Thought or Rant of the day!!!

[Gran]

It's alot less realistic to assume an invisible enemy is going to destroy your schools after you've built them than to build them and assume there's no invisible enemy to destroy your schools.

What does that even means? The thing is clear, no matter what you think of the action, there is the risk that something bad might happen. It doesn't matter if you think you should have bought the MDS or not. You have chosen to build the schools. Not having MDS might bring a risk.

And this is only an abstract example to make things clear. Qualifying the army as invisible does not invalidates the argument in any way.

I don't subscribe to some classical view, and I don't think most people do. The world doesn't live off complicated philosophy, people live by being realistic about their problems and doing things that are practical.

People do? I don't see any fact backing that up. Specially with the considerable amounts of people that just everything to be fine no matter what happens. How realistic is that?

I'm just saying your assumption that realism does not have douches preaching it around is wrong.

[Ryaga]

It's alot less realistic to assume an invisible enemy is going to destroy your schools after you've built them than to build them and assume there's no invisible enemy to destroy your schools.

What does that even means? The thing is clear, no matter what you think of the action, there is the risk that something bad might happen. It doesn't matter if you think you should have bought the MDS or not. You have chosen to build the schools. Not having MDS might bring a risk.

And this is only an abstract example to make things clear. Qualifying the army as invisible does not invalidates the argument in any way.

I don't subscribe to some classical view, and I don't think most people do. The world doesn't live off complicated philosophy, people live by being realistic about their problems and doing things that are practical.

People do? I don't see any fact backing that up. Specially with the considerable amounts of people that just everything to be fine no matter what happens. How realistic is that?

I'm just saying your assumption that realism does not have douches preaching it around is wrong.

It is invisible. I'm going to make something over-board instead of bettering my population because of an unstated threat.

As I stated,

When's the last time you saw someone bend over backwards to pick up something behind them. People do thing the easiest, most practical way. That's realistic, and shows you've got a grip on reality. I can build a giant hand on my back to pick things up behind me, but I don't because the effort put into that would be more than I would spend picking up things behind me for the rest of my life.

[Gran]

It is invisible. I'm going to make something over-board instead of bettering my population because of an unstated threat.

It is invisible because this is a general example. The origin of the threat has nothing to do with the discussion. I am only saying what the very concept of realism dictates in such a situation. If you disagree with that, you're simply saying you do not agree with realism when talking about this matter.

Your math teacher probably didn't had, when explaining that if Lil' John has three apples and eats one of them, to explain where Lil' John got the apples. It is not relevant. And it is not relevant because he was explaining a way of thinking - the emphasis was not in explaining the origins of the action but on the action and its results solely, the same that I am doing here.

When's the last time you saw someone bend over backwards to pick up something behind them. People do thing the easiest, most practical way.

That is pragmatism solely. And if you want me to be a scrutinist, I could just say that this is much more a biological tendency to avoid unnecessary expending of biochemical energy than having to do with the fact of people being realist or not.

Also, you made understood that people do not subscribe to a "complex philosophy". So how can you say people are realist? What does realism does even have to do with it if you put it in that way?

[Ryaga]

The representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form.

Realism. That's how people tend to treat things. Bending over backwards might look elegant, or impressive, but it's odd and impractical.

[Gran]

The representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form.

Realism. That's how people tend to treat things. Bending over backwards might look elegant, or impressive, but it's odd and impractical.

You're speaking about the Artistic Realism, which is a historical school of aesthetics that was preceded by Romanticism, which main characteristic was the idealization and the emphasis on the emotions over rationality. If people tend to be realistic, how come such a movement could exist? How come that humans even invented ornamentation? Do you deny the continuous alternation between over-ornamentation and sobriety that characterized the alternation of aesthetic models during the Modern Era?

We are practical. Emphasis on practicality can be a trait of Realism, but in itself it is meaningless. It does not provide enough data for such categorizations. You cannot therefore make such an affirmation that people always tend to be Realistic. Specially if you consider that idealization is still a heavy influence on the mind.

Let's face it. I'll be burned for the argument, but here it is. Realism involves the representation and abstraction of solely what can be found within reality. And you say people are Realistic, thus they should base all their judgments around things they find in reality, thing they can touch and know that exist, to be skeptic. If that is true, how come that religious bias even exists?

Gods cannot be proven to exist. Gods can only believed in. Still, people make judgments based on the laws of a unprovable God. Homosexuals were accused by the fundamentalist jews of being responsible for earthquakes in Israel. And this wasn't one hundred years ago. It was in 2008. They said that it was a divine punishment sent by God. How is this realistic or rational?

Stem cell research could enhance greatly medicine, with the possibility of the regeneration of tissues to replace body parts. But Christians say that it is a sin to harvest it from fetuses, because the fetus has a soul just as much as an adult, thus making it homicide. But there aren't any proofs that such thing as a soul exists. And even though the economic, scientific and health effects would greatly benefit society, stem cell research still faces opposition of something that cannot be proved to exist. How come this is realistic?

Also, a artificial ski resort was built in Dubai, at the middle of the desert. I'm not even comment this one.

[Voltenion]

I can build a giant hand on my back to pick things up behind me, but I don't because the effort put into that would be more than I would spend picking up things behind me for the rest of my life.

Don't worry mate, if Darwinist are right, it will soon pop out of our back.
I'm still waiting for my asshole to generate an eye.

[Ryaga]

The representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form.

Realism. That's how people tend to treat things. Bending over backwards might look elegant, or impressive, but it's odd and impractical.

You're speaking about the Artistic Realism, which is a historical school of aesthetics that was preceded by Romanticism, which main characteristic was the idealization and the emphasis on the emotions over rationality. If people tend to be realistic, how come such a movement could exist? How come that humans even invented ornamentation? Do you deny the continuous alternation between over-ornamentation and sobriety that characterized the alternation of aesthetic models during the Modern Era?

We are practical. Emphasis on practicality can be a trait of Realism, but in itself it is meaningless. It does not provide enough data for such categorizations. You cannot therefore make such an affirmation that people always tend to be Realistic. Specially if you consider that idealization is still a heavy influence on the mind.

Let's face it. I'll be burned for the argument, but here it is. Realism involves the representation and abstraction of solely what can be found within reality. And you say people are Realistic, thus they should base all their judgments around things they find in reality, thing they can touch and know that exist, to be skeptic. If that is true, how come that religious bias even exists?

Gods cannot be proven to exist. Gods can only believed in. Still, people make judgments based on the laws of a unprovable God. Homosexuals were accused by the fundamentalist jews of being responsible for earthquakes in Israel. And this wasn't one hundred years ago. It was in 2008. They said that it was a divine punishment sent by God. How is this realistic or rational?

Stem cell research could enhance greatly medicine, with the possibility of the regeneration of tissues to replace body parts. But Christians say that it is a sin to harvest it from fetuses, because the fetus has a soul just as much as an adult, thus making it homicide. But there aren't any proofs that such thing as a soul exists. And even though the economic, scientific and health effects would greatly benefit society, stem cell research still faces opposition of something that cannot be proved to exist. How come this is realistic?

Also, a artificial ski resort was built in Dubai, at the middle of the desert. I'm not even comment this one.

I'm going to take the entirety of religion out of this, religion nor science can outweigh the burden of proof.

Religion can't prove god created the universe.
Science can't prove natural processes created the universe.

(Do note I don't take a stance here I'm an 'apathist'.) Anything past that is speculation. From those that speculate on a religious standpoint it's realistic not to 'kill' unborn babies for medical research. It's not practical, because they never get a chance at life, while those who are dying have already gotten theirs. And no, look back over that definition, it's encompassed social and actions in realism aswell. I'm referring to those. Art is realistic and practical. It makes us feel nice, and it doesn't feel like we're bending over backwards for things.

From an economic standpoint I'm sure that resort is practical. Much more practical than flying to the other half of the world.

[Gran]

From those that speculate on a religious standpoint it's realistic not to 'kill' unborn babies for medical research.

You are making your own assumptions on which is realism. There is not such thing as "being realistic from a religious standpoint" because religion is not fucking realistic. Didn't you say that weren't realistic to believe that a invisible army would destroy my country? Well, so how it is realistic to believe that an invisible man that watches my back every day of my fucking life will punish me for harvesting stem cells is in any way real -goddamn -istic?

I'm going to take the entirety of religion out of this, religion nor science can outweigh the burden of proof.

Religion can't prove god created the universe.
Science can't prove natural processes created the universe.

Science, in its roots, means "to know".If we say that science cannot prove what created the universe, you're actually saying that what we currently know does not gives us conditions to do such. This is not an absolute then.

If you argue that ontologically we cannot harvest all answers that make our reality function, that is just silly. Realism does not proposes itself to answer such questions, only those which can be answered by the measurable and perceptible reality. More than that would be speculation.

Philosophical systems have their limitations, Realism cannot explain phenomena outside reality.

Art is realistic and practical. It makes us feel nice, and it doesn't feel like we're bending over backwards for things.

Art does not necessarily makes people feel nice. That's why Shock Art even has Art in it's name.

This is the piece called Piss & Blood XXVI. It was made with cow blood and the author's own urine, mixed between two sheets of pexyglass.
This is Piss Christ, another piece by Andres Serrano that caused outrage since it was first exhibited and almost broken down into pieces by youngsters which attacked it with friggin' hammers. Go tell them how nice they felt.

There is also little piece of art made by Damien Hirst called "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living". It is a dead shark. The cost of the original was around 8 million dollars.

Art is does not need to be realistic. That's also the reason of why was the goddamn Surrealism. And does not need to be practical. A dead shark laying decaying slowly in a giant tank is not practical.

This thing all started because I believed that there are douches which preach realism ( without using the argument of subjectivity, because I myself hate relativism). And there are. Period. You know why? Because I say that Bill O'Reilly is fucking realist. End of discussion.

Of course, you may have another opinion. You'll be wrong, but you can have it. Now on to other things, because I'm tired of this. My back hurts and I have derailed the topic with all this philosophical bitching.

[Ryaga]

Really, you're taking me saying.

"People act realistic and practical because it works."

to

"I'm going to associate this to something classical, and then I'm going to associate it to a person."

You're arguing over something that's obviously untrue. There are very few people who let themselves have or give themselves an abstract view of society and reality, and that's because trying to act completely non-violent, or not drawing lines for yourself, or some other philosophy don't work. You're going to come home with a few black eyes if the first time someone shits around with you you don't take a punch and give one. You're going to end up a wreck if you don't put limits on things.

If you're willing to accept those consequences, go ahead. I was putting my take on what he was saying out there. He put it out on the forums.

[Rigel Kent]

There are two kind of people (and please excuse the MEN part because to it's a way of wording what i about to say so please dont go all sexist on me)
They are men of Faith and men of science. Those two have always clashed but the faith based people have held the reins of power for thousands of years and there power is shrinking every year. The reason is simple science today is something every one can understand and see with there own eyes from plant and animal cells to how weather works and the planets move around in the sky. Those were once unknown or misunderstood like the belife the sun revolved around us.

It is my belife that men of science are better I dont mean this in a bad way some people need faith to survive and this I do understand but for thousands of years people like my self were murdered for our belifes of science and logic. Today the burning at the cross has stopped but not with lack of want more like the power of modern Law and Order. Yet people of faith act the same way saying how we are the tools of the devil himself and how what we belive in and teach is against the will of God.

These belifes are wrong. Haveing the world flooded and a handful of people to survive it the work of a madman not God. Having nothing become life that is God. Haveing the world become into being in 7 days is a faery tale. You want to seehe birth of life.

http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/pillars-of-creation.jpg (think I did the link right if not cut and copy)

THAT is the work of god something the men of faith would have never seen never known about. Science can make true faith strong it's the people who belive in faery tales that are the ignorant ones the ones that truely never belive in Gods greatest gifts makes something as amazing as the birth of life into a storytale.

It's not wrong to follow faith but do not follow blindly.

[Ryaga]

There are two kind of people (and please excuse the MEN part because to it's a way of wording what i about to say so please dont go all sexist on me)
They are men of Faith and men of science. Those two have always clashed but the faith based people have held the reins of power for thousands of years and there power is shrinking every year. The reason is simple science today is something every one can understand and see with there own eyes from plant and animal cells to how weather works and the planets move around in the sky. Those were once unknown or misunderstood like the belife the sun revolved around us.

It is my belife that men of science are better I dont mean this in a bad way some people need faith to survive and this I do understand but for thousands of years people like my self were murdered for our belifes of science and logic. Today the burning at the cross has stopped but not with lack of want more like the power of modern Law and Order. Yet people of faith act the same way saying how we are the tools of the devil himself and how what we belive in and teach is against the will of God.

These belifes are wrong. Haveing the world flooded and a handful of people to survive it the work of a madman not God. Having nothing become life that is God. Haveing the world become into being in 7 days is a faery tale. You want to seehe birth of life.

http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/pillars-of-creation.jpg (think I did the link right if not cut and copy)

THAT is the work of god something the men of faith would have never seen never known about. Science can make true faith strong it's the people who belive in faery tales that are the ignorant ones the ones that truely never belive in Gods greatest gifts makes something as amazing as the birth of life into a storytale.

It's not wrong to follow faith but do not follow blindly.

That's not true at all the 'grey area' of science and faith dominates society.

[Rigel Kent]

That LITTLE greay area is very small. Oh sure they belive in cells and what not but any thing earth shattering they go nuts over. The many world Theory of Quantom Mechanics is one such idea because it is so an amazing idea in it's implications and that it is based off of fact no less makes it so they cant handle it.

Anything new they flee from simply.

and I am sorry if you have n idea what the hell i am talking about pick up a book now again and not some fiction trash.


EDIT: Looking back I feel I must dumb it down for you all. Then again I dont need anymore.

[NaruShadow]

That LITTLE greay area is very small. Oh sure they belive in cells and what not but any thing earth shattering they go nuts over. The many word Theory of Quantom Mechanics is one such idea because it is so an amazing idea in it's implications and that it is based off of fact no less makes it so they cant handle it.

Anything new they flee from simply.

and I am sorry if you have n idea what the hell i am talking about pick up a book now again and not some fiction trash.

Quantum**

[Rigel Kent]

it's the middle of the night and I worked today in this heat so give me a break steve. Besides you dont know what the hell it is lol nor do the rest of this morons unless they google it like idiots.

[chase02]

I have the flu so I could be imagining it, but did Rigel just start talking about quantum mechanics? I think I need some drugs.