Originally posted by Alpha CentauriThat's stupid, an opposite is something that reverses what it's opposite to equally.
That would depend on how you define fire.Some say ice, some say water.
-AC
E.g. North -- South
If I travel north, to do the opposite would be to travel south.
Fire does not reverse ice or water, therefore it can't be opposite to either.
What is the opposite of opposite?Equivelant.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm asking you a very civil question, no need to be so insecure.What Metaphysics material and Chinese Philosophy material have you studied, and for how long? Because I'm interested, as my cousin is here and has studied such subjects for five years. He seems to believe you're talking in a really uninformed way, regardless of if you are correct.
It's a civil, curious question. Why take it personal? You can't warn people because they're questioning you. You have as bad an attitude as some of the people here. I'm just asking how long you've studied it for, and what you've studied. Civilly, friendly, so why not afford a likewise reply?
-AC
Actually, you asked me a civil question in a very rude manner. The best thing for you to do is ignore my posts, if you cannot help but be rude.
And you have no space to talk to me about my attitude, in all honesty.
.....
I did Classical Studies at A-level. We talked about Aristotle. Since then, I have, whenever the time, read a lot on Aristotle, and especially Metaphysics.
Explaining the world is something, i presume a lot of people would be interested in.
Second, idea of ying-yang is pretty wide known. The whole universe is made up of opposing forces, or opposites, each opposing while complimenting each other.
Opposites are never absolute, but relative. ying-yang.
Thus I was backing up my argument with the Metaphysics and Chines e Philosophy, while some people were backing it up with ''It just doens't have opposites''
I was hopping people would come up with a theoretical challenge to either of those philosophies at best. And by challenege, I mean a plausible example of why something cannot be.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Actually, you asked me a civil question in a very rude manner. The best thing for you to do is ignore my posts, if you cannot help but be rude.
If you cannot help but assume I'm being rude, the best thing for you to do is realise that books don't win debates.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I did Classical Studies at A-level. We talked about Aristotle. Since then, I have, whenever the time, read a lot on Aristotle, and especially Metaphysics.
So basically, it is what I said it is? You read a lot of books and therefore assume you are more of an authority in this debate because of it? I accused you of that and you went off on one.
You read about it and studied it at A-Level, wow, no seriously. Floored.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Explaining the world is something, i presume a lot of people would be interested in.
This is relevent how?
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Thus I was backing up my argument with the Metaphysics and Chines e Philosophy, while some people were backing it up with ''It just doens't have opposites''
You're assuming that because you've read about some philosophers, you're an authority.
Did it, or does it not occur to you that...you know...other humans also read and have access to books and knowledge? You express an interest in many things and read up on them, splendid. I actually encourage people to learn more in their free time, but that doesn't entitle you to assume that you have some worthwhile and superior knowledge on it.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I was hopping people would come up with a theoretical challenge to either of those philosophies at best. And by challenege, I mean a plausible example of why something cannot be.
Fair enough, and I've got no problem with WHAT you're saying, Lil. You just seem to continually assume that you know more and have more right to speak simply because you've got an interest.
I find medicine interesting, I don't assume I know more about it.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you cannot help but assume I'm being rude, the best thing for you to do is realise that books don't win debates.So basically, it is what I said it is? You read a lot of books and therefore assume you are more of an authority in this debate because of it? I accused you of that and you went off on one.
You read about it and studied it at A-Level, wow, no seriously. Floored.
This is relevent how?
You're assuming that because you've read about some philosophers, you're an authority.
Did it, or does it not occur to you that...you know...other humans also read and have access to books and knowledge? You express an interest in many things and read up on them, splendid. I actually encourage people to learn more in their free time, but that doesn't entitle you to assume that you have some worthwhile and superior knowledge on it.
Fair enough, and I've got no problem with WHAT you're saying, Lil. You just seem to continually assume that you know more and have more right to speak simply because you've got an interest.
I find medicine interesting, I don't assume I know more about it.
-AC
I can do and say whatever I please, you have no right, authority nor knowledge to say what I assume or think.
And the fact that you came into a thread to tell ME what I am like, making absolutely no referance to the thread, is again, trolling.
I already warned you about trolling. This is the last call.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I can do and say whatever I please, you have no right, authority nor knowledge to say what I assume or think.And the fact that you came into a thread to tell ME what I am like, making absolutely no referance to the thread, is again, trolling.
I already warned you about trolling. This is the last call.
You are wrong. He asked you where you got your "knowledge" about the subject from. That is on topic. Stop abusing your powers, just cause you are wrong.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You are wrong. He asked you where you got your "knowledge" about the subject from. That is on topic. Stop abusing your powers, just cause you are wrong.
Yet you are still to answer me. My claims are backed by Metaphysics and Chinese philosophy...and yours?
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And I answered 10 times, where my claims came from.Yet you are still to answer me. My claims are backed by Metaphysics and Chinese philosophy...and yours?
10 times is a little bit exaggerated. You answered once. Which is sufficient. Then you went ahead and threatened AC. Childish.
My claims come from the English language and the definition of the word. Which, well, beats all the shit you could ever read in a book. The word is defined. The way it is defined not everything has an "opposite". That's the end of the story. And nothing is actually backed by Metaphysic, Metaphysics are just not an accurate science, they are putting out an idea and thinking about it. And they certainly don't back anything cause there are very different ideas in the field of Metaphysics. But I see you learned a new word, that's cool.
Actually, Lil, it seems that you can't do or say whatever you please, since you're getting on AC's case for what he's saying. And his commenting on what you assume is similar, especially as earlier you attacked Bardock.
Coming into a thread on a forum such as this, where most of the debaters will know one another and have talked before, means that judgements based on each others' characters are a simple part of discussion. As for not making a relevent post, AC was challenging the 'base' of your argument. Just because he wasn't previously involved in the discussion doesn't mean he hasn't read the thread.
In fact, I'd be interested to know which part of 'Chinese Philosophy' you based your argument on. Repeatedly stating that you have done so is interesting, but not very helpful. In fact, your first related comment was four pages into your contribution to the discussion, which mainly consisted of you attacking Bardock. Your relevent comments actually changed tack partway through the argument, too, when you changed from a Positive/Negative stance to a more generic 'anything not the piano is the piano's opposite'.
Can you explain exactly why anything that isn't the piano (the mythical non piano) is the opposite of it? I'd argue that only forces and concepts can have true opposites, because everything else that exists within the universe share similarities.
Trickster, she expects it all to be taken at face value. The first hint that you don't think she's some ultra genius and she abuses the mod powers.
I edited my post when I thought it could be seen as disrespectful, before Lil even replied, but she still calls it trolling. Ridiculous. It wasn't trolling even if I left it in. I've not trolled her by any definition.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
My claims are backed by Metaphysics and Chinese philosophy...and yours?
Yes, A-level discussions and spare time reading. Hardly makes you more credible than anybody else here.
Everyone is asking you what you base your knowledge on, and you say "Metaphysics and Chinese Philosophy.", then expect us to just accept that.
Like you said, either contribute or don't.
Don't give me "last call" threats. Last call for what? Me pulling up on things you can't back up? I'm not trolling you and you know it. I came in a thread and suggested that you don't act all high and mighty because you've read books. We've all asked what you base your info on and you can't give us examples.
As for you telling me about being rude, you've replied remarkably rude to Bardock in this thread.
-AC
Originally posted by Bardock42
10 times is a little bit exaggerated. You answered once. Which is sufficient. Then you went ahead and threatened AC. Childish.My claims come from the English language and the definition of the word. Which, well, beats all the shit you could ever read in a book. The word is defined. The way it is defined not everything has an "opposite". That's the end of the story. And nothing is actually backed by Metaphysic, Metaphysics are just not an accurate science, they are putting out an idea and thinking about it. And they certainly don't back anything cause there are very different ideas in the field of Metaphysics. But I see you learned a new word, that's cool.
English deffinition of a word beats all the shit i can read in a book?
Right...
When Aristotle discussed reality and idea of opposites English language didnt even exist.
And when Chinese introduced the idea of ying-yang, English language didn't exist.
Also, I do not udnerstand how someone can prove a theory through English deffinition of a word.
Let me go prove Physics is right - by deining it in English!!
Originally posted by Trickster
Actually, Lil, it seems that you can't do or say whatever you please, since you're getting on AC's case for what he's saying. And his commenting on what you assume is similar, especially as earlier you attacked Bardock.Coming into a thread on a forum such as this, where most of the debaters will know one another and have talked before, means that judgements based on each others' characters are a simple part of discussion. As for not making a relevent post, AC was challenging the 'base' of your argument. Just because he wasn't previously involved in the discussion doesn't mean he hasn't read the thread.
In fact, I'd be interested to know which part of 'Chinese Philosophy' you based your argument on. Repeatedly stating that you have done so is interesting, but not very helpful. In fact, your first related comment was four pages into your contribution to the discussion, which mainly consisted of you attacking Bardock. Your relevent comments actually changed tack partway through the argument, too, when you changed from a Positive/Negative stance to a more generic 'anything not the piano is the piano's opposite'.
Can you explain exactly why anything that isn't the piano (the mythical non piano) is the opposite of it? I'd argue that only forces and concepts can have true opposites, because everything else that exists within the universe share similarities.
The discussion was flowing finely, until people begun to be rude, then when the sae is thrown back at them, they can't handle it.
I tolerated Bardock calling me stupid, passing sly comments regarding 'university or kindegarden dropout comments' which were unecessary.
When someone said something back - he called you and AC to visit the thread and be on his side. Hmmm...
I would tell you to refer to the earlier posts and read the thread, but I am pretty sure you have already made up your mind.
At any rate, you can PM me with your concerns regarding what I said and the way I conducted myself - not on the board, please.
Same goes for Bardock anyone else - please use PMs from now on.
....
Second, chinese philosophy of oppoistes Im sure you know. Its ying-yang. The idea that whole universe is made up of the opposing forces - ying and yang. They are not independent and they are not absolute - they are relative, but they all have an opposite.
What is opposite of you - would actually be a female. Becuse you cannot be defined into ''one thing'' neither can your opposite - which would be a little strange.
Matter has less ''absolute'' opposites, and they are far more relative - but existant.
....
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Trickster, she expects it all to be taken at face value. The first hint that you don't think she's some ultra genius and she abuses the mod powers.I edited my post when I thought it could be seen as disrespectful, before Lil even replied, but she still calls it trolling. Ridiculous. It wasn't trolling even if I left it in. I've not trolled her by any definition.
Yes, A-level discussions and spare time reading. Hardly makes you more credible than anybody else here.
Everyone is asking you what you base your knowledge on, and you say "Metaphysics and Chinese Philosophy.", then expect us to just accept that.
Like you said, either contribute or don't.
Don't give me "last call" threats. Last call for what? Me pulling up on things you can't back up? I'm not trolling you and you know it. I came in a thread and suggested that you don't act all high and mighty because you've read books. We've all asked what you base your info on and you can't give us examples.
As for you telling me about being rude, you've replied remarkably rude to Bardock in this thread.
-AC
I am not going to tell you again. If you came here to argue how I conducted myself to bradock, use PMs.
This is for discussion only. And I am absolutey serious about tis.
If you have something to say to me, regarding my modding, or the way I conduct myself, use PMs, not the board.
Lets continue this thread in discussion only.