Hunt Mutants & Raiders

[Cistern Logic]

We as a species are one of THE most desttructive forces this planet has seen in a long time.

Try EVER. The most destructive species EVER, barring Red Tide and other pathogens. The Sixth Great Extinction in the history of Planet Earth (By Geological and Paleontological observations) is in full swing. It shows no sign of stopping and WE are the cause of it!

Do we have what it takes to change our behavior?

I hate to be a pessimistic pundit, but probably not. Specifically, governments call the shots and their behavior is what has to change. A lot depends on the regimes that free people elect. Those that aren't free like the Peoples' Republic would have to be influenced by trade or other sanctions from the rest of the world. But hey, those are bad for business and people can't see past their nose in the face of short term profit loss....

Peoples. Peoples never changes.......

 

[TorontoReign]

But as per your words, specifically, no I think quite to the opposite of what you suggest. When people are ranting and raving about nothing but how evil we all are and they use descriptors like "plague" when explaining their feelings about their fellow man, the PROPER response to contradict this is to exemplify the positives. That doesn't mean I am avoiding the negatives, that just means they're irrelevant to the point. Like I said, if the comments were "we err", I'd have no objections. But they weren't, they were fixating on this self-loathing idea that we are a blight on the Earth, and that is pure and simply wrong. Finding us to somehow be an exception when it comes to life forms in our biosphere is just lunacy. Going so far as to say our very nature and our ONLY contributions have been entirely for the negative is just crippled with hatred of one's common man. Pointing out that they're wrong by showcasing the other side of the coin they're happily ignoring doesn't mean all I see is that side. That was my ENTIRE point about the tomato tomato / two sides to every coin analogies.


I DO dismiss the very notion of misanthropic ideas, because the mindset itself is a fundamentally flawed, hypocritical, arrogant outlook, and I find absolutely no value to it in the slightest. I'm not as critical towards optimism, but I do not subscribe to it, either, contrary to your assertions that all I'm doing is looking on the bright side. I am most certainly not.


One of my favorite quickie phrases is, "Optimists are naive fools. Pessimists are short-sighted cynics. I don't like either of them."

I fixed that link. I think it is incredibly ironic how you can accuse anyone of ranting and raving, which I'm not, when your lengthy posts can be summed up with "No, you are wrong. I am right. ALWAYS."

You lack the ability to be verbose. Why use 50 words to say one thing? I've read most of your posts. Yes, you do have an agenda about California. Any time it is mentioned with the word drought you pop your head in to comment how everyone is wrong and it's a desert, like people are fucking nimrods since your IQ (which you made a point to boast about) is so high. Maybe you've forgotten what you post.

You are also incapable of admitting when you are wrong. You simply are too stubborn to admit that people have caused harm to animals and our surroundings. Oil spills alter the environment of the aquatic life in the ocean for one, besides the fact that it is only ONE EXAMPLE of which there are many. Entire food chains are changed because of OUR impact on the planet, due to intentional or unintentional means. I have never once said we have not BENEFITED this planet in other ways. There should be a better balance between the two.

The analogies are getting old too.

https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Habitat-Loss.aspx

https://news.vice.com/article/human...t-at-a-rate-unprecedented-in-over-10000-years

Humans destroy ecosystems.

 

[zegh8578]

Humans are probably the 2nd most destructive kind of animal on this planet, just after sauropods, but there is still no clear consensus on that. Sauropods eating up every forest everywhere by the end of the Jurassic are likely responsible for the "lesser extinction event" happening then (which resulted in the extinction of most sauropods, forcing the group to start evolving giant sizes all over again - and with that all giant predators, which in turn gave room for small coelurosaurs to start growing large sizes once more - ending up with our beloved Tyrannosaurus)

I got no point here, I'm just throwing stuff out.

In a purely nihilistic sense, sauropods, humans, ants, we are meant to consume our planet - because it is what we try our damndest to do.
When it is all consumed up, we win. What do we win? Idunno. Space-honor or something

Now, to be absolutely fair, we have the mental capacity to entertain anomalic ideas, such as - care for our straggling weak ones, give freely of what is ours to those who have less, and so on. This kind of alturism is rare, but it comes from our nature, and it exists in our nature - even traits that only exist in humans, are natural traits, there is no other source for these traits than nature.

In the end, our strongest instincts are tied closely to the things happening in the world, such as gathering of resources, leader adherence/group mentality, a variety of defense mechanisms, these instincts are powerful. Money talks. Money is a direct result of our need to gather and hoard resources, one of our very strongest impulses.
Money is so strong, that allready it is hampering our ambitions of space travel.
Can you imagine?
Here we are, a species of being in space, a species SO COMPLEX we can FLY in SPACE... and MONEY... is a problem for us

 

[Moosick]

When people are ranting and raving about nothing but how evil we all are and they use descriptors like "plague" when explaining their feelings about their fellow man, the PROPER response to contradict this is to exemplify the positives. That doesn't mean I am avoiding the negatives, that just means they're irrelevant to the point. Like I said, if the comments were "we err", I'd have no objections. But they weren't, they were fixating on this self-loathing idea that we are a blight on the Earth, and that is pure and simply wrong. Finding us to somehow be an exception when it comes to life forms in our biosphere is just lunacy. Going so far as to say our very nature and our ONLY contributions have been entirely for the negative is just crippled with hatred of one's common man. Pointing out that they're wrong by showcasing the other side of the coin they're happily ignoring doesn't mean all I see is that side. That was my ENTIRE point about the tomato tomato / two sides to every coin analogies.

I know clouds can have silver linings but you are searching hard for that ray of sunlight.

When a discussion about the negatives crops up, you don't then point out that we also created pizza, as it muddies the waters, changes the goalposts, and is a non-sequitur. It's a whole other conversation. You seem obsessed with this idea that a critical and judgemental outlook on our demonstrably negative impact on the environment that occurs as a direct byproduct of our actions is pessimistic and misanthropic. You say it is pure and simply wrong, and yet our collective actions have resulted in mass extinction, climate change, entire ecosystems and habitats destroyed, immense suffering of sentient beings and in a way that no other species has ever achieved. Multiple times. Saying that is misanthropy and 'pessimistic' is in itself something of a strawman. It makes all sorts of wild assumptions and fails to acknowledge the difference between questioning of actions and outlook on whether we can improve and repair the damage we've caused. Yeah, some good has come out of it, but those things tend to place in comparison.

 

[TorontoReign]

I'm glad someone else noticed that.

That hole in the roof isn't because the roof was destroyed. It was improved by putting that hole there. Why can't you just see it as a sunroof instead of a leaky hole?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Money and economic growth is more important than survival. For example, take Germany, for years they are talking about modernisation in the car industry and changes in other industries to decrease polution. And every time there is a serious discussion about it, some lobby pops up and says, it threatens jobs. I mean com on! You can not place the economy and jobs AFTER the planet. Growth, unlimited growth - on an finite planet ... is the current rule of our new religion, called caplitalism. And when ever you seriously critize it, you're branded as some kind of lunatic by the media.

I find it pretty funny that all of the focus right now is on the debts, like Greece and the financial crysis a few years ago. As like that would actually mean something. Money issues can be solved tomorrow. Like instantly. Those are just digital numbers on some bank account. So money for itself has no real value. You can't eat it, neither can it work. Ever tred to give a 50$ note a spade? Only the people can work. But resources, overpopulation, the ecosystem. Issues here can't be solved that easily.

And yet, most of the discussions are about money and debth. It kinda shows who's in charge really.

 

[zegh8578]

We are at a point where suggesting things to be more important than money, renders you some kind of side-stepper.
Try telling a country ruler - a politician - a leader - that maybe we should prioritize money below the well-being of the people who constitute of "intelligent life" in this universe - telling them that people live once and that life is precious, and happyness is priceless.

They'll - at best - pretend to agree, at worst call security on you.

In other words, to even suggest that life matters more than money, is easily considered ridiculous in our society. It's not that life doesn't matter - it's just that money matters a little bit more.

And don't even try with animals or nature. Animals and nature are worth very very little, and a lot of intensive focus is required for even the smallest of official effort. When I was little, I was shocked to see how tiny "national parks" are on national maps. They are pencil-dots, and those represent our greatest efforts as global communities.

 

[SnapSlav]

I think it is incredibly ironic how you can accuse anyone of ranting and raving, which I'm not, when your lengthy posts can be summed up with "No, you are wrong. I am right. ALWAYS."

My posts can be summed up into "My methods are very rigid. I realize this, but that doesn't mean I understand how to exhibit the opposite tendency. So, in lieu of being able to change my approach, here is my statement. Now prove me wrong." It is NOTHING like your summation of arrogance.

Every time in this latest discussion I make a statement, you come back around to saying these nonsequitor analogies of "That problem's not a problem! I see no problem!" when I VERY CLEARLY GIVE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of saying the complete opposite. I went into great detail of saying "I'm not talking about imaginary problems" and clarifying "The problems are real, the stated causes are not." and yet SOMEHOW you have the gall to put words in my mouth of saying stupid things about holes in ceilings being improvements on construction and other bullshit?

I have no further words for you.

[You make] all sorts of wild assumptions and [fail] to acknowledge the difference between questioning of actions and outlook on whether we can improve and repair the damage we've caused.

Again with the 100% opposite of the case. If a nail is sticking out, focusing on the most IMMEDIATE course of action be hammering it in does not equate to a failure to recognize that better construction standards are quite possibly in order. Simply because my direct approach to you was a DIRECT approach to YOU does not mean my methods lack substance and forward thinking and consideration of all manner of information. Failing to recognize that is not my problem. I spend enough effort as it is trying (and clearly failing) to make my words count and capably conveying the exact meaning behind my intentions, I don't need to add any further wasted time elaborating (more than I already have been endeavoring) on tertiary subject matters irrelevant to what I am immediately addressing, if however related in a long-term sense. Using my nail analogy, repeatedly pointing out that it needs to be hammered in, and being bewildered at everyone's attempts to draw attention away from hammering the nail in like it requires, only to attempt to turn the discussion around on how I am not paying any heed to the construction standards and work ethics of these foremen is simply unbelievable, to me.

As per the rest of your comment, you went ahead and repeated the EXACT same lines and rhetoric that I condemned for misanthropy in the first place. If your entire purpose was saying you felt like my preferred label was inappropriate, that completely misses the point I tried so hard to drive home... that your behavior is just [insert whatever word pleases you, but understand that it's a condemnation of looking at the world through a cynical lens regarding your fellow man and his very nature].

 

[Moosick]

my preferred label was inappropriate, that completely misses the point I tried so hard to drive home... that your behavior is just [insert whatever word pleases you, but understand that it's a condemnation of looking at the world through a cynical lens regarding your fellow man and his very nature].

It's myopic, inappropriate and putting words in my mouth. You don't seem to understand what misanthropy is, or the difference between condemnation of actions and hatred of a collective 'thing'./ Do you think cynicism is 'acknowleding evidence and history, then making judgements as to their benefit?. I am not cynical about man's very nature, I simply acknowledge what we as a species /have done/ and that the silver linings are very hard to see without putting on some rose-tinted shades. And I'm not speaking of my fellow man, I'm speaking of humanity as a collective over the period of the last 500+ years. Because people /are/ aware of these things, and significant changes do not really happen enough to help heal the damage done.

To quote yourself, "Going so far as to say our very nature and our ONLY contributions have been entirely for the negative is just crippled with hatred of one's common man.". One example of words being shoved in my mouth, and hard. And ignoring everything I've said ITT to the contrary.

Scientific research consistently shows that we as are a direct and significant influence on the environment and have repeatedly engaged in mass suffering and genocide of other species, and I'd say that the results of many of our wars, our deforestation, our culling resembles a plague in more than a few ways. Not so much human nature as it is an issue with attitudes and complacency in society despite the great long-term disadvantage of such things. It is simply identifying the common and/or primary cause of a problem and criticising it. That is not misanthropy or even cynicism. To call that a cynical view of humanity itself is absurd. Your definitions are, to be blunt, beyond broken.

I understand that my view may be more concerned with the problems than the good things in the world, but it is not misanthropic or cynical or whatever word you want to use that amounts to a similar thing. I understand why you mighjt want to point out the positives, but we are aware of them and enjoy many of them regularly. Do I think it's doomed? No. Do I think we're all thoughtless autonomatons obsessed with profit at any expense? God no. Do I think we haven't made ingenious and effective ways of environmental preserve/'repair'/renewable energy? Absoultely not. We're amazingly inventive, but the measures aren't efficient enough and that nail you hammer in will not emount to much if we keep building on a rotting foundation that will only come back to bite us. Highlighting that is significant, and you need an effective, long term plan that is able to adapt to new information instead of just hammering away I have great faith both in our adaptability and our ability to be compassionate for other beings, but right now a significant portion of humanity is not learning from history, and to quote yourself, there's a difference between the oblivious and the ignorant.

I'm already repeating myself ad nauseum so I'll leave it there...

 

[Hassknecht]

I thought by now people knew better than to argue with SnapSlav...

 

[TorontoReign]

This goes to show when you prove Snap wrong he gets butthurt and leaves the room

 

[SnapSlav]

I understand that my view may be more concerned with the problems than the good things in the world, but it is not misanthropic or cynical or whatever word you want to use that amounts to a similar thing. I understand why you [might] want to point out the positives, but we are aware of them and enjoy many of them regularly. Do I think it's doomed? No. Do I think we're all thoughtless [automatons] obsessed with profit at any expense? God no. Do I think we haven't made ingenious and effective ways of environmental preserve/'repair'/renewable energy? [Absolutely] not. We're amazingly inventive, but the measures aren't efficient enough and that nail you hammer in will not [amount] to much if we keep building on a rotting foundation that will only come back to bite us. Highlighting that is significant, and you need an effective, long term plan that is able to adapt to new information instead of just hammering away I have great faith both in our adaptability and our ability to be compassionate for other beings, but right now a significant portion of humanity is not learning from history, and to quote yourself, there's a difference between the oblivious and the ignorant.

Fixed.

It would seem part of the crux of your and my opposition is revealed. You're repeating EXACTLY what I said, only you seem to be doing so under the assumption that it's addressing what I said. That is irritating, if not obnoxious. It's one thing if you disagree with me, but when you agree with me while you're stating it as though I'm oblivious to what I personally am aware of is simply incredibly frustrating to behold. For example, my use of the hammer and nail analogy was SPECIFICALLY to highlight the bigger picture focus of my approach, and you repeated the analogy while alluding to the necessity for a bigger picture approach. I used "construction standards" to express that point, you used "rotten foundation" to express the same thing. Again, that's exactly what I was saying. If you didn't understand that, then... I dunno.

As an aside, WHERE did this obsession with "money is all that matters" come from, inside this topic? Where did the subject of money originate from? Cause as far as I can tell, we were talking about perceptions of human nature, perceptions of human nature, perceptions of human nature, then MONEY! All of a sudden and completely out of left field.

 

[Moosick]

The original discussion was that my view was cynical and distorted conjecture rather than evidence-based negative criticism, and you employed many strawman arguments and made ridiculous assumptions; putting words in my mouth and ignoring statements to the contrary where I outlined in quite precise terms how you were confusing negative criticism with hatred and cynicism on overarching, institutional, and individual levels, you repeatedly changing the goalposts along the way. Additionally you incorrectly used words like misanthrope and cynicism, which is odd for someone big on semantics. You're awfully selective about when specificity of language matters. Saying that the crux of my argument is repeating you implies that I consider myself a misanthrope, which I demonstrably do not and am not.

Your hammer-nail analogy actually specified putting the nail in first, and expressing distaste for someone turning the discussion towards construction standards rather than immediately hammering it in. The position I outlined was that it is nonsensical and a useless act to do that if you don't significantly improve the foundation and make a plan first, so that the nails don't come out as much if at all in the first place - if it's not a minor defect (and in this case, it absolutely isn't), then continuing with the construction is an exercise in pointlessness and failure. Becuase that analogy in practice has resulted in simply hammering in more nails and using filler on the damaged holes, and the improvements needed to actuslly make a difference are getting put off. However, it's a pretty poor analogy anyway because of that problem. They don't tend get to any significant change in standards until the the house starts to totally fall apart.

Other than a few typos that are a result of using a keyboard I'm not used to, I'm seeing few - if any - changes to that paragraph.

Good day/night to ya.

 

[SnapSlav]

I'm not going to continue forward without some very serious accusations cleared up.

you employed many strawman arguments

When and where, please?

putting words in my mouth

Examples of such words being put in your mouth by me?

ignoring statements to the contrary

Are you referring specifically to the "I don't hate humanity" comment? Because I addressed how that was a contradictory statement. If you're referring to something else, which?

you repeatedly changing the goalposts along the way

Such as when?

Additionally you incorrectly used words like misanthrope and cynicism, which is odd for someone big on semantics.

Nothing incorrect about them. A pathological tendency towards the negative, a habit of perception following contempt, these are both aspects of cynicism. Compounded with repetitious use of hyperbole to exaggerate the sentiment merely adds to the sentiment. A distrust and hatred of mankind is misanthropy, and I used the term to reflect your series of statements coloring human nature as what you specifically referred to as "a plague". Looking up the word on some failure of a dictionary saying that it is nothing more than disliking your neighbors doesn't mean I misused the term.

While on the subject of semantics and questioning of expertise, when I highlighted your fundamental misunderstanding of greed as a negative force, you replied that my criticism was merely an issue of "semantics". Nothing could be further from the truth, or a more worse over-simplification of the situation, considering that I felt it was NECESSARY to make that highlight in the first place. It's not semantics, it's ideology. People don't use "greed" in the negative sense because they don't understand its definition, they know it means self-interest, but they use it in a derogatory light because they are taught to perceive that behavior as a negative quality. A personality flaw. Somehow there's something innately bad about looking out for yourself. Flowing through the steps of why, by definition, it is NOT a flaw or a negative thing or aspect or trait is not some issue of semantics, it's an issue of facing people with the truth they have been trained to ignore. Coming face to face with an admirable quality that one has been forged to avoid and ostracize is not something simple, like "semantics". If all I'd done was say "that's the wrong word, what you meant to say was..." then you could say it was little more than semantics. No. What I did was place strong emphasis on the mistake of taking a word that means good things, using it to mean bad things, and using it in combination with other words which (correctly) refer to negative traits.

Back to the much-needed clarifications...

You're awfully selective about when specificity of language matters.

That implies that there are times when I'm not. When do I NOT care about when language matters? For fuck's sake, the importance of language is one of my MOTTOS.

Saying that the crux of my argument is repeating you

Another mistake on your part. I said the crux of our opposition was you repeating myself while mistakenly believing you were correcting me. I did NOT say the crux of "your argument" was repeating me. See the first clarification of accusations of strawmen, putting words in mouths, and take a moment to reflect.

I don't want to move forward, despite the fact that I CAN more fully address the rest of your post, because I would rather wait on your reply to my requests for corrections and clarifications. Suffice it to say, naturally, I take issues with the rest of your post, as well. But I'll leave it at that, for now.

As for this...

Other than a few typos that are a result of using a keyboard I'm not used to, I'm seeing few - if any - changes to that paragraph.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that the purpose of my "fixed" quotation WAS to change what you were saying. No... I am a literal person, direct to a fault. I don't play any malicious game you seem to be assuming of me. You made errors, I fixed those errors. I meant LITERALLY what I said.

For example, you ended your post with the "good day" comment. I would say that to literally mean I'm heading out. But you? Well I don't know. You tell me what you intended.

 

[zegh8578]

In a purely pragmatic sense, we ARE a plague.

So are cats, they plague rodents, and giraffes plague acasia trees, etc. Humanity is a plague on a truly unique scale, as we are the only organisms our size/mass with the incredibly high number of individuals we have, and the exponential growth of our numbers.
Mathematically, we have no choice but to destroy our world, and as such, we are another(?) failed(?) potentially interstellar species, that never really got a chance.

And again, it is important to balance the view: We cannot help who or what we are - and I like that many of us are sexy. I like boobies.

Isn't it infinitely cool, that we are made of carbon and iron and all that stupid crap, and yet here we are - aware of atoms and iron, and we're analyzing ourselves - using irony and wit!

I can't get over how cool that is. In all our obscenity, if there was anything I'd worship, I'd worship humanity and life on earth (I guess that'd make me a Satanist? No need for debate, I'm still being funny!)

 

[Moosick]

-To quote yourself, "Going so far as to say our very nature and our ONLY contributions have been entirely for the negative is just crippled with hatred of one's common man." "Pointing out that they're wrong by showcasing the other side of the coin they're happily ignoring doesn't mean all I see is that side" - Complete and total misrepresentation of my arguments, and making assumptions about my considerations of what is our nature and whether I recognise positives in our behaviour, or the fruits of our efforts, as that was posted before I even mentioned innate tendencies.

-I've already addressed how criticism of a demonstrably negative thing is not inherently negativistic, as have I mentioned repeatedly, to deaf ears: "Scientific research consistently shows that we as are a direct and significant influence on the environment and have repeatedly engaged in mass suffering and genocide of other species, and I'd say that the results of many of our wars, our deforestation, our culling resembles a plague in more than a few ways. Not so much human nature as it is an issue with attitudes and complacency in society despite the great long-term disadvantage of such things. It is simply identifying the common and/or primary cause of a problem and criticising it [that specific facet]. That is not misanthropy or even cynicism. To call that a cynical view of humanity itself is absurd. Your definitions are, to be blunt, beyond broken." One should not have to include a caveat about our positive efforts in a discussion about what needs improving. The scales are tipped, not evenly balanced.

-RE: Mottos, then it would likely do you good to learn the difference between negativistic conjecture and hatred, and negative criticism of real things that is exclusive to a particular facet of a group's actions and not an generalised judgement of a whole. Either that or you are being wilfully ignorant and conflating two very different things.

-Semantics inform and relate to ideology. My core misuse was of the meaning of one word under another, and referring to my slip in semantics, which was what it was - a lack of consideration for meaning, saying one thing and meaning another, different thing. I don't and didn't deny that the sociocultural aspect is not significant. I assented to that being incorrect of me.

"You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that the purpose of my "fixed" quotation WAS to change what you were saying. No... I am a literal person, direct to a fault. I don't play any malicious game you seem to be assuming of me. You made errors, I fixed those errors. I meant LITERALLY what I said."

Unneccesarily pointing out typos in perfectly intelligible sentences. Picking on an incorrectly-ordered set of keystrokes or a slip of a finger is simply... well... I don't believe you to be sincere about that.

And yeah, it's kind of obvious. You know it is, and what I meant. It's late. I may follow the thread later on but right now you simply keep hammering on a misrepresentation of my views on humanity and are unable to make distinctions between condemnation of one thing (or one related group of things) and hatred, cynicism and everything else you listed for the entirety of mankind.

 

[SnapSlav]

In a purely pragmatic sense, we ARE a plague.
[snip]

In a purely pragmatic sense..... no we are not. If you're to make the extrapolation that a predator/prey relationship can be likened to a plague, taking it so far as to say that giraffes are a plague to acacia trees, then you MUST recognize that this can be applied to EVERYTHING CONCEIVABLE, to the extent that it all becomes one colossal, tangled circular concept? Plants being a plague on atmospheric CO2. Animals being a plague on Oxygen. Dogs being a plague to mailmen. However far you'd wish to take it, ultimately you'd come back full circle, and if one thing is a plague to another while the latter is a plague to itself, then NEITHER are plagues to either! If all things have a relationship to one another from any variation of benign to caustic to predatory to beneficial to parasitic to symbiotic and more, then... THAT'S what they are. It's facetious to just call us a plague, even if it's just being funny. =P

as have I mentioned repeatedly, to deaf ears

Now who's being presumptuous of who? Not commenting on something doesn't mean it's not noticed. Sometimes the best course of action is to pay the most absurd of claims no heed whatsoever. There's nothing to be gained by addressing how certain things you would a few lines below refer to as "real things" are in fact total falsehoods. You don't believe it, so what good would it do try even say any of that? As I said in the religion thread, faith is not affected by facts. You call me a party with deaf ears to your words, but yet you're the one who ignores everything I've said only to repeat the same tired lines about absolute bullshit.

You wish to suggest that I pay heed to the differences between what you believe you have conveyed and what you believe I believe I have (mis)understood? How about you pay heed to the difference between being deaf to a message and wanting nothing to do with addressing a proverbial "can of worms"?

-Semantics inform and relate to ideology. My core misuse was of the meaning of one word under another, and referring to my slip in semantics, which was what it was - a lack of consideration for meaning, saying one thing and meaning another, different thing. I don't and didn't deny that the sociocultural aspect is not significant. I assented to that being incorrect of me.

It didn't seem like it, to me. But if that's the case, then fine.

I still would not agree that semantics informs and relates to ideology. Semantics, and language in general, are just tools. Some people don't care how precise they are with their tools, as long as the job is done. I (obviously) am obsessed with precision and efficiency. But, deviations aside, ideologies are the consequence of feelings and thoughts, which are informed upon by knowledge, which is built upon personal experiences. Words only enter the equation if someone's "ideology" is shaped out of the whims of another; speakers winning over coddling masses, for instance. I wouldn't consider being persuaded to be anywhere remotely similar to forming a core ideology. Semantics being important, I still wouldn't consider them to have any relationship to ideology, beyond explaining it.

I don't believe you to be sincere about that.

That's only your prerogative. Suffice it to say, you're wrong if you don't believe me to be sincere. I am nothing if not sincere. You made spelling errors, I fixed the errors. I drew attention to that with 1 word; versus the paragraph that followed addressing the CONTEXT of what you said. So that is to say, any consideration I gave was towards spelling amounted to an insignificant fraction of the consideration I gave towards addressing what you said. And you still don't believe me to be sincere? This is where repeating the accusation of "cynic" would be most apropos.

And yeah, it's kind of obvious. You know it is, and what I meant. It's late.

You're confusing precision for spite. I didn't care why you made those errors; at no point did I make any allusion to possible causes with any form of derision, e.g. "It's spelled blah blah, moron" or "Can't even spell? lol!" For the past several weeks, I had to make due with a laptop while I was unable to use my PC because of a dead PSU. I was both totally unaccustomed to it AND felt that the layout of the laptop's keys were poor. I made frequent comment of my frustration with it in many of my posts over the course of those weeks- just search my name and "fuck this keyboard" on NMA, you'll see many examples. So I am WELL AWARE of possible causes for spelling errors, and am not unsympathetic.

But that doesn't matter, because why is irrelevant. Fixing a mistake is done because a mistake was made. It doesn't matter why.

 

[The_WitchDoctor]

I believe SnapSlav is reasonably one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. There have been very few things that I disagree with him on, and while just agreeing with someone isn't exactly grounds to say they are intelligent, it is through the way he describes said beliefs that his intelligence is shown.

Either that or we're all lazy and he just takes the time to write stuff out instead of wording everything into a three sentence paragraph.

 

[SnapSlav]

I believe off the top of my head, the one disagreement I can think about is our respective stances towards trolling, specifically with regards to your beloved supermensa. Primarily, that I don't condone trolling under any circumstances, but you defended their use of trolling to shake up and weed out idiots from the rest in a sort of internet-Darwinian fashion. Can't think of anything else.

 

[The_WitchDoctor]

Hm. I had forgotten all about that PM. Well, nevertheless my previous statement still stands as is.

My, as well as SuperMensa's trolling/glory days are mostly behind us. The website had degraded down to nothing more than a circle jerk now, basically just a smaller type of Facebook between friends who've known eachother for years (I've known most of those guys since 2003).