Welcome to the real world where what you want and what you get aren't always identical. May I suggest less wanting and more intending?
Thanks for sharing your perception - its all grist to the mill
The latter, for sure.
What's impossible for you is quite possible in fact. Just takes a fair amount of practice
Intentionality is key, not 'wanting'.Oh, please tell us the implication, as you understand it, contained in the word "lucrative"
Entirely laudable provided that money comes from customers and not from taxpayers, I agree.
As in 'filthy lucre' ? But filth is not necessarily pejorative. Pejorative or not is a matter of choice in this instance.
Isn't everything?
I was going to use the word "Contrarian" but wasen't sure it was correct. Ah Wickapeda youve done it again.
Since you're curious, I'll explain. Emotion is chemicals. If you dispute that then Candace Pert's book 'The Molecules of Emotion' is a good starting point. So what's exciting is productive - its producing emotion, chemicals in our bloodstream or perhaps in the brain. Emotions are meaning - so we're involved in a meaningful activity.
Its a working demonstration of the power of emotion. I second your call for more support for claims, but we can't have everything can we, especially where emotions are clearly running high
Effective for what? If you mean effective for learning then I disagree. Why else would we be here other than to learn something and have fun? Both those aims are being fulfilled admirably on this thread - 'edutainment' for want of a better word
Effective for what? If you mean effective for learning then I disagree. Why else would we be here other than to learn something and have fun? Both those aims are being fulfilled admirably on this thread - 'edutainment' for want of a better word [/QUOTE]
Some time ago I worked at a company aside a good man who became a mentor. He was strongly religous
and we were both subordant to another good man who was also strongly religious. Everyday at lunch they
gather in the back and debate their religious differences. They never produced anything but dialog.
If I understand you correctly, dialog is an end in itself. If so, I would mearly submit that it be
conducted in a gentelmanly fashon. Why? Because its more productive/effective.
[/QUOTE]Some time ago I worked at a company aside a good man who became a mentor. He was strongly religous
and we were both subordant to another good man who was also strongly religious. Everyday at lunch they
gather in the back and debate their religious differences. They never produced anything but dialog.
If I understand you correctly, dialog is an end in itself. If so, I would mearly submit that it be
conducted in a gentelmanly fashon. Why? Because its more productive/effective.
You missed my point - if dialog is conducted in such a way as to exclude the generation of emotions, then it won't be productive. Between two strongly religious people I'd imagine that they'd have strong view that they 'should' both remain gentlemanly in discussion. That view is mistaken given current psychological understanding. It was unproductive precisely in that no emotion was generated.
Context is everything. Here's some:
"Of course there's lots of research in this area - as you are demonstrating with PlastiPure & CertiChem - it's a highly lucrative area as is all science that instills irrational fear in the public" jkeny
link "lucrative" with the claim of science instilling irrational fear and you can't avoid the clear implication that the purpose of using the word was perjorative.
And that, my firend, is logic, not emotion.
Not really, its half of everything. Text is the other half
If the 'you' there is a generic you then I can test your claim by instantiating myself into your words and seeing if it fits. I have, and it does not - I have avoided the implication that its pejorative. Therefore it follows that the gloss is of your own devising.
Logic is useless except in digital design - I cite Mr Spock as exhibit A. Reason is what matters and your claim is an unreasonable one.
abraxalito
I can see that I dident make myself clear. They were emotional. It was the very emotional. Hand waving and raised voices, the whole shebang.They still keep it in check, and in the work place none the less. They could only agree to dis-agree. I suppose that on a fourm discussing logic vrs emotion I was a bit disapointed that this thread went as far as it did. Look, the mode of communication that we have chosen is poor at best. No chance to look the other guy in the eye, and judge the body language. No chance to reach to your gun when one is threatened. I think its best to error on the positive side.
I can see that I dident make myself clear. They were emotional. It was the very emotional. Hand waving and raised voices, the whole shebang.They still keep it in check, and in the work place none the less. They could only agree to dis-agree. I suppose that on a fourm discussing logic vrs emotion I was a bit disapointed that this thread went as far as it did. Look, the mode of communication that we have chosen is poor at best. No chance to look the other guy in the eye, and judge the body language. No chance to reach to your gun when one is threatened. I think its best to error on the positive side.
My point stands - 'they kept it in check'. So they didn't allow emotion full reign. Handwaving and raised voices doesn't count - there has to be emotional release for productive dialogue. For an example of productiveness coming out of emotion, I suggest you seek out a movie jkeny's already referred to on this thread - 'A few good men'.
Sure - unproductive - a little heat but no light. The problem was - the heat wasn't high enough.
I suppose that on a fourm discussing logic vrs emotion I was a bit disapointed that this thread went as far as it did. Look, the mode of communication that we have chosen is poor at best. No chance to look the other guy in the eye, and judge the body language. No chance to reach to your gun when one is threatened. I think its best to error on the positive side.
Well at least disappointment is an emotion of sorts
Just not a particularly enjoyable one.
You're looking at the wrong number - quantity does not equal quality. The number of eyeballs is far more important - 3961 at last count
Not really, its half of everything. Text is the other half
If the 'you' there is a generic you then I can test your claim by instantiating myself into your words and seeing if it fits. I have, and it does not - I have avoided the implication that its pejorative. Therefore it follows that the gloss is of your own devising.
Logic is useless except in digital design - I cite Mr Spock as exhibit A. Reason is what matters and your claim is an unreasonable one.
Your inability to logically parse a phrase (written in clear English) with reference to its full context merely indicates your lack of skill in the language. :-O
Post-hoc rationalisation of your stance with reference to low budget science fiction is indeed entertaining, but not rational.
edit - who turned my smileys off???
Last edited:
Gibberish. 'Intentionality' is a specific philosophical term and you obviously are mis-using it.
If you have in mind the meaning of the English word 'intention', then it's very clear your intentions are not benign.
The topic of this thread is reason vs emotion.
You and your friend jkeny have turned it into an exercise in malevolence.
You and he seem to find it exciting. Everyone else reading the thread finds it tiresome, if not disgusting.
That you enjoy the excitement of insult and disorder reflects badly on you.
Last edited:
Care to show reasoning behind this claim? In particular English is a natural language so logical parsing doesn't apply - are you mistaking a natural language for a computer language by any chance?
Map, territory. Conflation.
Post-hoc rationalisation of your stance with reference to low budget science fiction is indeed entertaining, but not rational.
Rationality is irrelevant. I'm having fun here - are you?
Which kinda reduces the value (logically speaking) of any of your earlier posts
Now I've worked out what drives you - yes.
Yes, there's lots of research in areas where the public has a high level of fear. Is this not the case? I indeed am claiming that SY's paper is carefully scripted to instill fear in a certain part of the public. I cited 37 uses of the term "baby bottle" in his paper. Is this a lie? What do you think is the market value for plastic baby bottles? Do you deny capturing some of this market is lucrative?
What I said when I was asked to cite a paper by Clifforest was
I stand by this. No connection has been proven between EA & health issues. I have posted a link to an analysis of this & their conclusion. Nothing has been posted by anyone that contradicts this!
As SY himself said
I agree with him - establish the connection scientifically between EA & health issues before beginning to analyse the cause. So why didn't he do that here?
The PlastiPure website is a bit more explicit
on the home page!
And again
Is this responsible science?
Why not do some research yourselves - even visit the website - have a look at the images used - baby bottles are judiciously used - read the text.
Of course, the answer is to use glass
Last edited:
Indeed I did misuse it, thanks for your correction. I was sloppy.
Curious and curioser. I've never seen an intention myself, but presumably you have some amazing new technology that makes intentions visible. Care to share what that is - it will come in very handy in courts of law so I reckon you stand to make a shed-load of money in offering it to lawyers. Perhaps you'd better patent it first?
That looks to be a claim based on your earlier claim. In case you forgot, that's the one that went 'its very clear your intentions...'. Until I see some evidence that you have the amazing new technology I'm going to remain a skeptic.
Now we've a claim that's testable. What evidence do you have to bring to support it?
False premise, flawed conclusion. Next.....
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.