Something I have been thinking about.

Possibly but then you would have to produce proof enough to compel my mind that that probability is correct, and remember appearances can be deceiving

 

Only if I were interested in compelling your mind to do anything. You see, I simply don't care what you are compelled to believe or to accept as true.

 

Strange that because I feel exactly the same about you.

Though it is noted that you took me of ignore in order to reply to my comment, so one has to wonder - if you simply don't care what I am compelled to believe or to accept as true - why you bothered.

 

Now we have that portion understood.

By definition, "ignoring" someone is showing a disrespect for that person. In order to not be disrespectful, I took you off the 'ignore' list... and for no other reason. I am not interested in anything you have to say. Your input has no relevant meaning to me professionally nor personally. Hopefully you will understand those words.

 

Have you ever played the game Monopoly? You know how you can trade the property and when someone says no to something that seems to you perfectly reasonable you get upset? That's why we rationalize. We take the facts and try to figure out how another person is thinking or why they're doing something. That's how we convince them to do something, by figuring out what they think and using it against them.

 

Well, that is fantastic. I see you are finally admitting to what I have been claiming for a while now. That you are both seeking PROOF and attempting to offer PROOF. Proof defined in my previous post. Now I feel better in knowing that there is at least one person on this forum other than me who can comprehend the meaning of proof.

Now, since that is settled, then it is time for you to show PROOF of your claims (any claims that you have made that are evidenced in the record of this forum).
Go ahead now and attempt to compel my mind to accept those claims as true.

 

Well the feeling is mutual, though I am still curious that if you feel that my "input has no relevant meaning to me professionally nor personally." that you bothered to respond to a comment not directed at you, in a debate you have no other responses in .. one wonders if your are stalking my responses just to illicit some sort of weird pleasure in replying with irrelevance .. but then I understand that the majority of your comments are always irrelevant.

 

Now seeing that you are again desiring to continue this futility with more of your opinions, I see no further need to display any degree of respect. So back you go to the cave.

 

and again you cower back into your cave in retreat sulking alone with your opinions. Such a shame you choose to disarm yourself.

 

The seeking proof more or less is yes, but offering isn't my goal. I had an idea and that idea is driving this discussion. Now I poke holes in logic, and that may seem to be offering proof. But that's not really it. The reason why I'm doing posting here is because I want isn't because I'm trying to convince another person, it's because I want this idea to be looked at and defeated. At that point there, I wouldn't call it offering proof, rather seeing where the holes are in your logic.

Feelings are more important then logic and facts.

 

My "logic"? I don't own any logic. So what about the logic that you use and the probable holes in that logic. Is that logic immune from penetrability?

Now that is quite a claim. While you attempt to poke holes in the logic that anohter person might use, you are now saying that emotionalism is more important than "logic and facts"? Like WOW!

 

Should have remembered that from before.

Yup. That's what I'm claiming. It doesn't matter what facts you have, what matters is your will to use them. Also what matters is how you're saying them. In any medium of communication, you will be using your emotions to rely what facts you have. Your position on a topic is more said by how you say something, then the words that come out. Logic and facts don't embold someone, they give an illusion of understanding. But it's that illusion what people believe in and use. It gives them the feeling of courage to stand up for their beliefs. It can also be used to make someone feel defeated before even the first words come out. In the end, it's a battle of wills, facts are nothing more than a tool to take out the other sides will.

 

Now, all of the above, I can accept as approaching 'truth'. What you have stated above, IMHO, makes a lot of sense. So, it stands on "will" and "belief". Now whether that 'will' is free or whether that "belief" is founded on God or some other abstract idea in the mind of man is another story altogether. Point being that it is founded on 'will' and 'belief'.

 

You know to be honest this is probably one of my favorite if not my favorite conversation I've ever had on PF.

 

Well, I am glad that you have appreciated it.

 

It's been a pleasure talking with you.

 

Ditto.... I am sure of that on my part.

 

Fair enough so far, but then…

To each his own, but I start to get wary and aloof, seeing this approach as having tinges of grossness and folly.

The amount of gamesmanship versus objectivity in one’s approach is influenced by whether the person is predominantly left-brained or right-brained.

As for me, I abhor thin-sliced bacon or paper-thin deli meat. I want to eat my food, not have a talent contest with it.

 

Okay. Do what you feel is natural.

Sure I agree with you on that.

 

Please don't suggest that someone should be grounded in emotionalism... (feelings).

 

Actually I will argue that. Better to do what you feel like doing, then being told what to do.

 

Now take that sentiment to the extreme.... If everyone did what they "feel like doing", and that was the general consensus of the entire world population, then there would be no need for penalties for murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc. So the next time you see someone on trial for any of those offenses, then remember that you have suggested that everyone should do what they "feel like doing"...

 

True but that's only considering one person acting on what they wanted to do. If I shoot another person because I wanted to, what about the person I just shot? Didn't he want to live? Thus the conflict of who's rights have been violated is in play. Since as a society we value life, the right of living is higher then the right of shooting another person. So I would still be punished, if not by the law, then because I violated society's law.

 

Then in contrast to what you previously stated, you are now suggesting that there should be someone telling you what to do. What that someone is telling you to do is: Obey the laws. So, in essence your former statement was not true.

 

Not so much a contradiction but an extension of the logic. You can do whatever you want to do, just accept the consequences of your action.