"If I do anything, there is more of me around. The percentage of me in the overall composition increases. It may even sway. So sit tight, buddy, and watch the screen for the next available assistant."
Don't, like, try to impose your conversational "order" on the vibe, man. It's only when we rid ourselves of meaning that we totally find out where it's at, man.
Heh, Chimeric drops another 'quote and discuss'-threads. Seen a couple of these now, but this quote just doesn't make sense at all to me. I have no idea what it means.
Heh, Chimeric drops another 'quote and discuss'-threads. Seen a couple of these now, but this quote just doesn't make sense at all to me. I have no idea what it means.
I think what he's saying is that the more we do something around other people, the more we influence those people to do the same thing (like peer pressure? I guess?) and thus those people become more like us?
But what I really don't understand is how this line of thinking correlates with the thread title. Assuming that interpretation is even mildly accurate...
It's amazing how this thread lives on anyways even if noone cares about or understand the original quite
But I agree, let's talk about chocolate. I'm not a super-fan of chocolate, but I've always enjoyed Toblerone. Haven't eaten it in like 10 years or so, but it had bits of nuts and caramel in it. Tasty.
Man, after 10 years in an office environment, I've had my fair share of friday "fika" almondy cakes! In Sweden it's a custom for departments to eat "fika" (coffee and cake) together on fridays, and you usually take turns in baking/buying. My office is close to a Almondy factory outlet, so I've prolly eaten 4000+ almondy cakes!
I like chocolate! I like dark chocolate, milk chocolate, white chocolate, chocolate with nuts, chocolate and caramel, chocolate sprinkles, chocolate cake...
*rants on and on listing off her favorite chocolate food items*
There's also the elusive chocolate cheese. I tried its chocolate cheddar variant and put it on my home made pizza. I can't forget its taste ever since.
We in the West had our own man who said the same thing:
But if cattle and horses and lions had hands or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do, horses like horses and cattle like cattle also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies of such a sort as the form they themselves have.
Xenophanes
Actually this means something else, it's a statement on relativity, not humanness. I prefer relativity to humanness. I'm not going to weep over the fact that lions get to tell no alternative story, but they deserve a mention in the general scheme of things.
Relativity and humanness are two completely different discussions of philosophy, to the point it makes little sense to say you prefer A to B... Especially in a topic where the title falls under the category of humanness, the first post would fall under the category of humanness despite having nothing to do with the topic title at all.
The fact you would even bring relativity into it without giving it any real connection would be considered a red herring in the world of discussion and debates. If you like discussing one to the other, cool, but that doesn't fly here when one is the topic of discussion, not the other.
EDIT, Correct me if i'm wrong, but humanness isn't even the correct terminology for what we are even discussing.
humanness:
"A member of the species Homo sapiens; a human being. A member of any of the extinct species of the genus Homo, such as Homo erectus or Homo habilis, that are considered ancestral or closely related to modern humans."
We are actually discussing Social philosophy not humanness right now.
The beauty of creation - easily accepted by moderate believers, or nature respecting beliefs.
I have more probs with the heterodoxy myself: there is but one way to belive correctly. Eliminates diversity that. But not sure what it your prob with having more than just one belief system or background?
The reason diversity is good is because we don't yet know what the right way is. If we see a lot of different perspectives, we're more likely to figure out which one is closest to the right one.
Diversity in ideas isn't a goal; it's a stepping stone.
Comments
*throws
But what I really don't understand is how this line of thinking correlates with the thread title.
But I agree, let's talk about chocolate. I'm not a super-fan of chocolate, but I've always enjoyed Toblerone. Haven't eaten it in like 10 years or so, but it had bits of nuts and caramel in it. Tasty.
*rants on and on listing off her favorite chocolate food items*
But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do,
horses like horses and cattle like cattle
also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies
of such a sort as the form they themselves have.
Xenophanes
Actually this means something else, it's a statement on relativity, not humanness. I prefer relativity to humanness. I'm not going to weep over the fact that lions get to tell no alternative story, but they deserve a mention in the general scheme of things.
The fact you would even bring relativity into it without giving it any real connection would be considered a red herring in the world of discussion and debates. If you like discussing one to the other, cool, but that doesn't fly here when one is the topic of discussion, not the other.
EDIT,
Correct me if i'm wrong, but humanness isn't even the correct terminology for what we are even discussing.
humanness:
"A member of the species Homo sapiens; a human being. A member of any of the extinct species of the genus Homo, such as Homo erectus or Homo habilis, that are considered ancestral or closely related to modern humans."
We are actually discussing Social philosophy not humanness right now.
I have more probs with the heterodoxy myself: there is but one way to belive correctly. Eliminates diversity that. But not sure what it your prob with having more than just one belief system or background?
Diversity in ideas isn't a goal; it's a stepping stone.
/just kidding