That was the last straw.

[Okisites]

Those are fools and offsprings of the prostitution, who supports and have good thinking about Obvious Leo, quite frankly.

Have you been drinking again, OKsites?

Unfortunately "yes", such words generally comes from me when I was drunked, otherwise never. I am not an abusive person, but hold abuse and abusiveness important in life, as it does not harm anybody but change the mind, behaviour, understanding. If you remember, I had a thread on "abuse". So there is a philosophy behind abusive stance shown by me, which I would like to do and be, but unfortunately it only gets activated when drunked. But I want to be abusive without getting drunked, in real life (which is difficult), as it does not harm anybody, only hurts for sometime, but changes mind, behaviour, thinking ability, logical ability, understand, and "abuse act as a huge force for such changes, and is very useful if one can use this properly.

I am trying to leave drinking, but my job makes me so tired (because I am mostly sitting all the time), that I had to take at 180 ml of rum. The above situation arises when I take 240-300 ml. I am being successful in leaving it, but not completely successful, unfortunately.

Have you been drinking again, OKsites?

Sure sounds like it. I think philosophy forums and booze are not a good combination.

Only when it taken heavily. Some one said in this forums that the philosopher of pre modern era used marijuana for deeper thoughtfulness and understanding. It is still used in our country for higher spiritual thinking. I have also taken marijuana in my life at least 50 times with huge gaps between, when I was befriended with some marijuana addicts. I can tell you one reality about marijuana, that yellow marijuana is the best one to take, it can make your thoughts fly and makes you highly spiritual, but don't take black and green marijuana, these are evil substances.

My thoughtfulness have heavy influence from the substance abuse, which is more about tobacco chewing (wine plays no part). I believe, different addictive substance influence different parts of mind and appropriate substances abuse is necessary for desired thoughtful stance, so take the advice.

Okisites, apart from your belief that Leo's mother was a prostitute and apart from his support for gay marriage, what was it about Leo that provokes such venom in you?

No, its not a belief, it is only a baseless abuse, only intended to hurt without any permanent harm, for the sake of developing better understanding, behaviour, in an abused.

Secondly, I will not oppose gay marriage, if you can legalize it on fair grounds, explaining all the consequences, and I have some issues that needed explanation, which none have provided, including Obvious Leo, despite being brilliant and most likely a biologist. He had ran away from argumentation about gay marriage, without explaining anything about it, and accusing me instead, as he want gay marriage at any cost without having to explain anything. I don't like such behaviours coming from knowledgeable, intelligent, and especially scientific people. I like scientists people to explain everything, each word they are saying, and leave no doubt, no matter how stupid the other person was.

What was it that provokes such venon in me about Leo? I have given the reason above. He is a scientist (biologist) and failed to be explanatory in my case of same sex marriage, and behaved like any other who are accusing me to be biased. I get too hurted when such views comes from scientists, and I don't like scientists who are not explanatory and perfectionists, objectivist.

Secondly, even more important thing is that, I found him unnecessarily abusing a person, who absolutely not abusive, who speaks philosophically and have extensive knowledge in philosophy, and also speaks from his own point of view, and is logically sound. I think such people are very important and useful to talk with, to hear from, to read from. I found Leo to be abusive to such person, who is speaking philosophically, and leo as a scientist couldn't getting it and started abusing. And because I haven't reminded or said my objection at a time when it is happened, and remain silent and kept it in my mind, I behave this much venomous about Leo. It is probably just like "Holding fire". You must release your objection or anger at a time, otherwise it could be disastrous.

I personally can't see that Leo and Elder had much in common.

Yes, they both are scientists, however Leo was honest and somewhat explanatory, but Elder seems like extremely dishonest and extremely unexplanatory, very misguiding, almost like a troll. Sometimes I feel that what he said about himself as a science, is also a lie to gain a point or more respect and have an upper hand on subject, however he is not a scientist. And his low contribution in science section makes me believe this to be correct. However, Leo and Elder both are self praising people.

[Elder]

One last comment to help you sort things out.

These are the things I argued for:

Compassion,
Empathy,
Social Justice,
Rational thinking,
Cooperation
Tolerance

These are the things I argued against:

Religion (irrational thinking)
Capitalism (Exploitation)
Ignorance
Violence
Guns
Money
The meat industry

These were my most important threads:

What is, and how to find, Truth?
Would you have imagined a 'god' if you never heard of it?
Predation in 'Intelligent Design" ???'
Over-simplify' or 'Over-complicate'
The Sixth Extinction and the walking dead
How to resolve conflicting loyalties?
Money - a blessing or a curse?
Proposal for a new social contract
Do we owe each other anything?

Q.e.d.

I hope some of it meant something to someone.

Over and out.

..........................


Edited to correct a typo and add a link for Oki, answering the doubts he expressed in his previous post ("I feel that what he said about himself as a science, is also a lie ")

goodreads.com/author/show/7744692.Franc ... ancis_Mont

[Belinda]

Elder wrote:

I hope some of it meant something to someone.

Don't we all ! That's the best anyone can hope for. Myself, I sometimes, but rarely, accept nearly everything someone says or wrote. Obvious Leo's thought concerning time has improved my thinking, and "Karmic impulse" (A Poster He Or I) made me happier.

On another note, Okisites has my vote for most charismatic true confessions. I do like "drunked" what a great word!

[Lagayscienza]

Elder, I enjoyed (and contributed to) many of the threads you started. I hope you'll come back and start some more. That way we can all carry on as before and you'll continue to have the fun of annoying the sh.t out of Alec and Okisites.

[Okisites]

These were my most important threads:

What is, and how to find, Truth?
Would you have imagined a 'god' if you never heard of it?
Predation in 'Intelligent Design" ???'
Over-simplify' or 'Over-complicate'
The Sixth Extinction and the walking dead
How to resolve conflicting loyalties?
Money - a blessing or a curse?
Proposal for a new social contract
Do we owe each other anything?

Q.e.d.

I hope some of it meant something to someone.

Over and out.

Let me tell you one thing Sir, the problem is not your thread or the topic you brought forward, in fact your threads are great, or may be some of the greatest in this forum. I try to keep away from your thread because of your behaviour and attitude, and more importantly your principles of argumentation, but I still feel a huge force towards your threads, as they sounds so good, and starts with so well as opening post, that I find it difficult to keep away.

Your threads means lot ( a big lot) to me, and I am sure, to many. And you need not to worry about meaningfulness of your threads, but you need to think again about your principles of argumentation, conversation, explanation, defending your thoughts properly, and have respect to other point of views. You seems to have a prejudice about thoughts, that they are wrong, ignorance and all, and you need not to explain or to prove those thoughts as such. In short, you need to prove everything, what you say, even if you consider some thought wrong or ignorance, you need to prove it through explanation. You are not authorized or allowed to simply claim or force your conclusion of someone's thoughts to be wrong or ignorant, without any explanation. You need to understand, why you are not allowed to simply claim, without explanation. Explanation and proof is required, for everything you say. I had never said or claimed that some thoughts or person, are wrong or ignorant, but I believe, I many times proved some thoughts and people wrong and ignorant, without claiming them to be so, and ended all the arguments. So what is important is explanation and proofs, not claims and accusation.

I am sorry to say, that you claim yourself to be scientist, but lack too much of scientific attitude, imo. IMO, scientific attitude is about explaining in such a way that it could be difficult, or almost impossible to overcome, by an mediocre mind. The people with scientific attitude are of scrupulousness, and have fear about getting wronged, and thats why they goes to be extremely objective, and mathematically expressive or at least statistically expressive (in case of human), and try to leave not any way to disprove their ideas, and thinking. I believe this is the real thinking working behind the scientific attitude or nature, which makes an individual, scientists. You lack this attitude, enormously. This is why I keep the real scientists (attitude) and the science educated as two different kind of individuals, and for me, you are only a science educated, not a scientist, quite frankly.

I think, you need explanatory behaviour, objectivism and perfectionist approach.

I believe 99% of the people in the world are stupids, but you need to convince them to have your ideas validated. So if you have correct ideas, then you have to convince stupids first, to have your ideas admired, but the problem is, stupids are less likely to be convinced with correct ideas. They like incorrect and emotional approach to ideas. So if you want to force your correct ideas to get people convinced, then you need to overcome the questioning and counter argument of 1% intelligent people, as they can only be convinced with you, if you have perfectly correct ideas. And for that you have to argue with 1%, and do not believe in mutual agreement as a proof of your correctness. Correctness of your ideas lies in explanation and proofs, not in mutual agreement, that is why you should explain and prove, and not just search for agreements. And if you don't like this agreement-disagreement game, the learn to change your mind, and arrive at better conclusion with objective explanation and proof, that no one can refute i.e. be scientific.

I hope you can understand.

-- Updated 31 Jul 2015, 19:09 to add the following --

On another note, Okisites has my vote for most charismatic true confessions. I do like "drunked" what a great word!

Thank you Mam, if that was not meant in a sarcastic way. I think, I probably have used the wrong word.

[Alias]

I'm the passive-aggressive one, not Elder.

When a poor reader attaches the wrong diagnosis to the wrong antagonist, the mislabelling can be perpetuated, creating a false reputations down through the ages. If it happened to Diogenes, it can happen to anyone. No wonder people are misinformed!

As long as you have Okisites and Alec Smart, your comic relief requirements are amply filled and you don't need me.

[Belinda]

Okisites wrote:

Thank you Mam, if that was not meant in a sarcastic way. I think, I probably have used the wrong word.

Absolutely not sarcastic . You are a Character. Drunked is a fun word.

[Lacewing]

I am not an abusive person, but hold abuse and abusiveness important in life, as it does not harm anybody but change the mind, behaviour, understanding.

If you hand out abuse... then you are abusive. That's what it means. Regardless of your reasons for doing it.

I want to be abusive without getting drunked, in real life (which is difficult),

Okay, so you just said that you're not an abusive person... but now you say you want to be abusive. It appears that you are making all of this up from moment to moment to desperately feed something ravenous in your head that even you don't understand.

...as it does not harm anybody, only hurts for sometime, but changes mind, behaviour, thinking ability, logical ability, understand, and "abuse act as a huge force for such changes, and is very useful if one can use this properly.

And so you apparently think that You do it "properly" and for "good"??

...it is only a baseless abuse, only intended to hurt without any permanent harm, for the sake of developing better understanding, behaviour, in an abused.

Your logic seems absurd (as if you are in any position to make such clear assessments and choices for such a strategy!)... and, truly, it seems like nothing more than a way to excuse yourself from inappropriate and irresponsible behavior toward others. There are a lot of ways to "change minds, behavior, thinking ability, logical ability, understanding, and "act as a huge force for such changes"". The fact that you are so fascinated with abuse is your own funky trip.

Obvious Leo, despite being brilliant and most likely a biologist. He had ran away from argumentation about gay marriage, without explaining anything about it, and accusing me instead, as he want gay marriage at any cost without having to explain anything. I don't like such behaviours coming from knowledgeable, intelligent, and especially scientific people.

There are probably a lot of people who don't like the behaviors that come from you. Who do you think you are to unleash what you do on other people? You say it's for their good? You're making this all up to suit and excuse yourself.

I get too hurted when such views comes from scientists...

So there's a difference between others being hurt (and it's good for them)... and when YOU are hurt, and it's "too much"?

I found him unnecessarily abusing a person, who absolutely not abusive

So when you abuse... it's necessary... and it's done towards people who deserve it or need it. Whereas Leo's abuse, according to you, doesn't make you think... it just hurts you too bad... and it's done toward people who aren't deserving of it.

Can you really NOT see how convoluted and self-excusatory such logic is? And can you NOT see that your behavior is really no different than so many people in the world who excuse themselves while accusing OTHERS of destructiveness and stupidity? This unawareness of self... this denial... this hateful/separatist behavior... is a chronic and infectious TYPE of intoxication! For it to end, I think we have to be courageous enough to stop being drunk in that way... and welcome greater awareness of ourselves and all else.

If you can't communicate honorably and respectfully, Okisites, whether you're drunk or sober, then it reveals your own weakness and blindness... no one else's. No excuses. And your attacks on other people are just attacks... based on the limitations and lack of clarity/perspective in your own head. The same is true for any of us.

(P.S. Obvious Leo submitted an appropriate response to your attack on him, but his post could not be approved due to one particular suggestion he had for you. )

[Alec Smart]

One last thing ... bring back the Alfred avatar!

I think that avatar was preventing me from being taken seriously.

-- Updated August 1st, 2015, 12:11 am to add the following --

One last comment to help you sort things out.

These are the things I argued for:

Compassion,
Empathy,
Social Justice,
Rational thinking,
Cooperation
Tolerance

These are the things I argued against:

Religion (irrational thinking)
Capitalism (Exploitation)
Ignorance
Violence
Guns
Money
The meat industry

These were my most important threads:

What is, and how to find, Truth?
Would you have imagined a 'god' if you never heard of it?
Predation in 'Intelligent Design" ???'
Over-simplify' or 'Over-complicate'
The Sixth Extinction and the walking dead
How to resolve conflicting loyalties?
Money - a blessing or a curse?
Proposal for a new social contract
Do we owe each other anything?

Q.e.d.

I hope some of it meant something to someone.

Over and out.

Now we're getting the edited highlights. There is something seriously not right about this man.

[Belinda]

Then are you and me, Alec, the only people with whom there is "seriously something not right" ?

[Alec Smart]

Then are you and me, Alec, the only people with whom there is "seriously something not right" ?

I don't know what this means.

[Okisites]

I am not an abusive person, but hold abuse and abusiveness important in life, as it does not harm anybody but change the mind, behaviour, understanding.

If you hand out abuse... then you are abusive. That's what it means. Regardless of your reasons for doing it.

If you meet a person, who do not abuse anybody, no matter what is the situation, but can abuse if drunken, but then also rarely and deliberately, depending upon how the other person's behaviour is, then what will be your understanding of that person? Whether he is an abusive, or mannered person?

I want to be abusive without getting drunked, in real life (which is difficult),

Okay, so you just said that you're not an abusive person... but now you say you want to be abusive. It appears that you are making all of this up from moment to moment to desperately feed something ravenous in your head that even you don't understand.

I have some kind of philosophy about abuses, if you like to consider. Here it is, in the following thread:

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =3&t=10646

Tell me why abusive language is wrong, especially to wrong people doing wrong, and an abusive person?

...as it does not harm anybody, only hurts for sometime, but changes mind, behaviour, thinking ability, logical ability, understand, and "abuse act as a huge force for such changes, and is very useful if one can use this properly.

And so you apparently think that You do it "properly" and for "good"??

No, I never said I do it properly and for good, but I wanted to use it properly and for better outcome of understanding.

...it is only a baseless abuse, only intended to hurt without any permanent harm, for the sake of developing better understanding, behaviour, in an abused.

Your logic seems absurd (as if you are in any position to make such clear assessments and choices for such a strategy!)... and, truly, it seems like nothing more than a way to excuse yourself from inappropriate and irresponsible behavior toward others. There are a lot of ways to "change minds, behavior, thinking ability, logical ability, understanding, and "act as a huge force for such changes"". The fact that you are so fascinated with abuse is your own funky trip.

Tell me the other ways to change minds, behaviours etc. without having much political power. The only way to change behaviours, minds, seems to be discussing with honesty.

However, in real practical world, and also in this forum, people try to keep away from discussions, or kind of discussions, or kind of arguments at least, to keep themselves unproved to be wrong. So this is the way, how people keep their beliefs correct i.e. without taking part in discussions/debate. For such people, understand that there is no chance of proving them wrong. If you proved them wrong without discussion, and only with the expression of ideas and logic, then it will only be your own perspective. People use to agree with those ideas, which agrees with their ideas. Many have tried and expressed their ideas perfectly and refuted other ideas, independently without debates and discussion. But there are opposite ideas doing the same. So there is no overall impact.

So therefore, I say, debate and don't run away, and this is the only way to change minds, behaviour, but if you do not do that, then I believe there is no option remains, instead of abuse, which is most non-violent and harmless approach for forcing people to do what is needed, or at best cruelty, brutality (but for that we need power), are other ways for forcing people to do what is needed. I don't know how can you change minds in better way if not through honest discussions.

If you have any other way, then tell me that.

Obvious Leo, despite being brilliant and most likely a biologist. He had ran away from argumentation about gay marriage, without explaining anything about it, and accusing me instead, as he want gay marriage at any cost without having to explain anything. I don't like such behaviours coming from knowledgeable, intelligent, and especially scientific people.

There are probably a lot of people who don't like the behaviors that come from you.

You are attacking me personally. I said that I don't like such "people" who are knowledgeable, intelligent, especially scientific, bud do not behave and argue properly, do not explain, do not clarify. Obvious leo is one of them, as far I have seen.

Who do you think you are to unleash what you do on other people?

I am a common person, actually, common citizen, common man. My problem is, people's ways influence me one way or other, and effect my well being, that is why I object to what people do.

You say it's for their good? You're making this all up to suit and excuse yourself.

It is your thinking, your guess. I am telling you that I am not an abusive person, but have a kind of philosophy about abusiveness, and from long time, not after I had been abusive towards Obvious Leo. If you like, prove that abusiveness is wrong, in my thread I provided above. If you can prove it wrong, and do not run away unless the conclusion is reach, and be very honest with thoughts, then I am sure, I can change my belief, and leave the philosophy of abusiveness. It is a challenge, if you are able to accept.

I found him unnecessarily abusing a person, who absolutely not abusive

So when you abuse... it's necessary... and it's done towards people who deserve it or need it. Whereas Leo's abuse, according to you, doesn't make you think... it just hurts you too bad... and it's done toward people who aren't deserving of it.

I think I have properly and correctly observed, that Obvious Leo had been abusive to a person who is extremely calm, considerate, polite, not abusive, philosophically knowledgeable, also talk from his own ideas and not just from books and referring authors, without any necessity. I think such behaviour is not right, and such behaviour is shown, then I think it is right to abuse such person and they deserve it.

Can you really NOT see how convoluted and self-excusatory such logic is? And can you NOT see that your behavior is really no different than so many people in the world who excuse themselves while accusing OTHERS of destructiveness and stupidity?

No, I don't see it, and I don't think such behaviour is wrong all the time.

If you can't communicate honorably and respectfully, Okisites, whether you're drunk or sober, then it reveals your own weakness and blindness... no one else's.

I agree with that, however I would say that I generally communicate honorably and respectively, and I am far from being unable to do that. I am probably unable to communicate disrespectly and unhonorably, I believe so, especially when I was sober and talking with elders and sober people (certainly not in youtube). My youtube comments are **** awesom, you must read that.

No excuses. And your attacks on other people are just attacks... based on the limitations and lack of clarity/perspective in your own head. The same is true for any of us.

I believe, I am very clear with my ideas, and explain my perspective precisely. In fact someone had recently said that I am very transparent. If you think I am wrong, then you need to explain and prove it. I don't believe in your accusations and claims, without explanation.

(P.S. Obvious Leo submitted an appropriate response to your attack on him, but his post could not be approved due to one particular suggestion he had for you. )

I would like that appropriate response posted to my inbox, and I would like to answer that. But I think the appropriate response is by being properly discuss the subject and prove your point. For example, Obvious Leo should prove why and how much it is right to legalize Gay marriage, because he think so. I think this will only be appropriate response, and there is no appropriate response other tan that. I hope you can understand.

[Lacewing]

If you meet a person, who do not abuse anybody, no matter what is the situation, but can abuse if drunken, but then also rarely and deliberately, depending upon how the other person's behaviour is, then what will be your understanding of that person? Whether he is an abusive, or mannered person?

My understanding would be that the person is abusive when they're abusive... and mannered when they're mannered.

Tell me why abusive language is wrong, especially to wrong people doing wrong, and an abusive person?

It's not "wrong" in itself -- but like anything, it depends on how it's used. I don't think it is the definitive or deserved solution that you seem to say it is... nor do I think that you are using it as such. You have unleashed on people who have done NOTHING to you. And you have said some really awful things that accomplish NOTHING. For me, that's the difference. Spewing out obscenities just because you're drunk or emotionally worked up is YOUR issue... and does not demonstrate any kind of intelligent self-moderation or broader insight or beneficial interaction.

No, I never said I do it properly and for good, but I wanted to use it properly and for better outcome of understanding.

People don't respond well, or open themselves for understanding, if you're hurling personal insults at them over and over. It's definitely an art to try and point out issues while keeping a person's receptivity open for some benefit to be gained. Hurling insults is just for your own satisfaction... whether or not the other person is deserving of any of it.

Tell me the other ways to change minds, behaviours etc. without having much political power. The only way to change behaviours, minds, seems to be discussing with honesty.

"Discussing with honesty" does not equate to being abusive. You can try to justify that your abuse is "honesty"... but it's not a "discussion"... and it doesn't change minds, behaviors, etc. It's just a blast of heavy, spewing energy that everyone shuts down to. Who wants to listen to that? Who WILL listen to that? Who will believe it? It's all for you. It feels like a benefit to you. I can say the same thing about myself... when I've come unleashed on people. I have to be careful and stay conscious about what I'm doing. It's easy to slip into the dragon zone where you want to rip the person's friggin head off. But there's a choice... is it about your/my personal satisfaction in doing that and "venting"... or do we REALLY want to help thinking and behavior evolve in better ways?

However, in real practical world, and also in this forum, people try to keep away from discussions, or kind of discussions, or kind of arguments at least, to keep themselves unproved to be wrong. So this is the way, how people keep their beliefs correct i.e. without taking part in discussions/debate. For such people, understand that there is no chance of proving them wrong.

Yes, this seems true to me too. But we really don't need to prove anyone wrong, do we? Everybody can believe what they want. None of us are in a position to say how everyone must be. We do not know other peoples intelligence level, fear, mental disorders, anguish, etc. If they want to sit in a corner with a blanket over their head, we can have some compassion. I think the best we can do is to present valid points in a respectful manner, and then let the person take it or leave it. Other people may gain value by watching the interaction from the sidelines. But by degenerating into some sort of abusive rant, I think it only sets examples of being out of control, unconscious, and not very clever/skilled in useful discussions, etc.

I don't know how can you change minds in better way if not through honest discussions.

Again... you seem to be trying to equate or transpose "honest discussions" with an "abusive approach" -- and they're two different things.

Honest discussions can be approached and accomplished in many different ways. Human beings learn by watching each other. They see what works... and they aspire to broaden their own abilities... right? If you see someone making valid points in a respectful way, even if those points may be a little sharp, it's much more impactful and widely received than someone calling another and their family personal names. You did that to me too, Okisites. Unleashed a torrent of bizarre insults like I've never seen... and it was all based on your misunderstanding of thinking I was talking to you, and I wasn't. You apologized when you sobered up... but you'd already spewed that thoughtless crap all over the place. What if we all went around doing that? It's undeserved and unhelpful. And apologies are empty when you keep doing it over and over.

My problem is, people's ways influence me one way or other, and effect my well being, that is why I object to what people do.

And do you think that YOU do not affect other people's well being? Is the solution for all of us to tear each other apart to the death for whatever bad influences we think are bombarding us... or do we master ourselves so that other people's influences are understood and processed calmly in a different light?

Do you think there's only one way to see everything? And do you think there's only one "correct" way to respond to what we encounter from others and from life? If you don't see and explore more than one way, how do you know that you are as aware and effective as you can be? How do we know when we're part of the problem or part of the solution, beyond what we claim we are? Do we care to know? Or do we just want to make up **** and justifications to be intoxicated by?

Thank you for your thoughtful response to me, Okisites. I appreciated the opportunity to try to discuss this with you. I hope that what I've said above makes sense... and offers some value. This is my attempt at honest and thoughtful discussion.

[Spiral Out]

This topic has run its course and can no longer be responded to in an on-topic manner.