[QUOTE=Spaceman Spiff;13377363]Sorry, I just refuse to argue with you.[/QUOTE]

it was either plato or aristotle who came up with the 3 statement conclusion which he is using

romans are tall
sam is roman
thus sam must be tall

[QUOTE=Left Shoe;13377381]it was either plato or aristotle who came up with the 3 statement conclusion which he is using

romans are tall
sam is roman
thus sam must be tall[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I know. I just refuse to argue with him.

[QUOTE=Left Shoe;13377381]it was either plato or aristotle who came up with the 3 statement conclusion which he is using

romans are tall
sam is roman
thus sam must be tall[/QUOTE]

Ya it was one of the two. Using that form you always come up with a deductively valid argument. Valid does not mean true.

lowsound

[QUOTE=Spaceman Spiff;13377393]Yeah, I know. I just refuse to argue with him.[/QUOTE]

i was seeing if you could tell me which one it was, i cant remember (plus i get them confused)

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass;13377394]Ya it was one of the two. Using that form you always come up with a deductively valid argument. Valid does not mean true.

lowsound[/QUOTE]
read my paper

[QUOTE=Spaceman Spiff;13377393]Yeah, I know. I just refuse to argue with him.[/QUOTE]

ROFL, do you know why? My prof said that when you use deductive reasoning in an argument and the person that you are arguing can not come up with anything to reply to you they will often cease to argue.

lowsound

I can't remember which one it was... but if I had to guess, I'd say Plato.

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass;13377403]ROFL, do you know why? My prof said that when you use deductive reasoning in an argument and the person that you are arguing can not come up with anything to reply to you they will often cease to argue.

lowsound[/QUOTE]

na the smart person would, just to be an *** id keep going

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass;13377403]ROFL, do you know why? My prof said that when you use deductive reasoning in an argument and the person that you are arguing can not come up with anything to reply to you they will often cease to argue.

lowsound[/QUOTE]

Nope, I just refuse to argue with you about anything because it never gets anywhere.




*swish*

[QUOTE=Left Shoe;13377396]i was seeing if you could tell me which one it was, i cant remember (plus i get them confused)[/QUOTE]

I just check my textbook and it doesn't say. That is weird because I thought that it did. Maybe it was in class that I heard it.

lowsound

[QUOTE=Left Shoe;13377311]Foreword
This paper is going to be written in installments. Trying to stick with the goal of writing in stream of consciousness will ultimately lead me away from the given topic. So each installment will be written in a completely silent room under the time limit of one half hour. One installment will be done a day until the due date. This format was suggested by my brief venture into the research of writing in the stream of consciousness style. I kept my research brief and shallow so as to keep it interesting and not so structured, because that is ultimately not the point of a stream of consciousness paper. I hope you enjoy this as much as I'm going to enjoy writing it, and I hope this doesn’t brutalize my grade

Installment One\
Tuesday October 3rd
Start Time; 10:00pm

Machiavelli wrote a political piece entitled The Prince. This piece is infamous for wanting to grant governments the power to do whatever it needs to maintain stability, even break laws and be brutal and less than humane to its people, as long as stability is kept. As my friend put it “conservatives get off to this while Machiavelli is the bane of every liberals existence” Upon researching the piece the prince, the trustful authors of wikipedia let us know that my friends view is limited, and that it did not give the government permission to brutalize its people as long as stability was maintained, it gave it the ability to do evil things as long as they were swift, effective, and short lived. Having not read this piece I'm not sure how I feel. To bring will smith into this, in his movie I robot (which probably made Asimov roll around in his grave in complete disgust). Basically robots are designed by humans with the ability to think for themselves but their main concern is to keep the people that invented them and the rest of their people safe and alive. So it ends up that the robots take over the world and sort of keep the humans as pets. So, basically Machiavelli inspired Asimov to write a book that gave will smith another acting job which should’ve ended with the fresh prince of bel air. BACK ON TOPIC my mind is blank my mind is blank. I don’t think I agree with the statement “the ends justify the means” because if you agree with this ultimately its eventually going to be used against you, so you might as well not even introduce it into the system when its ultimately going to come around and bite you in the ***. That’s kind of obvious but let’s looks at this with some examples! To bring I robot back into this (the Asimov version of course, will smith? Pffff) the ends justify the means! So the robots were right to keep the humans as pets because they maintain order and keep the humans from becoming extinct, even though in the process they try to kill will smith for keeping them free which will ultimately lead to the downfall of humanity, or so the robots logically calculate. Kind of a weird thought, WE WILL BE OUR DEMISE. Machiavelli agrees with that from what I can tell, I'm not sure I do. Looking at the world now the humans are sort of viral like in the fact that we came we saw we conquered (vini vidi vici! allusion to Caesar…who was killed by his friends to maintain order WOO) and now we are killing the earth. MY hope is that soon humanity stumbles upon some inventions of new ways to do things so that we can maintain this world and not just kill it. The peak oil crisis comes to mind, it has been proven by many many scientists that we are running out of oil and we just hit our peak. (The peak thing is like, where it becomes inefficient to pull oil out of the ground, but they can still do it. So basically we have run out of cheap oil all over the world. But not oil, we have oil its just not cheap. So now companies have to spend more money to get it out of the ground. The amount you pay for your gas? Yeah peak oil crisis.) BACK ON TOPIC when examining this topic of course its going to come to the point where people who are for it and against (ends justify the means) realize that there is a gray area where we cant lump everything into a right or wrong category (otherwise why would be writing this essay?) So of course blowing up abortion clinics to stop abortion is ridiculous, but allowing the genocides in Dar fur to go on without stepping is also ludicrous. I mean yeah wed be living out the stereotype that America polices the world…but wed be saving lives. My mind is blank my mind is blank. I uses in thinking about this topic one has to realize that the complete opposite of this idea of Machiavelli’s is that instead of a government that steps out of bounds to keep order, you have complete anarchy which also would not work. Back to the gray area concept. (Jeff tells me to inform the reader of when my nostrils flare so as to let you know I'm putting emphasis somewhere). I use the nostrils whenever I'm proving a point in conversation, its been said I write like I talk so I guess you wouldn’t be getting the complete experience of me talking/writing without the nostril flares or me letting you know what my body language is doing, this might turn into more of a script by the end I'm not sure yet. It would be killer to have someone act this out, though I'm not sure who would pay to see it…though someone would *flares nostrils* This fast writing pace is kind of weird, I'm not letting myself slow down and think, *nostrils* which is crazy because in a formal paper this would totally not be cool, but I have to get back on topic or this paper might be the end of my English grade (or this paper could just have two topics, the examination of Machiavellian ideas in conjunction with someone’s first experience with stream of sconsioucnesssssss) *nostrils*. Apparently Machiavelli was a musician, never lets us know what he plays but I guess it could be said he’s a renaissance man, I mean he lived in the renascence it wouldn’t be very hip of him to not be a renaissance man if he was supposed to be one of the greater thinkers of that time. *nostrils* I guess someone can be great even if you don’t agree with them, the renaissance was a pretty liberal time and definitely more for the human expression than previously allowed. So I can’t imagine most of the people standing on the sidelines cheering for Machiavelli (“woo rape our rights!!”) my mind is blank my mind is blank….gray area, so like to be someone who agrees with the ‘ends justify the means’ mind set I guess you have to look at your life as more of an inventory of items. Like ‘what is this person worth to me, would I cut them lose for personal gain? How much personal gain?” this is kind of sociopathic. And sociopaths aren’t people society tends to get along with *nostrils* like the Amish school shooting. The end? Three dead Amish girls and one dead milk man… the means? Shooting three Amish girls and killing yourself. I mean this had no real purpose in my mind, which I guess is more exemplerary of the Machiavellian ideal…because the shooter was obviously a sociopath. That’s a bit harsh though. My mind is blank. Obviously to follow the format of this idea in every day life the circumstances are going to be less extreme, like “do I want that ice cream? Well yeah…but am I willing to spend 1.50$ on it? I guess so!” I doubt Machiavelli had this demograph in mind. Did they even have ice cream back then? The renaissance isn’t really known for the ice cream. 7 minutes to go…what to talk about? In my persona life….what can I relate this to. I guess there is the everyday happening of valuing your every choice and move “do I feel like doing my homework?” “Should I get another cup of coffee” “sleep in?” I mean this action is pretty conscious, but the structural motifs behind it are pretty unrecognized with people. I bet when most people got this prompt they couldn’t think of something to relate it to, but every action they make or don’t take are completely applicable! Like me writing this paper in this style, this is a whole lot of fun, way much more fun than any other paper ive ever written, this is just baring my thoughts on this on paper. Which is sweet? If I could write every paper like this, I totally would. 4 minutes! The ending is coming, at this point in a regular paper you’d expect a conclusion, but you aren’t going to get one in this one. IT’S STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS! So in conclusion the end of tonight’s thinking on this subject in a timed constantly writing manner is, Machiavelli’s quote explores a topic with a bunch of gray area that is applicable to everything, which I guess earns him the right to be called a great writer/ thinker/ renaissance man. Yeah I just threw in a conclusion to throw you off *nostrils* this paper still has 3 minutes! I think tomorrow entails more thinking of my everyday life in relation to this quote and more research on this man, he seems sort of interesting even if he is the bane of every liberals existence. Even if he did get will smith another movie to star in (which will smith definitely didn’t get jiggy in this movie, he kind of slow danced). I bet Machiavelli would be angry if he saw I robot. Or just freaked out by the moving picture. 1 minute! Ee cummings style ending!
The flowers
Bloom fre
Quentll all the t
Ime

And she walks by the still wet furze
What is furze what is furze
End.[/QUOTE]

This is the best paper I've ever read.

/is in it

/:cool:

Put me in it somewhere else.

-Gav

u needed a professor to tell you that?

[QUOTE=Spaceman Spiff;13377411]Nope, I just refuse to argue with you about anything because it never gets anywhere.




*swish*[/QUOTE]

That is what happens when both sides have a good argument, the goal of an argument is not to win, but to present your side as best you can logically. You can win arguments easily by several means, such as appealing to emotions, popularity, twisting some facts ect.

lowsound

[QUOTE=Mr. Pickle;13377420]u needed a professor to tell you that?[/QUOTE]

No, I just remember hearing it in that class. I can not remember which guy it was though.

lowsound

Its funny becuase i should be writting a report on all the philosphers from the enlightenment period right now. But what are you going to do

i hate internet arguments. someone always goes off of technicality to further their point, even though it wasn't part of their original intentions.

ALWAYS

[QUOTE=HELLonWHEELS;13377441]Its funny becuase i should be writting a report on all the philosphers from the enlightenment period right now. But what are you going to do[/QUOTE]

Both of those guys lived about 2500-3000 years before the enlightenment, but ok. I just finished reading some Montenesque.

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass;13377448]Both of those guys lived about 2500-3000 years before the enlightenment, but ok. I just finished reading some Montenesque.

lowsound[/QUOTE]

YOU ARE SO ENLIGHTENED AND INTELLIGENT!

[img]http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16042/16042-h/images/figure13_th.jpg[/img]

If the pic doesn't work:

[url]http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16042/16042-h/images/figure13_th.jpg[/url]

-Gav

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass;13377432]That is what happens when both sides have a good argument, the goal of an argument is not to win, but to present your side as best you can logically. You can win arguments easily by several means, such as appealing to emotions, popularity, twisting some facts ect.

lowsound[/QUOTE]

I was talking about you specifically because I've never seen you able to accept the opposing argument at all.

[QUOTE=Mr. Pickle;13377444]i hate internet arguments. someone always goes off of technicality to further their point, even though it wasn't part of their original intentions.

ALWAYS[/QUOTE]

Usually me in this case, but I like arguing while writing, I find that I think better when writing as opposed to talking.

lowsound

Apparently those pics don't work...so...

[url]http://www.kwanumzen.com/practice/bowing/prostration2large.jpg[/url]

[img]http://www.kwanumzen.com/practice/bowing/prostration2large.jpg[/img]

-Gav

I have to write about sentances on

Hobbes
Voltaire
Montesquieu
Locke
Rousseau
Wallstonecraft

I guess your right then

[QUOTE=Spaceman Spiff;13377454]I was talking about you specifically because I've never seen you able to accept the opposing argument at all.[/QUOTE]
That is because i never accept it when it is presented to me, I think about it for a while and decide whether or not it is valid, and true. If that is the case I'll accept it.

lowsound

[QUOTE=HELLonWHEELS;13377465]I have to write about sentances on

Hobbes
Voltaire
Montesquieu
Locke
Rousseau
Wallstonecraft

I guess your right then[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I didn't meant to come off as a prick in my last post to you.

lowsound

No you where right^

No hard feelings

But that's why it's too frustrating to argue with you, and why I won't do it.




PS. Rousseau is the father of communism. Praise him.

[QUOTE=HELLonWHEELS;13377487]No you where right^

No hard feelings[/QUOTE]

Cool, sorry again.

Spiff: that is the way that I am. I don't just accept stuff at face value when it is presented to me. Some people are like that, others aren't.

lowsound

I'm not saying you have to accept it as truth, but accept it in the context of the argument otherwise people will see you as thickheaded. If someone says something and you just keep with, "No," people will think you're just a dumby and not want to talk to you.

[QUOTE=Spaceman Spiff;13377522]I'm not saying you have to accept it as truth, but accept it in the context of the argument otherwise people will see you as thickheaded. If someone says something and you just keep with, "No," people will think you're just a dumby and not want to talk to you.[/QUOTE]

That is actually something that I am working on moving away from. Now I either try to disprove their argument with facts, prove that it isn't logical, or accept it as valid. Then move onto my own argument. I have learned a lot about arguments and how to present them in my critical thinking class. SIDE NOTE: I have 105% in it right now.

lowsound

I thinking avout tuning my bass ADGC what some advatages and dissadavtages

[QUOTE=HELLonWHEELS;13377558]I thinking avout tuning my bass ADGC what some advatages and dissadavtages[/QUOTE]

Advantages, lower note, umm can't think of any others.
Disadvantages, one less higher note, maybe floppier strings.

lowsound

My homecoming date cancelled...

Hmm..

And ADGC is tuning up.

Advantages: you have a C string.
Disadvantages: you don't have an E string.

It's preference, I wouldn't want a bass without an E. I'm quite content with a 6 string tuned standard. Eff altered tuning.

^^^^
adgc is tenor. it's one less lower string.
edit: to lowsound

I havent played my ibanez since last Wednesday.

I much prefer my fretless.

My voice is so tired from singing so much today.

[QUOTE=mastrrbasser;13377583]^^^^
adgc is tenor. it's one less lower string.
edit: to lowsound[/QUOTE]

I was thinking that he was tuning one step down on a five string.

lowsound

Hello.

I just got tickets to see Audio Adrenaline again :lol:

[QUOTE=progmegood;13377612]Hello.[/QUOTE]

Hey.

lowsound