[Gobbler]

It's unfair for both, because all I have to do is step into the room, shout "Whoo! There's a leather-coat sale!" and stab the two of them while they pass me with almost lightspeed.

[civilian_number_two]

Quote

Don't paraphrase a line from a play, unless you know EXACTLY what it means.

I do know exactly what it means. When Flan says it of Ouisa, she's in the room. She knows what it means as well; she doesn't storm out of go all crazy because it's not a great insult. In context, and in the context I used it, it means "what you are saying has no bearing on what we are talking about." See; art of the absurd. You are a Dada Manifesto. To wit:

Quote

I equated Newton's physical laws to 'trying to meet someone', not romantic love. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I was referring to the fact that depending on the 'action' you take to find 'someone', there will always be an equal and opposite reaction. You brought it up; not me.

Again, no I didn't. I never brought up Newton's Laws of Motion with respect either to meeting someone, or to romantic love. Whether you meet someone or not, regardless of the effort you put into it, this has nothing to do with physical laws. Literally, if you push on a desk, the desk will push back. Which moves is determined by mass and friction. Social interactions are never analysed in terms of force applied. You'll never read a paper on it from a respectable physicist. Even used metaphorically, I don't get it. If you want someone to love you, do you have to hate them? To get her to go down on you, do you have to go up on her?

Quote

I cited Jim Morrison to show the meaning of 'time'. The only reason time exists is to separate night from day. Time is man's ideology. God gave us night and day; man decided to divide it further.

I cited Ecclesiastes to show there was a 'time' for everything, including 'love'. This includes "ugly, obese people". I quoted this to show that if you miss your moment, it is not society's fault. You had your chance. Just like your friend who liked writing poetry for the women he was attracted to. If he just wrote poetry, and bought them gifts, he wasted his time.

God did not in fact give us night and day; night and day are the result of the interplay between the sun and the rotation of the Earth.

Regardless, both authors you cited are poets. Yet you decry the use of poetry in philosophical debate. Who cares what Jim Morrison had to say about day and night or breaking through to the other side? This has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. As for the comment in Ecclesiastes, that book also says that all effort is futile, that all is vanity. That is in fact the MAIN POINT of the book. I am neither a Jew nor a Christian, and I don't see how that book scientifically proves that there is someone for everyone. It may in fact argue the exact opposite.

Quote

Let's all pretend WWI and WWII never happened. Let's all live like John Lennon 'imagines'. Let's just pretend that WWI era Germany was full of cotton candy clouds, and the kids laughed, and danced with gum drop smiles. Let's all pretend the World Trade Center didn't collapse. Let's pretend there is no such thing as war. Let's pretend Jacko doesn't like little boys. If we just close our eyes and forget we have a pulse, it will all just go away. Right?

Dada. Straw Man too, maybe. Also a bit of a Trey Parker ripoff at one point. I honestly don't understand this bit. I don't see what it has to do with anything. I'm pretty sure I didn't say that WWI never happened. I just said that you don't understand the meaning of the exp​ression "There is someone for everyone," and also that I think it's hilarious that you think you could get any woman that you wanted. You're so classic, man. What are you, 19 years old?

Quote

The statement "There is someone for everyone" is not an idiom. An idiom is a phrase that does not have a literal meaning. If the statement was "There is no one of consequence for everyone", then we could argue all day about idioms.

THERE = a pronoun used as subject of a clause usually with the verb to be, when the real subject follows the verb. For example: There is a stain on your shirt. In this case, the word 'is' takes the place of 'be'.
IS = (see be) to exist
SOMEONE = a particular unknown person/an important person
FOR = in support of/because of = on account of
EVERYBODY = all people

"There exists a particular unknown person/an important person in support of/on account of all people."

FALSE. First off, the subject and objects needn't be real in order to use "there" and "is," even though you take pains to insist that. "There is a Wizard in Earthsea" is a syntactically accurate sentence, and the subject is not real. Also, you can't break down every sentence to its component words; often the meaning is in the collaboration.

In component words, the sentence "there is someone for everyone" can't be understood; it's not the same as "there is a grey car on the road." It needs to be interpreted, and not literally. Besides, you're doing that dictionary thing again. Some of those words could be read differently. For instance, "for" can be used to describe an exchange, eg "there is a dollar for the donut." Can I then take "someone for everyone" to mean "everyone is replaceable/exchangeable?" “Don’t worry about Johnson quitting; there’s someone for everyone.” It might also, since you want to be literal, mean that there is exactly ONE person there to support ALL people. Maybe then it is a reference to Jesus, the someONE for EVERYone. This is in fact the most direct interpretation I can come to based on the definitions you offered above, and I know that's not how the exp​ression is ever used.

The statement IS in fact, an idiom. It cannot to be read in the manner you cite above, with a literal breakdown of every word. If it could, and if it meant something as limited as what you say, then it would not be worth saying (or arguing about). It is a maxim, not a tautology. You might as well say that the exp​ression "into every life, a little rain must fall" is also literally just about the weather. Your decision that the “fish in the sea” saying is not literal yet “someone for everyone” MUST be reminds me of the folks who decide which parts of the Bible are literal and which are metaphor. How do you make the decision, may I ask? It seems as abritrary as any other decision you've made in this debate. Dada.

Use dictates meaning. Try making a survey and see what folks thing the phrase means. If you are the only person who thinks one-night stands apply, then you think the whole world is out of step with you. So far no one in this thread agrees with you; maybe you can branch out and find someone out there that does. After all, there's someone for everyone!!!

Quote

Please note that 'idiom' is 'idiocy' if you drop the 'm' and add 'cy'.

Dada.

Quote

For example: I like pizza.
You can argue all day long that I hate pizza. You can claim the statement "I like pizza" is an idiom. You can quote Wilfred Owen, or Plato, or Aristophanes, or Socrates, or e.e. cummings, or Dr. Seuss until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains: I like pizza. It is a literal statement. It is not an idiom.

Straw man. Whether you like pizza can be easily established. You believe that the statement "There is someone for everyone" is a simple, provable fact, and that is that. Folks here have pointed out well enough that when looked at, it doesn’t prove itself so easily. You’re the best example around for how its very range is not obvious: we all know who “you” are, and we all know what “pizza” is. But exactly in what capacity is there someone “for” everyone? What does that mean? Everyone else in the world believes that it is a nice saying to explain why guys like Paul Bernardo can meet and find women to love and marry. Its most common use is when you see odd couples; in this way it is akin to "It takes all kinds." All the Ecclesiastes or Jim Morrison you got will not convince anyone in this forum that I ever said anything about pizza.

Quote

I did not say Wilfred Owen wasn't an important poet.

You did however say that all philosophers > all poets. Here, you'll say it again:

Quote

When it comes to logical thinking, you can't necessarily take a poet's word over a well known philosopher's. The difference between poetry and philosophy is pretty simple: Poetry is a method of writing words in an imaginative, and rhythmic manner. Philosophy is the study of the methods and limits of human knowledge, or the study of the meaning of human existence.

Let's talk again about Aristophanes's idea of the four-armed, four-legged people with the two heads. I dare say that Wilfred Owen was speaking more concretely about a physical reality in the real world than our friend the philosopher. Aristophanes was speaking in an imaginative manner, though perhaps not rhythmic. Not all poems, by the way, rhyme or have rhythm. Poetry is a style of writing, but not of thinking. Philosophy can be written in verse, and a person need not be declared by historians "a philosopher" before I will take his words to have meaning.

Quote

How many poems have you read that studied the methods and limits of human knowledge, or the meaning of human existence?

A few hundred, at least, and I’m not really into poetry. I think you have a narrow idea of what poetry is. Voltaire wrote poetry. So did Plato. Some great works of literature are quite philosophical. The meter is irrelevant; I wonder why you mention it. I think you also have a pretty open view of philosophy. Have you ever read Berkeley’s argument that hot and cold, being abstract, means that all sensations must necessarily come from God? I dare say Owen’s poems about soldiers and the horrors of war will always have more relevance to me than that nonsense.

If I'm going too fast, please tell me to slow down.

Stop saying things like that and then also that you don't think you're the smartest guy here. You repeatedly dive into arguments about the meanings of phrases and words, and you just ramble all over the place and all out of context. I'll remind you again of the one where you tried to show that words can only have exactly one meaning each, an argument easily ruined by any child's dictionary. You went on at that one for days, and made as many odd departures there as here. Along the way, you are very insulting, incapable ever of simply reading a post and responding to it. Everyone else here was able to understand my point, and nobody thought my citing Wilfred Owen was ever anything more than rhetoric. You're the one taking it out of context with your whole ridiculous "philosopher trumps poet" nonsense. Please don't offer to slow down. You're barely moving as it is.

[Spoon Poetic]

*hugs Civ 2*
I didn't want to take the time and effort to say everything you just said, because I knew he'd just twist my words and argue his superiority again; so you totally just made my day by saying it all, and probably way better than I could have.

[Jen]

*hugs Civ 2*
I didn't want to take the time and effort to say everything you just said, because I knew he'd just twist my words and argue his superiority again; so you totally just made my day by saying it all, and probably way better than I could have.

I second that emotion! It is for that very reason that Civ 2 is one of my favorite people ever.

[Jejef Thgaron]

civ, it is apparent you do not believe in a God. I can respect that. I refuse to turn this into a religious argument for the sake of the topic. I am also not going to shove my religious beliefs down your throat. I believe what I believe, and I don't think it should have any bearing on other peoples' choices.

Back on the subject... after reading your entire reply, I am now less intelligent than I was when I got on the internet today. I commend you on your deviation from logical human thought by taking us all on a tangent to an alternate dimension, where the literal meaning of words change to mean something else, metaphorically. I can respect the fact that you think everyone that argues against your logic is a Dada manifesto. I can respect the fact that everyone else agrees with you, as if you were the one true authority on human logic. I think it's funny to watch one lemming follow another off of a cliff. If you were cleverly trying to hide an insult from me, it didn't quite work. To say to someone "what you are saying has no bearing on what we are talking about" is the same thing as calling somebody a 'retard'. There is a Wizard in EarthSea is quite the argument. It really opened my eyes. Thank you.

There are other fish in the sea <--- did I not quote this as being an idiom? I distinctly remember pointing out that it was. It is both literal, and metaphorical at the same time. Maybe my analogies are too far-fetched that you have nothing to respond with, except, "Dada". If Ecclesiastes wrote about effort being futile, and all being vanity... is it not futile to take the effort to refute someone's statement with "There is a Wizard in EarthSea", then display vanity, by calling someone else's argument "Dada"? You have no use for my analogies, yet you continuously attempt to correct me, even when it comes down to my literal English translation of a sentence. Is this not a lesson in futility?

Anything I say.

Dada.

I think it's hilarious you keep using that word. It's like calling bull shit.

There is a Wizard in EarthSea.

Bull shit.

You are obviously much older, and much wiser than me, since you say I'm only 19 years old.

(cough) Bull shit.

I don't think I'm smarter than everyone here. I never said I was. If you didn't catch the metaphorical analogy I used to compare Newton's physical law to finding a companion, that's alright. Not everybody understands analogies. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one. I'm not going to go back and dig up the quote you made on Newton's physical laws, but you were the first to mention it. Deny it if you must, but you did bring it up. I only elaborated on it.

Don't worry, I won't do that 'dictionary' thing again. Those things are just worthless. You can't expect to derive the meaning of a word out a dictionary, anyways. I mean that's just stupid. The definitions of words in a dictionary aren't real... they're just systemic anomalies that are inherent to the programming of the Matrix. Ergo... vis-a-vis... concordantly...

Bull shit.

"You're barely moving as it is". How should I take this? Metaphorically, or literally? Metaphorically, I guess I could assume you are speaking of the speed at which I live my daily life. Literally, it means, "Jejef, you are retarded". Along the way, yes I must admit I have been insulting. You shoved a poem by Owen in my face, attempting to prove my argument a logical fallacy. You said it yourself: "Poetry is a way of writing, not of thinking". I have no intention of trying to prove a point by citing a 'way of writing'. The only reason I cited Morrison, and Ecclesiastes, was to show that time is meaningless, other than a dividing point of night and day, but there is a time for love. I did not dwell on those quotes. I utilized them to show that everyone will share a moment in time with someone, and if they don't, they missed out. There is someone for everyone, but there are many people who never find someone, due to whatever reason. If you could step down off of your high horse for a moment, you would see what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, you can not, or will not come down.

You are most definitely the smartest person on the internet.

Bull shit.

You continue to take my posts and throw them back in my face, as if they had no logic, or thought process behind them.

Bull shit.

I humbled myself before everyone here on this thread by saying: "I am not the smartest person on this forum". You even threw that back in my face. If I'm admitting the truth, why must I stop? I have complimented other people on their intelligence, including you. In my opinion, I hold your intelligence in the highest esteem, aside from Barend. You are both very intellectual people, and I enjoy having discussions with the both of you. The arguments we have are very stimulating to my mind... normally... but you keep referring my thought process to Dadaism. This tells me you think my way of thinking is nonsense. Is this not an insult? To me, it's like receiving a slap in the face from an arrogant person. If I'm wrong, then I don't understand. Either you are insulting me, or you aren't insulting me. I take it as an insult. I don't think I was moving too fast, but then I come across this gem:

"There is a Wizard in EarthSea."

When I broke each word down to their own meanings, you mistook the word 'real' to mean something out of the 'real' world. This is not the case. When I referred to the 'real' subject, it meant that since THERE is a pronoun 'used' as subject of a clause, the 'real' subject, or NOUN follows the VERB. In this instance:

THERE = pronoun/'used' as a subject;IS = verb;SOMEONE = noun/the 'real' subject

THERE = pronoun/'used' as a subject;IS = verb;A = indefinite article;WIZARD = noun/the 'real' subject

I only broke the sentence down to simple English grammar, and you took it out of context to mean what you wanted it to mean. I think you're smarter than this, civ. In fact, I KNOW you're smarter than this.

[Jordan]

I don't have much time to post lately, but Jejef, just admit defeat man. Your argument is embarrising to watch at this point.

It's true, there isn't some one for every one. Almost all people see that phrase as "some where in this world, there is a lover out there for you". A long time partner, a husband, wife, etc..

The statement is not true for everyone. Right now, there is not one soul on this planet that would wed a midget with aids, doing time in a prison for killing his parents.

[barend]

I second that emotion! It is for that very reason that Civ 2 is one of my favorite people ever.

this post highlights 2 things we do not have enough of around here latley

1. futurama references
2. Jen

This post has been edited by barend: 27 April 2006 - 06:45 PM

[Spoon Poetic]

"You're barely moving as it is". How should I take this? Metaphorically, or literally? Metaphorically, I guess I could assume you are speaking of the speed at which I live my daily life. Literally, it means, "Jejef, you are retarded".

...

Evidently, you are not qualified to determine what anything means, as you don't even know the difference between "literal" and "metaphorical." Literally, "You're barely moving as it is" does not, in fact, mean "you are retarded." Literally, it means, "You (the person who is being addressed) are (present state of being") barely ("hardly, almost not") moving ("changing places, unstationary") as ("in a manner similar to") it ("the current condition") is ("present state of being").

Metaphorically, it means, "Your argument is going nowhere."

And if you don't think you're smarter than everyone on this forum, stop being so freaking condescending. You're going to make too many enemies, too quickly, if you keep that up.

Also: Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 says that, "18 I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. 19 For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?"

Therefore, Humans and Animals are the same! All is vanity. All have the same fate! Because Ecclesiastes says so, IT MUST BE TRUE!!!! OMFGLOLZ


Therefore,

[Jejef Thgaron]

I don't have much time to post lately, but Jejef, just admit defeat man. Your argument is embarrising to watch at this point.

Admit 'defeat'? Explain. This isn't about 'victory' or 'defeat', Jordan. It never was. It isn't technically an argument.

I'll explain:

John has two young boys. His boys like monkeys. He takes his boys to the zoo. They are ecstatic when they see the monkeys at the zoo. John finds out that Micheal Jackson has a monkey. He lets his boys stay at Micheal Jackson's house overnight. His boys come home and tell their father Micheal Jackson tried to do naughty things to them. He made them drink 'Jesus juice'. John takes Micheal Jackson to court to sue him for trying to have sex with his boys. The jury is filled with people who like monkeys. They realize Micheal Jackson tried to have sex with John's boys... BUT HE'S GOT A MONKEY! So, Micheal Jackson is deemed innocent.



What just happened? Did I miss something? This is the logic I am up against. He has a monkey, so he can't be a child molester?

My friend is gay, so the statement "There is someone for everyone" can't be true? It's the same logic. Wilfred Owen's poem was used as rhetoric to show that poets have much more insight, than ancient philosophy, so the statement can't be true? Same logic.

It's true, there isn't some one for every one. Almost all people see that phrase as "some where in this world, there is a lover out there for you". A long time partner, a husband, wife, etc..

The statement is not true for everyone. Right now, there is not one soul on this planet that would wed a midget with aids, doing time in a prison for killing his parents.

There is someone for everyone. Some people never find someone. That doesn't mean they don't exist. I never said everyone will definitely find someone.

The statement is true for everyone. How did the midget get AIDS? If you tell me it was because they were born with it, I'm done arguing against the point because I think it would be futile to argue against such a redundant concept. The midget got AIDS through choice. The midget is doing time for killing his parents... which is a choice. Life is full of choices. We make good choices; we make bad choices. We either suffer the consequences, or reap the rewards depending on the choices we make. The midget decides to have sex with someone who has AIDS, regardless of whether or not the midget knows the person has sex. He made a choice to have sex. He contracted AIDS from the person... he, therefore suffers the consequences of a bad choice. The midget kills his parents, choosing to advocate hatred towards the people who brought him into this world... he, therefore suffers the consequences of, yet another bad choice. That still does not prove that there was not initially someone out there who was destined to be with that midget.

So, to save myself from embarassment, I will concur with everyone's logic, and conclude with what I believe sums this whole argument up in one neat, concise little package...

'There is someone for everyone' can't be true because:

WE LIKE MONKEYS!!!

Now, I see where I was wrong. Thank you for your enlightenment.




P.S.: Dada.

[barend]

you're absolutley right... there IS someone for every one, and those kids who stayed t wacko jackos place will back you up...

that was there "someone"

but on a serious note...

that whole midget thing was just silly...

jordan was just making a simple point, that i think was lost on you...
it was a vague hypothetical illustration of randomness, not a point for disection.

i'll make it easier for you since you take things so literally...
a still born child.

now please stop, your loosing dignity with every post.
have some shame.

[Spoon Poetic]

Ignore that last "therefore" tacked onto the end of my last post. That's what I get for running late and neglecting to proofread...

And dude, people can be born with STDs and HIV, and that's totally not their fault, and neither is being a midget; so you can't use the argument that it's their own damned fault for every single reason someone comes up with that will cause someone to most likely die alone. You also don't choose to be born deaf and blind, you don't choose to be hit by a drunk driver and be turned into a vegetable for the rest of your life, or paralyzed, or anything like that. And I, as an art student, know about Dada, and I just wanted to inform you that your little Wiki-definiton was pretty off. Not really relevant, I just wanted to provoke you into a mad rage again.

[Jejef Thgaron]

...

Evidently, you are not qualified to determine what anything means, as you don't even know the difference between "literal" and "metaphorical." Literally, "You're barely moving as it is" does not, in fact, mean "you are retarded." Literally, it means, "You (the person who is being addressed) are (present state of being") barely ("hardly, almost not") moving ("changing places, unstationary") as ("in a manner similar to") it ("the current condition") is ("present state of being").

Metaphorically, it means, "Your argument is going nowhere."

And if you don't think you're smarter than everyone on this forum, stop being so freaking condescending. You're going to make too many enemies, too quickly, if you keep that up.

Metaphorically, it means: My brainwaves are hardly moving by civ's standards.

Literally, it means: Jejef, you are a retard.

Retardation is the slowing down, or delay of progress. If 'CON' is to 'PRO', what is the opposite of 'CONGRESS'?

I don't think I'm smarter than everyone else. However, when I am 'corrected' by EVERYONE for making a single statement (which I know, or believe to be true), which was not my overall POINT in the first place, should I just disregard the correction as being 'condescending'? If that's the case, then, fine. I will just let everyone give me their opinions, and I will reply with this:

YOU ARE BARELY MOVING, AS IT IS.

If I'm being condescending, I apologize, but that still doesn't give ANYBODY the right to correct me on ANY subject, or statement I make, unless it is, in fact, an insult. Otherwise, I will take it to be condescending, and I will reply. If correcting me on a statement I made isn't condescending, then you can't label me as being condescending, either.

Also: Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 says that, "18 I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. 19 For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?"

Therefore, Humans and Animals are the same! All is vanity. All have the same fate! Because Ecclesiastes says so, IT MUST BE TRUE!!!! OMFGLOLZ


Therefore,

OMFGROLMFAO!!!! Humans are animals! We live! We die! It is vanity to try to stop that!

FACT OF LIFE #1: We die. Our life comes to an end. We cease to be. So do animals. They have the same fate.

FACT OF LIFE #2: Vanity = uselessness. It is useless to stop death. Death is inevitable... which means it is going to happen, and there aint a damn thing you can do to prevent it.

FACT OF LIFE #3: Death is a part of life. Every living thing dies. No exceptions. You can't take your life with you. To believe you can take your life with you into death is vanity. It doesn't work that way. Everything you have acquired, all the knowledge you've attained, all the money in the world can't stop you from dying. It is all vanity. When you die, you can't take it with you. It won't do you any good to take it with you anyways.

Ecclesiastes states the obvious. Humans die. Animals die. When humans and animals die, they return to the ground. Well? They do! Ecclesiastes also talks about this:

Words from a wise man's mouth are gracious, but a fool is consumed by his own lips. At the beginning his words are folly; at the end they are wicked madness - and the fool multiplies words. No one knows what is coming - who can tell him what will happen after him?

Ecclesiastes 10:12-14



How are those monkeys doing?




You have all proven nothing. Instead of contradicting my posts, show me facts. Don't quote poetry. Show me factual evidence that proves my statement is false. I will gladly step down if one person, JUST ONE, can give me proof. Don't go off of some alternative way of thinking, just show proof. That's it.

[barend]

FACT OF LIFE #1: We die. Our life comes to an end. We cease to be. So do animals. They have the same fate.

fair enough.

FACT OF LIFE #2: Vanity = uselessness. It is useless to stop death. Death is inevitable... which means it is going to happen, and there aint a damn thing you can do to prevent it.

it is usless to stop death...? i don't about that. If you can stop death i'd say that's pretty bloody usefull actually, immortality has some rather spiffy perks.

FACT OF LIFE #3: Death is a part of life. Every living thing dies. No exceptions. You can't take your life with you. To believe you can take your life with you into death is vanity. It doesn't work that way. Everything you have acquired, all the knowledge you've attained, all the money in the world can't stop you from dying. It is all vanity. When you die, you can't take it with you. It won't do you any good to take it with you anyways.

and wasn't this covered by FOL#1?

[Spoon Poetic]

Holy crap. I was pointing out that you can't just pull something out of the frikkin' Bible to prove a point. Does it work the same with other religious texts? Can I prove that, say, we should all shove our heads up our asses, by pulling out some random snippet from the Book of Tharulian, or something?

You know, the Bible also tells you to stone your children if they talk back to you, to own slaves, and that women are far inferior to men and should be considered property. (Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you believed this shit, too.)

And as for correcting you on something: THIS IS A DEBATE THREAD. That's kind of the fucking point.

You want proof, eh? I could give you examples of many a friend or family member that died alone, of no fault of their own, and you'd only write that off for some reason or another. How about you offer us some proof that you're right?

[barend]

You know, the Bible also tells you... ...that women are far inferior to men and should be considered property.

eh... and?