I know a few people in the world with whom i cannot argue, there are probably a lot more that i have the lucky not to met. There are two kinds of these people, the ones that doesn't know how an argue works (i listen, you listen) and doesn't listen to your arguments, so it doesn't worth trying, and others that i didn't knew why but they listen and keep track of the arguments, but don't get the conclusions, even if the arguments where truly good.
I'd like to think about this last few, i recently understood why is it that, despite following a good argument, the conclusions doesn't convince them. I think that the problem here is that they don't believe in logic, i.e., they don't think that taken some hypotheses and manipulating them by means of logic rules, the logical conclusions derived are true whenever the hypothesis hold.
These non-believers find hard to argue with people that have different points of view than their own. They usually don't like to discuss if it is not for something they think important, they hate arguing over "silly things" (i personally think that everything worths arguing).
They may probably don't know what is the problem with them while arguing with s'body and they won't be aware of its relation with the problem of learning logic-ruled sciences like maths, physics or chemistry.
The ones i know seem to have everything pretty clear, but they are unable to defend most of their ideas to the end (i assume an idea to be a decision taken from some premises, which are the ones that are truly chosen; and to defend an idea to the end is trying to convince s'one of your ideas till it comes a matter of choice, that is, a matter of premises) and the ones they do, are because they are learned ideas (that is, s'thing that s'one convinced you of).
So, thinking about this topic, i realized that logic is a matter of believing-ness. It is not required for a human being to believe in logic in order to live, he has the means to think, but he can chose not to believe in the logic conclusions he take if they don't match whatever he chose to believe true. This can be the quid of fanatic and not so fanatic religious people, since they believe something or somebody to be true and if any product of thinking leads them to a conclusion in a different direction, they refuse it, even if the premises where true for them!
I think that the believe in logic may have a lot to do with relativism, since believing in logic imply that every point of view should be taken into account and hence are equally valid, here comes the argue whether a premise is admissible or not. For example, a forever-fixed premise should be that human life is over any other thing and a non admissible premise should be that there are races better than others (in fact, there should only be one race taken into account, the human race).
Despite i have always being proud of claiming that i have no blind faith, i now have to admit that i have one: logic rules! I have finally found my path, LOL.
Monday, 26 November 2007
I beL¡eVe ¡N L0g¡c !
Thought by 0FfeS 0 Comments, Wanna complain?
Ideas: g00d aRguMent, L0giC, ReLigi0N, tHinkiN'
Saturday, 10 November 2007
fUck¡N' BeEf bUs!
What an awesome expression! I know two meanings for beef bus, according to the urban dictionary it is a cock (it actually says penis) and it illustrates the meaning with an example: "Parking the Beef Bus in Tuna Town". But the meaning that made me ROFL is bus of beef, taken literally, well... not that much. Don't think of a bus made of beef.
This is a screen shot of the fucking beef bus. “Seriously, though, I can't even accurately describe how mastodonic this guy is.
'Beef bus' is really the best description. He is a bus made out of beef.”
Thought by 0FfeS 0 Comments, Wanna complain?
Friday, 26 October 2007
bUt f¡RSt....R0fLiNg!
Most people know the acronym LOL (laughing out loud), but not so many know ROFL, it stands for rolling on the floor laughing or LOFL, which means laughing out fucking loud.
There are a lot more, like LMAO (laughing my ass off) or ROFLMAO, more subtle like LOTI (laughing on the inside), even really large and explicit ones, ROFLUISMP standing for (Rolling On Floor Laughing Until I Shit My Pants).
In fact, I think that you can mix them up to form new ones, like LOTIL or LOTIFL. Of course, you can invent new ones like FWMPL for fucking wetting my pants laughing or LUIWMP for laughing until i wet my pants.
So, having said that, the title ROFLING should mean ROFL-ing, i.e. rolling on the floor laughing -ing. The same as with coachball, i think this could be raised to sport, it's tiring and you use your muscles.
Among all of those acronyms I chose ROFL because LOL is so oftenly used that, for me, it isn't strong enough. I could have chosen LOFL, but the former make me smile and the later sounds to me like hypocrite.
Now, let me help you practice some sport, by posting a joke that made me ROFL (yes, you can use it as a noun!) for a while:
Three men, an Italian, a French and a Spanish went for a job interview in England. Before the interview, they were told that they must compose a sentence in English with three main words: "green", "pink" and "yellow".
- The Italian was first: "I wake up in the morning. I see the yellow sun. I see the green grass and I think to myself, I hope it will be a pink day";
- the French was next: "I wake up in the morning, I eat a yellow banana, a green pepper and in the evening I watch the pink panther on TV";
- last was the Spanish: I wake up in the morning, I hear the phone "green...green...", I pink up the phone and I say "Yellow?"...





