The Lounge

The real life drama forum. Discuss your relationships or get to know the other members here.
User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 7th, '08, 21:49

@G'boy: Sweetie, your words are very dramatic. But let's stick to the facts. What happened next? :P

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 7th, '08, 21:51

hi adri.....whatcha doing......

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 7th, '08, 22:12

Jscorpio wrote:@G'boy: Sweetie, your words are very dramatic. But let's stick to the facts. What happened next? :P
Adri gf, "you know who" threw me up against the wall of the elevator. It's exactly what I wanted. He took me, by force. Mmhmm, that's right gf. He reached inside my [censor]. ripped off my briefs, grabbed my [censor], lifted me. I unclasped his belt. I snapped open his Levi's. His [censor] was hot to the touch. [censor.... censor.... censor......]

Ah, it was like holding something alive, like a rock simmering under the sun. LOLLOL&LOL!

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 7th, '08, 22:22

what the....a rock is not alive bro.....

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 7th, '08, 22:29

Moe tard tard bf, All matter is energy. Or did you skip the class on quantum physics? Forty-one, forty, thirty-nine. That's right bf, we were free falling through space, unchained from gravity.
I yanked his Levi's down and [ censor .... censor .... censor .....] LOLLOL&LOL!!!

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 7th, '08, 22:37

Don't you think most civillised people would consider your behaviour sluttish? Would you characterise your problem as nymphomania? :P

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 7th, '08, 22:39

slowmoe wrote:hi adri.....whatcha doing......
Sipping a glass of red at the moment.

A dinner party tomorrow evening. What should I wear?

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 7th, '08, 22:45

Jscorpio wrote:Don't you think most civillised people would consider your behaviour sluttish? Would you characterise your problem as nymphomania? :P
Talk to the hand, gf. Talk to the hand. Oh my god, "you know who" just rang my cellie. Be right back gf. Mwah!

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 7th, '08, 22:51

@adri......wear something comfy....who ya date to the party..... @gboy.....ask you know who about the blue box....lol......

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 7th, '08, 23:03

G'boy wrote:Britishk gf, to answer your email.... "Artificial stupidity" would then be another name for counterfactuals, which are of primary importance to rational thought. If you want to know how known facts support (or not) this or that proposition, you have to first pretend that you don't know those facts, in order that you can see the difference that they make. SNAPSNAP!
I don't think that Russell had counterfactuals in mind. And, anyway, people who propose counterfactuals are not pretending anything, any more than people who make <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> arguments are pretending they don't know something. In the case of the <i>reductio</i> they are supposing that something is not true in order to show that it is true. Philosophers who practice "artificial stupidity" claim, at least, to believe absurdities. Like, nothing is coloured, or there are no sounds in uninhabited forests, or they don't know they have two ears. You know the sort of thing.

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 7th, '08, 23:43

Britishk wrote: Philosophers who practice "artificial stupidity" claim, at least, to believe absurdities.
I carnt think of any that do, mate.. Philosophers are not particularly interested in what other philosophers can persuade themselves to believe, they are interested in the arguments. Claims about personal beliefs are largely peripheral and seldom made.

The practice of hyperbolic doubt is not in fact an attempt to affect one's <i>beliefs</i> at all. It is an examination of the structure of justification behind the "doubted" assertions (and usually an attempt to provide such a structure). And as G'boy suggested, this process of thought is well framed in terms of counterfactuals: "What if X <i>wasn't</i> true? What difference would there be for our experience?"

I'm afraid that your usually excellent posts are sometimes let down (as I see it) by an extremely uncharitable reading of Berkeley and idealism in general. Berkeley was not inclined to doubt the existence of tables and chairs but sought to underpin our natural faith in their existence with philosophical justification. Blaming Berkeley for asking us to believe ridiculous things is <i>precisely contrary</i> to his meaning, whether you agree with his arguments or not, and does an intelligent thinker a great disservice..

As to Peirce telling us we "should" not doubt various things, what does he mean?? Does he mean we should not examine the epistemic underpinnings of common belief?? Why not?? Is he telling us what we should and shouldn't believe?? On what basis does he direct us?? Do we even have voluntary control over our beliefs such that we may listen to Peirce and decide, on his advice, not to doubt X, Y or Z??

I think it very important to distinguish between a set of beliefs, which will be determined by pragmatic and irrational factors aswell as rational arguments, and the philosophical justifications possible for them..

An example is Hume's discovery and examination of induction. He found he could find no "rational" (i.e. deductive) justification for induced conclusions but also that he could not help believing them in any case. At no point did he suggest we "should" not believe them..

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 7th, '08, 23:47

slowmoe wrote:@adri......wear something comfy....who ya date to the party..... @gboy.....ask you know who about the blue box....lol......
No date..

What colour of lipstick?

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 8th, '08, 00:02

no date...really....cool.....dont know much about lipstick...i dont wear them....lol....ask gboy....hey...ya going to kick it with us on memorial right......would love to see again....

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 8th, '08, 00:51

The night fell beautifully here, mes amis.
Jscorpio wrote: What should I wear? What colour of lipstick?
An elegant black evening gown. And red, of course. *Wink

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 8th, '08, 00:56

It would have to be red, wouldn't it??

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 8th, '08, 01:00

That was what she was wearing the first time I saw her: red lipstick, Mmm.... *Wink

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 8th, '08, 01:19

I saw you staring at her.. Do you like what you see??

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 8th, '08, 01:23

bro....whos her....i'm lost.....

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 8th, '08, 01:28

slowmoe wrote:bro....whos her....i'm lost.....
Sssh.....

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 8th, '08, 01:30

seriously bro....i dont get the game.....what ya playing.....

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 8th, '08, 01:39

Jscorpio wrote:I saw you staring at her.. Do you like what you see??
Mmm.... Yes. Those lips.... so beautiful. It's our little secret.

Did you ever wonder why women wear lipstick?

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 8th, '08, 01:47

Could it be...
because when we're in a state of excitement our lips redden to signal subconsciously to our partner that we are ready.. You have very luscious lips, did you know that?? I'll bet you're not even wearing lipstick right now, are you??

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 8th, '08, 01:52

:O Adri gf!! Go gf! Go gf! :lol

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 8th, '08, 02:01

Jscorpio wrote:Could it be...
because when we're in a state of excitement our lips redden to signal subconsciously to our partner that we are ready.. You have very luscious lips, did you know that?? I'll bet you're not even wearing lipstick right now, are you??
You don't say. You like the sight of yourself like that, don't you? I thought so. *Wink

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 8th, '08, 02:11

hey adri...if you like red lipstick....wear it....hella look sexy on ya.....so are meeting up in dc.....

User avatar
EniramNocer
Posts: 17
Joined: May 7th, '08, 02:25
Location: Beaufort, SC USA
Contact:

Post by EniramNocer » May 8th, '08, 02:13

slowmoe wrote:are there hot chicks where you at.....
You better believe it. A lot of rich white chicks and thick dark skinned ones.

The only problem you will find with the white ones is that their rich parents might be racist. Last 3 white girls I dated there parents didn't like it that their daughter was dating a Mexican.

*shrugs* Oh well. Plenty of fish in the sea, that's fo sho!

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 8th, '08, 02:19

slowmoe wrote:hey adri...if you like red lipstick....wear it....hella look sexy on ya.....so are meeting up in dc.....
Yes, bf. Adri's going and so all the other girls in the group. Anyways bf, you better wire some money over so that I can book your ticket on time for the discount, ok?

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 8th, '08, 02:59

@Slowmoe: I am going.. Dani (my flatmate) will also be joining us.. She thinks you're cute.. :-)

User avatar
zyrene
Posts: 248
Joined: Mar 31st, '08, 11:38

Post by zyrene » May 8th, '08, 03:15

slowmoe wrote:@zyrene.....i've been friends with gboy and halfass and her buddies for hella long.... were just messing around in the beginning..... used to live in eastcoast...now in westcoast for school.....so are you arranged marriage or not.....
what the... you guyz fooled me all this time??!!! :D nope i'm not arranged marriage.. that was just part of the bet... :D

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 8th, '08, 03:29

@adri....why ya passing me on to your roomie....tell her thanks but no thanks..... @zyrene....your slick...your the man.....where you been.....hey... is 5'7 173cm.... @enriman....not into rich girl.....wanna normal sweet girl.....money aint everything.....dont like racist either.....

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 8th, '08, 04:06

slowmoe wrote:@adri....why ya passing me on to your roomie....tell her thanks but no thanks.....
What are you talking about??

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 8th, '08, 04:13

heh....ya know exactly what i'm sayin.....thinking i'm not good enough for ya....playing with my emotions...damn little rich brat..... i bet you wear nothing but the finest....wine and dine the best....i'm not some white trailer trash you think i am....i told the world i love you and you dont love me back....whatsup with that.....just tell me straight up adri....

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 8th, '08, 04:17

Are you done??

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 8th, '08, 04:24

no....i'm not done with you.....i bet you wear expensive perfume....two hundred dollars an ounce and up....you bathe in milk and honey and go to the salon once a week to get your hair done and your nails and toes tended to....rich brat..........and dont think your any smarter than i am cause your not.....damn rich brat.....this whitey aint taking your **** no more.....peace out.......

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 8th, '08, 04:26

rich brat...................rich brat..................rich brat................slam dunk your rich ass.......................

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 8th, '08, 04:27

Le **Sigh**

G'night, mate..

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 8th, '08, 04:36

a simple yes or no will do......

User avatar
zyrene
Posts: 248
Joined: Mar 31st, '08, 11:38

Post by zyrene » May 8th, '08, 06:01

slowmoe wrote:heh....ya know exactly what i'm sayin.....thinking i'm not good enough for ya....playing with my emotions...damn little rich brat..... i bet you wear nothing but the finest....wine and dine the best....i'm not some white trailer trash you think i am....i told the world i love you and you dont love me back....whatsup with that.....just tell me straight up adri....
:lol :lol :lol :lol :cheers: gud luck dude....

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 8th, '08, 14:17

Jscorpio wrote:
Britishk wrote: Philosophers who practice "artificial stupidity" claim, at least, to believe absurdities.
I carnt think of any that do, mate.. Philosophers are not particularly interested in what other philosophers can persuade themselves to believe, they are interested in the arguments. Claims about personal beliefs are largely peripheral and seldom made.

The practice of hyperbolic doubt is not in fact an attempt to affect one's <i>beliefs</i> at all. It is an examination of the structure of justification behind the "doubted" assertions (and usually an attempt to provide such a structure). And as G'boy suggested, this process of thought is well framed in terms of counterfactuals: "What if X <i>wasn't</i> true? What difference would there be for our experience?"

I'm afraid that your usually excellent posts are sometimes let down (as I see it) by an extremely uncharitable reading of Berkeley and idealism in general. Berkeley was not inclined to doubt the existence of tables and chairs but sought to underpin our natural faith in their existence with philosophical justification. Blaming Berkeley for asking us to believe ridiculous things is <i>precisely contrary</i> to his meaning, whether you agree with his arguments or not, and does an intelligent thinker a great disservice..

As to Peirce telling us we "should" not doubt various things, what does he mean?? Does he mean we should not examine the epistemic underpinnings of common belief?? Why not?? Is he telling us what we should and shouldn't believe?? On what basis does he direct us?? Do we even have voluntary control over our beliefs such that we may listen to Peirce and decide, on his advice, not to doubt X, Y or Z??

I think it very important to distinguish between a set of beliefs, which will be determined by pragmatic and irrational factors aswell as rational arguments, and the philosophical justifications possible for them..

An example is Hume's discovery and examination of induction. He found he could find no "rational" (i.e. deductive) justification for induced conclusions but also that he could not help believing them in any case. At no point did he suggest we "should" not believe them..
It seems to me that although Berkeley certainly gave lip service to the existence of physical objects like chairs, and asserted that he believed that they existed (but denied that they were <i>material</i> objects) it is not hard to see that he denies what is ordinarily believed these objects are in such a way as to deny that <i>they</i> exist as we ordinarily understand them to exist, whatever else he affirms do exist. For what he says <i>about</i> them implies that they are not located in external space independently from the subject (I would ordinarily say here "observer" but, again, Berkeley does not think we observe objects. And what he says about them implies that they do not persist independently of the subject. (I am, of course talking of Berkeley without the connivance of God). So his picture of the universe, although it does fit in with what we ordinarily say and think, is really very different from what we ordinarily say and think. Just because Berkeley is so clever and subtle, it is difficult to put this point, but what is true is that what he says is right, but what he <i>means</i> is wrong (and I mean by "wrong" inconsistent with the ordinary picture of the world). Tolstoy got what he meant, although in a somewhat skewed way.

But anyway, going back to what Russell said, we need not mine Berkeley for examples of what Russell was talking about. Philosophers have told us, for example, that we cannot <i>know</i> that there are tables and chairs. (It is to the credit of Berkeley that he believed that his philosophy would falsify that kind of skepticism, so in this, Berkeley is on my side) But if there is anything we do know, it is that there are tables and chairs. And, so on.

I agree with you about Hume. But he also said, that for all we know, the sun will not rise tomorrow, and, again, if there is anything we know, it is that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Hyperbolic doubt is doubt, nonetheless. And Descartes called it "hyperbolic" partly because he argued that it was justified to doubt things we ordinarily consider to be indubitable. Descartes justification for that was that it was barely possible that we are mistaken about what he recommends we doubt. That is not an adequate justification for doubting.

User avatar
zyrene
Posts: 248
Joined: Mar 31st, '08, 11:38

Post by zyrene » May 8th, '08, 15:35

Britishk wrote:
Jscorpio wrote:
Britishk wrote: Philosophers who practice "artificial stupidity" claim, at least, to believe absurdities.
I carnt think of any that do, mate.. Philosophers are not particularly interested in what other philosophers can persuade themselves to believe, they are interested in the arguments. Claims about personal beliefs are largely peripheral and seldom made.

The practice of hyperbolic doubt is not in fact an attempt to affect one's <i>beliefs</i> at all. It is an examination of the structure of justification behind the "doubted" assertions (and usually an attempt to provide such a structure). And as G'boy suggested, this process of thought is well framed in terms of counterfactuals: "What if X <i>wasn't</i> true? What difference would there be for our experience?"

I'm afraid that your usually excellent posts are sometimes let down (as I see it) by an extremely uncharitable reading of Berkeley and idealism in general. Berkeley was not inclined to doubt the existence of tables and chairs but sought to underpin our natural faith in their existence with philosophical justification. Blaming Berkeley for asking us to believe ridiculous things is <i>precisely contrary</i> to his meaning, whether you agree with his arguments or not, and does an intelligent thinker a great disservice..

As to Peirce telling us we "should" not doubt various things, what does he mean?? Does he mean we should not examine the epistemic underpinnings of common belief?? Why not?? Is he telling us what we should and shouldn't believe?? On what basis does he direct us?? Do we even have voluntary control over our beliefs such that we may listen to Peirce and decide, on his advice, not to doubt X, Y or Z??

I think it very important to distinguish between a set of beliefs, which will be determined by pragmatic and irrational factors aswell as rational arguments, and the philosophical justifications possible for them..

An example is Hume's discovery and examination of induction. He found he could find no "rational" (i.e. deductive) justification for induced conclusions but also that he could not help believing them in any case. At no point did he suggest we "should" not believe them..
It seems to me that although Berkeley certainly gave lip service to the existence of physical objects like chairs, and asserted that he believed that they existed (but denied that they were <i>material</i> objects) it is not hard to see that he denies what is ordinarily believed these objects are in such a way as to deny that <i>they</i> exist as we ordinarily understand them to exist, whatever else he affirms do exist. For what he says <i>about</i> them implies that they are not located in external space independently from the subject (I would ordinarily say here "observer" but, again, Berkeley does not think we observe objects. And what he says about them implies that they do not persist independently of the subject. (I am, of course talking of Berkeley without the connivance of God). So his picture of the universe, although it does fit in with what we ordinarily say and think, is really very different from what we ordinarily say and think. Just because Berkeley is so clever and subtle, it is difficult to put this point, but what is true is that what he says is right, but what he <i>means</i> is wrong (and I mean by "wrong" inconsistent with the ordinary picture of the world). Tolstoy got what he meant, although in a somewhat skewed way.

But anyway, going back to what Russell said, we need not mine Berkeley for examples of what Russell was talking about. Philosophers have told us, for example, that we cannot <i>know</i> that there are tables and chairs. (It is to the credit of Berkeley that he believed that his philosophy would falsify that kind of skepticism, so in this, Berkeley is on my side) But if there is anything we do know, it is that there are tables and chairs. And, so on.

I agree with you about Hume. But he also said, that for all we know, the sun will not rise tomorrow, and, again, if there is anything we know, it is that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Hyperbolic doubt is doubt, nonetheless. And Descartes called it "hyperbolic" partly because he argued that it was justified to doubt things we ordinarily consider to be indubitable. Descartes justification for that was that it was barely possible that we are mistaken about what he recommends we doubt. That is not an adequate justification for doubting.
********Nose Bleed******* :pale: :sweat:

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 8th, '08, 15:59

Slowmoe wrote:eh....ya know exactly what i'm sayin..... [blah blah blah] no....i'm not done with you..... [blah blah blah]
LOL moe bf!

Now with the LOL outta the way, what is the bejesus bf? I mean really bf, was this necessary? You have more mood swings than my fabulous G! Arrrgh!!!!!

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 8th, '08, 18:04

could careless bro....shes a <strike>****</strike>....shes the one missing out not me....playing with my emotionals....hate her.....
Last edited by slowmoe on May 8th, '08, 22:01, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 8th, '08, 18:05

zyrene wrote: :lol :lol :lol :lol :cheers: gud luck dude....
whatever....

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 8th, '08, 20:30

slowmoe wrote:could careless bro....
Bless the lord, here we go again. I mean really moe bf, when did you ever care? If you were, you wouldn't have acted so stupidly on the internet anyway. Bf, we don't have time for your drama in you addictspace. But since we do "care" about you, I guess this is what we have to put up with. Seriously, you're in college now, grow up and act like an adult for crying out loud! Geez, I need a bootyfacial after this **** is done. Arrgh.....
shes a ****
When did your lovely parents (bless their hearts) teach you to disrespect women and calling them bitches? Yes, there are some have earned that label *cough* *cough*, but I'm talking about Adri right now. I mean really bf, this is the one time I wish I could go back in time and give your mother some contraceptives! If you are a real man, please go back up to your post and think before you speak.
....shes the one missing out not me
Oh no bf, think again. With your childish ways, Adri deserves better!
....playing with my emotionals....
Cry me the river, bf! When? This one-way lovin' is getting old. So you say "you love her and she doesn't love you back". Romeo and Juliet? NOT! Moshi Moshi, chemistry hello? I mean really bf, you can't force love on others, and I can go on and on on this, but I'm not going to do your homework for you.
hate her.....
Last I checked, two or three nights ago, you loved her. Or was this just another one of your PMS aka Pre-man syndrome? Wishy washy I cannot makeup my mind, I love you, I love you not kinda thingy? Arrrgh!!!!!!

Bf, we've been friends for so many years and we love you for who you are. Self pity is shitty. Ok bf? And please please try not to say anything you might later regret it. Anyways bf, I got everyone's ticket and yours, too. I'm so excited about our trip I cannot wait. LOL!!!

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 9th, '08, 04:03

@gboy....i edited my post just so you know..... @adri.....i dont want to call and bother you....so i thought i'd just turn on my computer stop by in here and hope you read your email tonight or tomorrow morning.....hope your had a good time at the dinner party.....i'm sorry....peace out.....

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 9th, '08, 04:54

Alicia was also at the party tonight. It was strange to see her again.. Her face seems harder, and, even though she is still tremendously beautiful, her look more polished than even I could have imagined, there seems to be something brittle about her.. :unsure:

Feeling better??

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 9th, '08, 05:00

better...hungout at the beach.....please dont mention her name....that girl has issues.....did yall have convos.....she still piss'd at us....isnt she....

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 9th, '08, 05:04

Adri gf, I mean really, is she or isn't she up to something?

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 9th, '08, 05:12

Oh, for Pete's sake, G'boy. Why do you always have to be so bloody negative and pessimistic when it comes to Alicia?

At any rate, I need sleep.. G'night, dear mates.. **Beijoss**

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 9th, '08, 05:16

sweet dreams.....

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 9th, '08, 05:24

Jscorpio wrote:Oh, for Pete's sake, G'boy. Why do you always have to be so bloody negative and pessimistic when it comes to Alicia?

At any rate, I need sleep.. G'night, dear mates.. **Beijoss**
*Rolls eyes*

Whatever gf. Yeah, goodnight to you too. NOT!

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 9th, '08, 14:51

saw ep 5 of last friends....man still couldnt get into it....the shows boring....only watching because of adri....the dv stuff drags on.....nothing new about the characters and almost halfway done with this serie.....dont know why adri likes it.....shoooot......

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 9th, '08, 16:13

Slowmoe wrote:dont know why adri likes it.....
Because, she's a crazy fangirl, what else is new from her?
nothing new about the characters and almost halfway done with this serie
I mean really bf, the show is soooo damn cliche, I don't know what else to call it. Ok, you take this submissive heterogirl who keeps going back to her psycho bf for some more **** slapping , *Boring*. A babydyke on bike in love with her bestfriend, what is new? Boring*. And a closet wannabe gay hairstylist sweet and kind, mixed them together what else is new to happen? *Boring*

The show is sooooo predictable, I call it Cliche, Cliche and more Cliche! Even I can come up with a better script than that! But I must admit, the show's good at promoting their products. For example, the cups have more airplay than the Erigirl in the show. Of course, silly fangirl Adri will argue with me on that one. But I mean really bf, think about it, there isn't anything deep secret hidden in them, all they want is for these crazy fangirls like Adri to go out and purchase them after the show's over. LOLLOL&LOL!

Bf, if you wanna watch good series, go see The Drive of Life, or Heart of Greed. There are more good series out there.

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 9th, '08, 16:58

lol bro....adri gonna get ya.....who your fav actors......i'm crushin' cecilia cheung....heard shes married.....shooot.....liu yi fei hella adorable....loved her in condor hero....wished i could be her yang go....lol.....is aaron kwok gay....

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 9th, '08, 17:41

I would say my all time favourite is chow yun fat for his great acting. This guy can act, bf! Most recently....* thinking*.... is Raymond Lam. He is such a cutie but still can't top Louis Koo! I love love and love him with Jessica Hester. They were such a cute couple and I had never missed any series with them together. LOL!!!

For female actors, it has to be Ada Choi, Charmaine Sheh and a few others I can't think of their names right now. But I mean really bf, no wannabe actors for me, this new generation of JE boys, Chinese idols (whatever you wanna call it) with the looks but can't act has to go. To be fair, there are a few good Japanese/Korean series/movies out there deserve the credits. Anyways as for Aaron K, goodlord bf, this guy is gayer than me! I'm just waiting on him to migrate to Canada and announce his gayness. Have you seen him in concert? I mean really bf, this boy was wearing daisy dukes!

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 9th, '08, 17:43

Anyways bf, I'm meeting up with Adri for lunch. I'll send her your love. LOLLOL&LOL! Mwah! :-)

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 9th, '08, 18:03

lunch with adri.....jealous.....love me some tacos and watching girls rollerblading now....love my job....lol.....hey bro wheres halfass....can you ask her for another obama autograph....a girl in class wants one.....thanks in advance....

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 9th, '08, 21:28

Britishk wrote:It seems to me that although Berkeley certainly gave lip service to the existence of physical objects like chairs, and asserted that he believed that they existed (but denied that they were <i>material</i> objects) it is not hard to see that he denies what is ordinarily believed these objects are in such a way as to deny that <i>they</i> exist as we ordinarily understand them to exist, whatever else he affirms do exist.
I humbly disagree. Berkeley explicitly supports the beliefs of the common man. Yes, he does disagree with assertions about <i>material substance</i>, but he is not disagreeing with any everyday claims about stubbing toes on rocks or things being present when we look away. The ideas of material substance he is attacking are the abstruse metaphysical claims of contemporary philosophers which are very far from common.

If by "material" you simply mean that things persist when you look away and that you will stub your toe if you kick a rock, then Berkeley is just fine with things being material.

As I have said, you do a good thinker a disservice if you equivocate between the idea of material substance Berkeley was criticising and an everyday sense of the word material, with all its connotations of persistence and solidity.

Berkeley was certainly not (as well you must know) positing a world of ghostly ephemeral objects that could be glimpsed disappearing behind Tolstoy's shoulder.
For what he says <i>about</i> them implies that they are not located in external space independently from the subject (I would ordinarily say here "observer" but, again, Berkeley does not think we observe objects. And what he says about them implies that they do not persist independently of the subject.
They certainly do (in Berkeley's conception of the world) persist entirely independently of all of us. Of course he suggests God as the sort of universal Mind in which all objects exist, but that position is virtually indistinguishable from pantheism.

As to "external space" the objects have just the same space ordering and relation as in any materialist conception. What can "external space" mean beyond this? Certainly nothing a physicist would recognise. There is still a manifold of event locations.
(I am, of course talking of Berkeley without the connivance of God).
So you are talking of Berkeley without half of his argument.
So his picture of the universe, although it does fit in with what we ordinarily say and think, is really very different from what we ordinarily say and think.
It is <i>really</i> very different?? How?? I see persistence, independence and spatial ordering. We just have a different label for the nature of everything. (of course, I disagree with Berkeley and this point in particular reveals some of the problems with his position. Assertions about whether **everything** is material or mental or chocolate lack any sense since there can be no frame of reference by which we could understand them.)
But anyway, going back to what Russell said, we need not mine Berkeley for examples of what Russell was talking about. Philosophers have told us, for example, that we cannot <i>know</i> that there are tables and chairs. (It is to the credit of Berkeley that he believed that his philosophy would falsify that kind of skepticism, so in this, Berkeley is on my side) But if there is anything we do know, it is that there are tables and chairs. And, so on.
Russell himself practices doubt about tables and chairs in just the way I described earlier (i.e. not <i>actually</i> doubting them, but looking to see if there is any justification for belief in "an external world".) In fact he does not find a satisfactory answer to this question.

I would entirely agree that when describing the world we can base our considerations upon what we consider to be the firmest foundations, which tend to be the medium sized dry goods of everyday objects. However, that does not stop us examining what we mean by "there is a table" in much more esoteric terms. There may be an ideal table, a material table or whatever.

This process is analogous to the scientific process of theory construction from experiment, where the behaviour of medium sized dry goods (mostly scientific instruments) are relied upon to construct complex abstractions which are in turn brought to bear back onto those everyday objects. So we may start with certainty about a table, or chair, or instrument needle, and conclude that the chair is "in fact" the macroscopic manifestation of a collection of fields ranging over a spacetime manifold of however many dimensions. Whatever esoteric theory we hold about the "nature" of matter, we are still certain it is a chair in the ordinary sense.
I agree with you about Hume. But he also said, that for all we know, the sun will not rise tomorrow, and, again, if there is anything we know, it is that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Yes, and I agree with that too (although it does slightly equivocate between the sense of knowledge as mathematical certainty and the sense of knowledge as very firmly justified belief).
Hyperbolic doubt is doubt, nonetheless.
I would say that it isn't doubt, if by doubt you mean an actual wavering of belief. It is a philosophical method and does not require any actual change of belief. It is perhaps a misleading term..
And Descartes called it "hyperbolic" partly because he argued that it was justified to doubt things we ordinarily consider to be indubitable. Descartes justification for that was that it was barely possible that we are mistaken about what he recommends we doubt. That is not an adequate justification for doubting.
I think you are taking the sense of "doubt" here too narrowly and literally, mate..

It is an entirely adequate justification for doubt if the aim of the exercise is to find mathematical certainty and "doubt" here must be understood in that context..

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 9th, '08, 21:58

ya still there adri.....i kinda figured out who ya been crushin'.....its halfass isnt it.....come on tell the truth.....i can handle it.....

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 9th, '08, 22:10

I'm here..

No.. It's not Halfass..

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 9th, '08, 22:15

really.....why not....am curious....cause bro is hott.....hope she wont kill me for saying it.....lol.....

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 9th, '08, 22:40

Because there are some unwritten rules between friends. For me, the two biggest ones are: never use anything friends say against them, and don't date their exes. Let's say if the "ex-girlfriend rule" is ever broken, chances are our friendship will be lost forever, and a physical fight might even break out.. As much as Alicia swears that Halfass doesn't mean anything to her, it still hurts when she realises that her Halfass has found someone new. And if that someone else is me, it just amplifies the pain..

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 9th, '08, 22:45

but you do like halfass right........

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 9th, '08, 22:50

come on you can tell me.....

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 9th, '08, 22:54

No. I don't..

Anyway, I have to go..

**Beijoss**

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 9th, '08, 22:56

why ya always logoff everytime i ask you important question....shooot.....

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 10th, '08, 01:47

slowmoe wrote:hey bro wheres halfass....
Hiding from choo!
can you ask her for another obama autograph....
Why?
a girl in class wants one.....
Who?
thanks in advance....
NO!

<b>@Jscorpio</b>: Hi gorgeous. Thinking about me? *Wink

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 10th, '08, 02:05

Halfass wrote:<b>@Jscorpio</b>: Hi gorgeous. Thinking about me? *Wink
As you so eloquently put it: NO!! :P

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 10th, '08, 02:08

Damn Gina! What do you mean "no"? You left just as things were getting interesting. I've certainly been thinking about you... *Wink

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 10th, '08, 02:13

Well I mean that I am too busy to think about people who should be doing some work and not pestering me.. :P

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 10th, '08, 02:21

So you would be thinking about me if you weren't so busy?

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 10th, '08, 02:26

Too busy to know..

Go away..

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 10th, '08, 02:30

If you're so busy, why are you answering me back?

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 10th, '08, 02:40

**Pouring myself another glass of red**

Do not read anything into the returning of my posts.. I've just been brought up to be polite, that's all.. Now go away!!

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 10th, '08, 02:48

Tonight vodka on ice as I relax on the fire escape. Mmm..... heavenly.

Well that's hardly polite, is it? I've got a good mind to talk to your mum about you. How is she, btw?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests