topper of the sketch was when object of their visit demanded to know how they got in and Leonard's response was, "Oh, we're scientists."
Terry
-
Way back in my mind I still harbor the persistent idea he's a master prankster. A bit bonkers for carrying it this far, but on the other hand, the farther he can carry it, the funnier it is to him.
That would fall under B
-
That would fall under B
Yes, agreeing and amplifying.
dogmush noted,
"However, this view has been criticized by some as ignoring the influence of objective, external factors in shaping human behavior. Some argue that laws and societal norms play a significant role in determining human actions and that individuals are not always completely free to act as they choose."
(Bolding mine.)
Isn't that also called "living in an ivory tower?"
Terry, 230RN
-
Yes, agreeing and amplifying.
dogmush noted,
"However, this view has been criticized by some as ignoring the influence of objective, external factors in shaping human behavior. Some argue that laws and societal norms play a significant role in determining human actions and that individuals are not always completely free to act as they choose."
(Bolding mine.)
Isn't that also called "living in an ivory tower?"
Terry, 230RN
Also known as, "not heeding Dr. Sowell."
-
How long do I have to wait for him to come back before I can declare my writing ontologically superior to his?
-
Maybe, as has been suggested, his head finally exploded. But I did not actually expect an answer from him on my Einstein question since he's already described one of my posts as pure nonsense.
I'm just a kind of hard-wired nuts and bolts sort of guy, as in 1/4-20 and 6-32, but I can still understand the pure theory of screwing.
Terry, 230RN
-
Maybe, as has been suggested, his head finally exploded. But I did not actually expect an answer from him on my Einstein question since he's already described one of my posts as pure nonsense.
I'm just a kind of hard-wired nuts and bolts sort of guy, as in 1/4-20 and 6-32, but I can still understand the pure theory of screwing.
Terry, 230RN
I'll give you the 1/4-20, but 6-32's are the worst. Too much engagement for the diameter - I break those taps by looking at them wrong!
-
If you think 6-32 is bad, try 2-56 for delicacy. For all, drill a larger tap hole, use puh-lenty of lube, use only two fingers on the tap handle, use only a small twist to the tap for each cut, and for G-d's sake back out to clear chips frequently. Oh, and your tap had better be 100% coaxial with the tap hole. If the reduction of pull strength is too much bbecause of the larger tap hole, try redesigning for a larger screw like 3-48 or 4-40. Actually, on things that small, pull strength is not usually all that important... the purpose is usually more of a position-keeping deal than a Paul Bunyan brute force fastening.
Is this too down to earth and realistic and practical for this thread? Or should I "ignore the influence of objective, external factors in shaping human behavior" and let you go on ontologically breaking taps?
Do the other readers of this thread even care about how to avoid breaking taps?
:lol:
Terry, 230RN
-
And how quickly we return to signature via content and context. =D
-
This seems appropriate at this point in the thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbkQk_1OV9Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbkQk_1OV9Y)
-
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DescriptiveMindlessAntipodesgreenparakeet-size_restricted.gif)
-
It's not dead, it's resting.
-
How long do I have to wait for him to come back before I can declare my writing ontologically superior to his?
You can summon him by saying "ontologically superior" while facing each of the four directions. That aways works.
-
This seems appropriate at this point in the thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbkQk_1OV9Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbkQk_1OV9Y)
Best "Taps" I ever heard.
Maybe there's a Sartrean "Day of Rest," like our Sundays, and he's taking it off.
"Philosophy" means "Love of Wisdom," and he realizes he actually hates wisdom?
Or maybe this logic got to him:
Bosco1 said, "I have no difficulty writing the ideas I am positing. I am simply making the error of thinking the reader educated enough to follow/comprehend existentialist constructs. I am positing excellently; my readers are merely not toughminded enough to follow."
If you recognize your error and admit of the futility of trying to make us follow or accept your thinking, why do you keep doing it? Einstein supposedly said, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and getting the the same results." (Or the equivalent sentiment.)
Are you, therefore, insane, according to Einstein's notion? Or does the concept of insanity merely parallel "law" according to your insights?
I can appreciate your missionary zeal. As Jesus said, "Follow me and I will make you a fisher of men." Mat 4:19
I wouldn't mind taking the credit for his departure. =D
As a "thank you," you can make a donation to your favorite charity in my name. :rofl:
Terry, 230RN
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgpWyB56KdI
-
^
Well, if he does come back, whoever said his name three times is to blame, not me. ;)