tehpiemaker said:
Semantics, that's all you're arguing my illiterate friend. Semantics. Danger can be anything: snakes, pain, death, losing money, or find yourself in an uncomfortable situation. Maybe you don't fear them like a phobia, but you do avoid them. Again, when I imply something I do something in the assumption that the person I'm writing to is smart enough to figure out what I'm implying. Forgive me because I was obviously wrong.
Again with the insults, are you sure you're my friend? Avoidance is not the same thing as fear. You can certainly avoid something out of fear, but that's far from the only reason. Again, maybe it's wrong, maybe you're avoiding it out of self-control, or if it's something like a topic of conversation you might even avoid it because it makes you uncomfortable or bores you. None of these things have to be about fear, and if you're implying that it is for me that's a baseless accusation you have no proof of and I have continuously denied.
tehpiemaker said:
I'm including your source cited but not excluding other examples. I never said that being tall was necessary, but I did say that we can evolve in ways that aren't necessary. Evolution isn't merely about survival. Technology evolves even though we did find with what we had. Also, tall is not in itself desirable, but what it symbolizes is. Purple used to a symbol of wealth because of how expensive the die was. So where purple clothing could get a lot of attention. Today's equivalent would be people with abs and chiseled bodies. It's actually very expensive and time consuming to get that type of body so normally only wealthy people have them.
What other examples? And how is evolution not about survival? If a member of a species dies before they can pass on their traits, then the species will continue on without them, as in their inability to survive means their traits no longer decide how future members of the species will evolve. What does being tall symbolize, if not the symbol of health that the article I posted postulates? Besides that, your hypothesis is incorrect: Lower class people have more children, and due to a lack natural predators or rampant disease, more of them are alive than the children of rich upper class people. Arguing for evolution on that knowledge, again, shouldn't people be getting smaller and weaker?
tehpiemaker said:
Who's the presumptuous one now! "...if you'd like for me to educate you..." Do you know what a hypocrite is? A hypocrite is you. Look at all you're previous quotes and see how all over the place you are. You never agree with anything; not even yourself! You used to say Logic should be the best way to conduct yourself. Now you say no philosophy is better than any other. What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you even know? You never answer questions because you have no answers. You act like you know everything! But Logic is different given any situation and all this I was trying to get you to admit that you just don't have the answer! You loop around and around because being right is more important to you than anything. "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but wise man knows himself to be a fool." --William motherfuckin' Shakespeare
You're entire philosophy hinges on it being possible for it to know absolutely everything. But you can't. That's the truth you can't admit to. No one will ever, ever know all the facts. Logic is consequential! Itself is an evolving beast!
No, I said logic is a better way, not the best, and that'd I'd very much like if people used it. I said people choose many different philosophies, not that any of them are correct (though I have stated that some are incorrect). I do have answers, you're just asking the wrong questions and trying to trap me with faulty information. I also find it strange you keep assuming I think so highly of myself when I've said more or less the opposite at every turn. Who I am is unimportant to the central point. I didn't invent logic, I just rather like it - lots of other people do too, in fact, that's one reason it exists in the first place - but I'd never assert that I am flawless for subscribing to it, only that I try to better myself by using it. Also, quoting Shakespeare is an appeal to false authority. He was a poet, actor and playwright, not a philosopher or scientist.
My philosophy doesn't hinge on knowing "absolutely everything", just knowing all the relevant variables in an equation. And yes, because we might not know what all of those are at any given moment, mistakes can be made, but the objective of logic is to find the best possible solution, given the facts that we can assemble. The core philosophy is not an evolving beast, only the arguments it can be used in, as more pertinent information can be brought to light.
tehpiemaker said:
There's always something you can do. A person is only as great as their heart lets them be. A coward says otherwise, especially one who governs by facts. You've failed your own test.
Also, you're wrong. A person is a product of the environment. All the morals you hold are because of you're upbringing. You did not simply decide one day that logic should dictate your life: something convinced you. It might've been an event or a person or even a history lesson, but you cannot give yourself sole credit.
Your heart doesn't decide who you are, that would be your brain, or more specifically memories stored in your brain. You have failed at basic human biology.
I wasn't wrong, once again you've just made incorrect assumptions about what my statements might have implied. But okay, I decided logic was the best course of action in arguments when I read it in a book during an Ethics class while we were going over logical fallacies and debate tactics. Logic is the only academically accepted way of conducting an argument, so I thought "why not try applying it to daily life?", since I see the same fallacies being made on non-academic issues. It hasn't failed me in navigating more complicated issues and it's stayed my hand when I might have otherwise acted unwisely.