Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by zegh8578, Sep 14, 2015.
Don't care about what anyone thinks in this thread.
Well, I do but whatever.
I just finished watching that
After experiencing the mind-numbing sensation of watching an (I don't even recall HOW long) long video about "the number 12"... I've long since given up on clicking those videos. They're a waste of precious brain cells. Cells that I could be putting to a much more beneficial task, like wasting them on alcohol!
I feel the same about everything you post on here.
I have to be honest, I can't hate you. You have to much in common with de Flamingo.
You're so oblivious to what defines his character that you don't even know how untrue that is. You wouldn't even have to know ME very well at all to realize that, if you knew any of Doflamingo's defining character traits.
Also, it's Doflamingo, NOT do Flamingo.
Blame the stupid Germans, Don Quichotte de Flamingo is what they call him here. Just as how Luffy is called Ruffy for some reason. And many other minnor and bigger name changes. Germans are like that.
Anyway I compared you more because of the way how you hold a monologue. How many people here think that you're wrong. And that you don't give a shit about it
You're fun though!
Truth is not a democracy. Consensus doesn't determine who's right or not. So, why SHOULD I give a shit about "how many" people think that I'm wrong? Time and time again, they prove to just be attacking a shadow that they confuse for me, so even if popular opinion did mean jack diddly squat- which, let's recap, it DOESN'T -any cases against me would still be wanting. I'm never wrong because PEOPLE in certain quantities say so. I'm wrong because of objectively ascertainable concepts that can stand on their own merits, regardless of who conveys them... OR HOW OFTEN. Same with why I'm ever right. Not because of how many people agree with me, but because of the validity of my statements, themselves. So why should I give any 2 shits about who says what about me? Consensus won't make it true. Enough people can call me a black person, it still won't make it true.
There are FAR more characters in fiction as a whole, let alone One Piece, known for a propensity for monologues besides Doflamingo. His defining character attribute is NOT that he has monologues. In fact, he hardly has any at all. He doesn't wear his emotions on his sleeve, he doesn't talk about his past or his motivations practically at all. As pointed out by a former subordinate, he wears a grand mask of his unconquerable smile to hide his own deficiencies, which proves to be his downfall... at least according to said former subordinate. Doflamingo doesn't stop to question himself on a regular basis, ask others to validate what he decides and make sure that he's not wrong purely because of his personal standpoint. He believes he is right by virtue of birth, and that self-effacing humility is beneath him. We couldn't BE more dissimilar!
What defines his character are many things that would spoil a fine story were I to go into detail, but suffice it to say, the ONLY thing Doffy and I truly share is a belief that "justice" is nothing more than the decisions of who wins. It's all just a facade that's confused for morality, and therefore one big joke if you were to stop and think about it. Everything else is like comparing apples to cinder blocks. "They're both objects!" Yes, yes they are. That doesn't make them very similar though, now does it?
You know? I think, actually that you're right! You have more in common with a fiddle. And playing you, is pure fun.
Actually, truth IS up to consensus - or at least, relies strongly on it
Scientific discovery needs approval from a consensus to be taken seriously. Not everyone can do their own experiments at home, we don't have access to all kinds of materials, chemicals, fossils, corpses if needed, and so on. A researcher can claim to have made a significant discovery, but that it is locked in his basement. He can then claim for his research to be sound, and it will in the end mean nothing.
Peer review - aka - consensus - will at least legitimize his work. Wether he is right or not comes later, but consensus is incredibly important for the sake of credibility.
Without consensus, the pit fall becomes "everyone in the world is wrong, except me!" - said the crazy-person
So, don't scoff on consensus or majority!
Coming back to what is true and what is not, an interesting thought by Krauss:
Approval, consensus, and peer reviews are irrelevant to actual truth. I said nothing about theories or speculations, I commented on facts and absolutes. They're completely different things. It's not a hard concept to grasp that someone such as myself holds that the universe is absolute and definitive, but that we simply don't know that much about it, and therefore consensus has zero impact on the state of the universe, even if it helps groups of people "agree" to new ideas on how they perceive it. By extension, a person's personality, or whether they said this or that, or what color shoes they put on that morning, absolute facts that are definitive, even if they aren't widely known, are not subject to change based on a majority rule. Again, these are not tough principles to wrap ones mind around.
That "crazy person" comment you alluded to is easily avoided, even if you totally ignore group consensus, by simply sticking to critical thinking. Logic. Rationale. Only, unlike the above statements, these ARE harder for people to grasp. Despite its name, common sense is tragically rare.
All true, but at the end of the day, you still need consensus on your side - as a person in this world.
What good is truth, if you are the only one who posess it?
(And common sense is rare because it is like "free will", it is a construct. Babies have next to no common sense, it has to be imposed on them as they grow up. Localized versions of "common sense" are simply too poor and inadequate to really be regarded as "sense" to begin with )
That is a philosophical quandary for us all to ponder. As for me, I would MUCH prefer having truth on my side, and all alone in my knowledge of it, than go along with the flow if it's all falsehood. Of course, the former scenario is INCREDIBLY unlikely, but if it were up to me, and those were my choices, I'd gladly sacrifice the latter for the former. In fact, much to the surprise of the doctors testing me, when I had my intelligence tested a decade ago, they asked me whether I would sacrifice 25 points of my IQ if it meant always being able to get along with anyone, if I could, and I said "no" flat out. *shrug* I've just always valued knowledge above anything else.
Anyway, exchanging information isn't the same thing as "consensus", regardless. I try to do that all the time, because it's my opinion that spreading knowledge and enlightenment leads to the betterment of all. But you'd be surprised just how difficult that can be, because most people don't like their precious views being shaken. You need look no further than the farces that had to be deleted as a result of someone's faith being challenged. Presenting "truth" to someone is only any good if they're receptive to it, and not only is it not a guarantee that they will be, but the odds are HEAVILY stacked against that being the case. =/
That's where the charisma and "consensus" comes in, and becomes important
Your objective is to spread knowledge (hence 'what good is knowledge if it is all yours, and nobody elses')
But how can you spread knowledge, if you are the only one posessing it, and you are seen as a crazy outsider? Your knowledge - your words - would carry no weight
That's why it is nearly impossible to inform across world-views, for example a scientist can hardly ever inform a deeply religious man about scientific discoveries, and vice versa, they would not accept each others input, dismissing the specific information based on the lack of legitimacy percieved for the messengers background (what a sentence! )
In most cases you'll have to pick between yelling at a brick wall, or preaching to the choir
I like to tell myself that I "argue for the gallery" in most cases, since a direct recipient in a debate is highly unlikely to ever change their views