Everything is Relative.

[NoJo]

That happens to Sub Joe alot.

SJ

Yes, I admit I find lots of clothes on the ground. Fortunately I live near a charity shop.

 

[bg23]

That happens to Sub Joe alot.

SJ

so it would appear.
handy sort of tool, eh?

 

[NoJo]

so it would appear.
handy sort of tool, eh?

You come from the General Board, don't you. I'd go there, but I can't shout loud enough. Anyway, I like the slow, languid pace here. Boring, in other words.

 

[sophia jane]

so it would appear.
handy sort of tool, eh?

Yes. I don't know if it's his hand or his tool that does it for him, though. Maybe it's just his wit.

SJ

 

[NoJo]

Yes. I don't know if it's his hand or his tool that does it for him, though. Maybe it's just his wit.

SJ

Yes it's my wit. Nice ass.

 

[bg23]

You come from the General Board, don't you. I'd go there, but I can't shout loud enough. Anyway, I like the slow, languid pace here. Boring, in other words.

i started out here.
i got my first avatar here, and then i went wandering a bit.
but yes, primarily i am a GBer now.

actually one of the reasons i moved was the pace here. i have a tendency to come around when the AH is almost empty, and it discouraged me a bit.

 

[NoJo]

i started out here.
i got my first avatar here, and then i went wandering a bit.
but yes, primarily i am a GBer now.

actually one of the reasons i moved was the pace here. i have a tendency to come around when the AH is almost empty, and it discouraged me a bit.

When that happens, I use the opportunity to catch up on my masturbation.

 

[bg23]

Yes. I don't know if it's his hand or his tool that does it for him, though. Maybe it's just his wit.

SJ

perhaps a combination of all three.
but a potent one, regardless.

 

[NoJo]

perhaps a combination of all three.
but a potent one, regardless.

well, your Av works pretty well too. It's a bit annoying, becuase it's distracting me from my jerkoff time, I'll have to make it up at the weekend at this rate.

 

[bg23]

When that happens, I use the opportunity to catch up on my masturbation.

ah
good plan.

...

 

[bg23]

well, your Av works pretty well too. It's a bit annoying, becuase it's distracting me from my jerkoff time, I'll have to make it up at the weekend at this rate.

works pretty well to do what?
i was under the impression we were referring to your ability to render others clothingless.
and by all means, please don't let me distract.

 

[elsol]

lol
i've tried
but i've always believed the onus of proof was on those who would claim his existence in the first place.

I'll move on to proving the existence of God... just as soon as I prove someone other than me exists.The best proof I've gotten so far is the stupidity of others, but I have to cop to a certain amount of narcissism in that proof in that I believe I'm too smart and organized to make my creations THAT stupid even subconciously.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[NoJo]

works pretty well to do what?
i was under the impression we were referring to your ability to render others clothingless.
and by all means, please don't let me distract.

If I wanted you to take your clothes off, I would have asked nicely. Then slightly less nicely. Then I would have screamed at the top of my voice. I still have my overcoat on, by the way. I was sitting on the bus, and I got the man in front of me to remove his hat. I just said "take your hat off, please, I'm a tourist and it's my first time on a bus." Worked a charm. He gave me his phone number, but I wasn't interested.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Arguments to the tune of "logical impossibility is a mind-creation and mind-creations are in doubt because the human mind is flawed" aren't really that strong. For instance, you're attacking the human mind, not logical impossibility. That's sort of like attacking the human hand's steadiness when talking about whether the bookshelf will stay on the wall...

Show me HOW logical impossibility is flawed, and we'll talk. Until then, what we have is a pretty solid principle from which to limit reality by. Even arguments against logical impossibility as a limitation are employing the notion of logical impossibility (as rational arguments relate to their essential premises) as a true thing to make the point to begin with.

I'm afraid "the human mind is flawed" has never been a sufficient condition in philosophy for dismissing a premise. Because if it were, then the very notion "everything is relative" is a human-mind construction and cannot, thus, be true. Appeals to things clearly mind-independant (logical impossibility may be mind-discovered, but nothing about it is mind-dependant) are the first steps.

 

[NoJo]

Arguments to the tune of "logical impossibility is a mind-creation and mind-creations are in doubt because the human mind is flawed" aren't really that strong. For instance, you're attacking the human mind, not logical impossibility. That's sort of like attacking the human hand's steadiness when talking about whether the bookshelf will stay on the wall...

Show me HOW logical impossibility is flawed, and we'll talk. Until then, what we have is a pretty solid principle from which to limit reality by. Even arguments against logical impossibility as a limitation are employing the notion of logical impossibility (as rational arguments relate to their essential premises) as a true thing to make the point to begin with.

I'm afraid "the human mind is flawed" has never been a sufficient condition in philosophy for dismissing a premise. Because if it were, then the very notion "everything is relative" is a human-mind construction and cannot, thus, be true. Appeals to things clearly mind-independant (logical impossibility may be mind-discovered, but nothing about it is mind-dependant) are the first steps.

I started to read, then I looked at your AV, then I lost my place. Here: Take my J.L. Austin avatar. Please.

 

[amicus]

SNP. Dr. Mab, Joe...et al...

Nice to see you blokes & non blokes again.

The speed of light is a constant, called an 'absolute'.

Many such things in science and math are objective absolutes, such as H2O and the elements, defined by atomic weight.

The problem for both professionals and laymen in the fields of Philsophy, Morals and Ethics, is the transferral of the scientific process, the 'logical' non contradictory process, from Science to Sociology.

It is more simple to look upon human actions as 'relative' than it is to pursue an understanding of human actions as rational and logical as so many are not.

It is difficult to assess something such as 'love' in absolute, non relative terms, as most emotions are truly subjective, thus relative to the person experiencing them.

However, it is essential that a rational, logical approach to human action and thoughts in all spheres be sought. We need a clear, rational and logical understanding of how one reacts, emotionally and mentally to an issue such as the taking of a human life.

We do it in War all the time, the State does it with the death penalty, the Hospice does it with chemicals and with holding sustenance. The easy way out is to accept the relativity of death to the circumstances, et cetera.

It is my opinion that one must look upon all human actions as definable and thus comprehensible in rational terms. Then one can begin to build a moral and ethical foundation upon which to judge the actions of others and one's own self.

Not that it matters....

http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-35000-3

amicus...