1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Most Appropriate Use of an Irish Wolfhound to Illustrate any Conversation on Epistemology

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Sunstone, Mar 4, 2021.

  1. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    76,157
    Ratings:
    +37,802
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    If anyone wishes, please offer any relevant argument for why I, or anyone else, should believe that a social species of animal could not have some kind of instinctive understanding of how they were being treated by members of their own species that was somehow akin to the understanding that humans seem to have when they describe it as rude, offensive, outlandish, or some other such behavior.

    An argument in this context would be something along the same lines of a bunch of empirical facts that you have chained together by logic at least as best as you yourself think is needed for the chain's logic to drag your reasoning step by step to some conclusion.

    You got to remember to always reason these things by your own personal best standards, because in the end doing your life your own way is the only way that's going to really matter to you more than anyone else's way, when you get old enough to understand that about your life.

    Leave alone, you would be offering your best guess at something close to your only really honest view of the thing you're reasoning about. If that does not matter to you, you don't matter to yourself in that way. Not many others are likely then to disagree with you about your call on how to best respect you.




    Never a good idea to lend out 'you' to someone else, because those that do, never really get themselves back that it doesn't show 'damaged rental property' on them somewhere. If you know how to look, you can see that damage in them yourself.

    Figure out who the bosses are in your life, then get in the habit of watching them. That's what you do first, if you ever want to be you and not just someone's product rolled off their propaganda assembly-line.

    Then driven away.




    NOTE: I have never really found it useful to think about anyone else while trying to figure out what I really believe about some reality. It's just too much like being drunk, and then trying to make alcohol fueled love with someone.



    To me, that's a job for testosterone that some poser has snuck in on due to their delusional theory that their alt-job is aligned in a superior way with their al-reality than is your testosterone's realty aligned with any reality that they themselves might find interesting to uncover.

    That, friends, is a dangerous way to go through life without an alarming risk the local law and county judge will be pleased to offer you your personal choice of bonding words to be sonorously spoken by the judge at your shot gun wedding to your neighbor's children's favorite Irish Wolfhound.

    That will invariably be the first time the law in that town has ever leveled the shotgun on bride.

    And that bride will invariably be the family's one domestic animal that the kids treat meanly, but the beast always loves them tenderly and affectionately anyway, so the family keep's the kid's favorite dog.

    And it's that loyalty to her that the dog herself loves best about her family and her mean kids, but she loves that about them best in a drooling sort of way.

    Reality is always a *****, but so ... so seldom so literally.​




    Shakespeare got precisely to the point about one way that's dysfunctional: "Alcohol increases the desire but reduces the performance." Falstaff, I think.





    Is there any reasoned answer you might give to the top dog question in this OP that you would see as relevant to the underdog question (that would be this question) in some way that would suggest there might be something along the lines of possibly universal in animal nature that all species would have each in their special snowflake way a common practical understanding of 'personal space'.




    Now, this question is the dog that the two other dogs were fighting to physically impress.
    Litterly.

    (Well, at least it was the dog, until someone got amorous enough late last night to elope and skip out of town with her. Gotta be too much drinking involved in there somewhere. Always is too much drinking in these dog matrimony cases. Always. Me, I thought it might be likely that was @Debator Slayer who would elope with a Wolfhound. But the Sheriff himself told me that DS is not a suspect in the case. Says his detectives ruled that one out about an hour ago, when they detected DS so well and alive on the town square that he was well up and still ascending into his usual orbit at that alarming altitude that he has convinced himself makes him a manly spectacle of physical lust for any and all women. He always attempts to gain precisely that altitude whenever he wants to wench the County Fair Programing Queen. Though, she likes him doing that. She says he's morally appalling, but so morally appalling that he always scares off the other young men who would otherwise be conversationally halting her coding. Just reporting our local RF news, small town style.)

    This is the third dog question...

    (or perhaps the second underdog question, depending on your own best understanding of what you think the proper scope is for applying your personal best guess at the range of practical applications for your favorite numerically expressed worldview. Just reminding everyone who would like a reminder: Now would be a good the time to refresh your basic understanding of mathematics. Common small town topic of public service announcements.)

    Well, now indeed is the question of the moment:

    In the context of this methodical progression of questions: If animals were found to have a proportionately shared and common sense of 'personal space or boundaries', then exactly as you can, how would you see (or not see) that fact as significant evidence for an objective reality capable of inducing a common cross-animal behavioral trait?


    In other words, how would all of this affect or not affect your sense of the statement: "Truth is ultimately subjective."


    I mean, assuming you would answer just as if your kid brother or sister were not listening, trying to hear something that would give them leverage with your parents, in order to use as frequent blackmail targeted at tapping into your cash flow. (A necessary and vital addition to the scientific method of inquiry, small town stye of 'logically and vitally necessary'.)





    I like to keep my eyes on my own job when trying to figure out what I honestly believe. The other person's view is never much more than something like a map to go by when tailoring what I think to compare and contrast them with his or her take on it.

    It's basically the Lakota proverb, "Choose your enemy wisely, because you become like them."

    Anyone who knows how a 'reactionary person' almost always behaves in a predictable pattern that does not fundamentally vary regardless of what kind of reactionary they are, knows the Lakota were talking about a reality of universal human nature.

    My 2 cents, and no, that cash does NOT mean I want to buy into your pool to bet on when your doggie will escape to track back to your lap, kid. I will read the City newspaper for daily dots where the corpses have been found, then simply connect the dots in order to better than just guess her ETA on your lap. Just like last month, kid. Now, get off my grass!


    "Takes a village to raise a child." Small town style. My job's inserting the necessary epistemology into the village's kids without damaging the temporary owner's property rights.


     
  2. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    11,531
    Ratings:
    +10,602
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    [click]. Oh damn, I can't. :D
     
  3. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    76,157
    Ratings:
    +37,802
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    Noted for it is when dissected in public view.
     
  4. Daemon Sophic

    Daemon Sophic Avatar in flux

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2009
    Messages:
    4,448
    Ratings:
    +2,765
    OK. @Sunstone Dude!
    I can appreciate Denver’s “Rocky Mountain High”, and the fact that that is legal in your state, but go take a nap right now.

    Get up tomorrow, and really try to rewrite your OP in five lines or less. :)

    Till then good-night @Sunstone . ;)
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
Loading...