View Full Version : Is Gah! inane?
Sjakihata
04-07-2006, 15:35
Apparently, a part of the patronage of the dear .org, finds Gah! an inane and retarded option. Amusingly, I was of the belief that Gah! was what made our pride, our glory, and our uniqueness.
The question: Is Gah! option inane and for the retarded?
1. Yes
2. Gah!
Apparently, a part of the patronage of the dear .org, finds Gah! an inane and retarded option. Amusingly, I was of the belief that Gah! was what made our pride, our glory, and our uniqueness.
The question: Is Gah! option inane and for the retarded?
1. Yes
2. Gah!There's no "No"? GAH!!
Duke Malcolm
04-07-2006, 15:39
We must expel these insolent folks who say "yes"...
Too bad the poll isn't public. We should gah! bomb anybody who flouts the holy traditions of the org ...
Tribesman
04-07-2006, 15:42
Sorry I am clearly too retarded to understand the question .
So I vote none of the above .:2thumbsup:
Kagemusha
04-07-2006, 15:56
GAH!Is a way of life!:bow:
Let`s ask himself. :inquisitive:
Gah!
Divinus Arma
04-07-2006, 17:11
As of 9am USpst: 15 gah v. 0 yes.
:gah: indeed.
Thoug I do understand the point. It gives people an option to have no opinion when they may actually have one.
Sjakihata
04-07-2006, 17:32
Yes, my mistake I should have made it public (witch hunts are much funnier when they are made public, no?).
While also I acknowledge that just because a majority says one thing, it doesnt necessarily follow to be true (argumentum ad populum), however, I just wanted to measure the public opinion of the org.
Tachikaze
04-07-2006, 17:35
Everything gets worn out after a while.
Sjakihata
04-07-2006, 17:47
Everything gets worn out after a while.
True for material and physical objects, but a poor analogi for things made up of the matter of thought.
Someone voted no. Fetch the axe!
The_Doctor
04-07-2006, 18:14
Someone voted no. Fetch the axe!
Thats odd considering there is no no option.:laugh4:
So I will assume you mean Yes.
*Steals Beiruts axe*
So I will assume you mean Yes.
Of course. Thank God it`s vacation :dizzy2:
UglyandHasty
04-07-2006, 18:58
Gah ! If you keep up with that, you may arise Krast(or Vanya) ! He'll open his coffin and Gah ! you to death ! Or make head soup to ya ....
R'as al Ghul
04-07-2006, 19:13
:laugh4: My hand clicked faster GAH! as I could think.
Currently I'm recovering from a five minute fit of laughter after reading how Pindar's thread evolved into a gahfest.
Well done orgahs, you gave me the best laugh in days.
:laugh4: :gah: :gah2: :bounce:
Thoug I do understand the point. It gives people an option to have no opinion when they may actually have one.
Well, nobody is forced to vote at all, so if you don´t want to state an opinion, there´s no need to vote Gah!
LeftEyeNine
04-07-2006, 19:21
Hail to the Church of Retarded Gah! Loyalists !
CoRGL all the way! Burn the heretic ! Y'aaaaalllll !!!!!
Yell out how retarded you are! Remove the false wisdom off the surface of this earth !
Is it inane? Definitely. However, it was a fun tradition for the average poll to have as an option. But, when someone deliberately leaves it out and is attacked repeatedly for doing so, I think it's become ridiculous. :yes:
Gah has become for some the Holy Handgrenade of response for any and all polls.
:laugh4: :help:
Sasaki Kojiro
04-07-2006, 19:59
Yeah, it's cool as on option in the polls, but the "Poll is invalid because it doesn't have a gah!" posts are silly. Traditions are cool, trying to enforce them isn't.
Sjakihata
04-07-2006, 20:07
What is this community coming to? Sasaki, I know you're hiding behind that mod guise - had you been a 'normal' patron you'd be the first to jump to the defence of Gah!
I remember, only one year ago - everyone fought to preserve Gah! Did one forget it in a poll, the community - as a whole - illuminated the ignorant patron about his slip, he apologized and all was good, but now not even the mods are standing up...
Reenk Roink
04-07-2006, 20:34
I am the sword of Gah...:yes:
LeftEyeNine
04-07-2006, 20:36
There is strictly a difference between saying "I won't answer because there is no GAH!" and calling one retard and insisting on the word and doing wisemouth talk as if righteous. It is quite obvious that "no GAH!" is in a "light" mood and carries a friendly approach and that there is no need to react in a cold manner.
LeftEyeNine
04-07-2006, 20:38
I am the sword of Gah...:yes:
..And I'm the armor. :knight:
Reenk Roink
04-07-2006, 22:14
..And I'm the armor. :knight:
Oh crap! I just realized...
Warning: Innuendo Alert...
...we need someone brave enough to hold my shaft and let you wrap yourself around him...
I am the sword of Gah...:yes:
I am the brain. :2thumbsup:
I hold my head high that I was the first of the right thinkers who voted yes. All who voted for the other "option" are fools.
Soulforged
04-08-2006, 00:17
Yes, it's inane, that's the point. If I wanted to say something proper as a reply I wouldn't post "Gah!", I only do it if I want to be funny, though many times that does not take any effect. It's like self-humilliation.
Currently I'm recovering from a five minute fit of laughter after reading how Pindar's thread evolved into a gahfest.
“Next,” said I, “compare our nature in respect of education and its lack to such an experience as this. Picture men dwelling in a sort of subterranean cavern with a long entrance open to the light on its entire width. Conceive them as having their legs and necks fettered from childhood, so that they remain in the same spot,able to look forward only, and prevented by the fetters from turning their heads."
"...tell me do you think that these men would have seen anything of themselves or of one another except the shadows cast from the fire on the wall of the cave that fronted them?”
"Then in every way such prisoners would deem reality to be nothing else than the shadows of the artificial objects.”
"And consider this also,” said I, “if such a one should go down again and take his old place would he not get his eyes full of darkness, thus suddenly coming out of the sunlight?” “He would indeed.” “Now if he should be required to contend with these perpetual prisoners in 'evaluating' these shadows while his vision was still dim and before his eyes were accustomed to the dark--and this time required for habituation would not be very short--would he not provoke laughter, and would it not be said of him that he had returned from his journey aloft with his eyes ruined and that it was not worth while even to attempt the ascent? And if it were possible to lay hands on and to kill the man who tried to release them and lead them up, would they not kill him?” “They certainly would,” he said.
-Plato
Spetulhu
04-08-2006, 05:42
As of 9am USpst: 15 gah v. 0 yes.
:gah: indeed.
Thoug I do understand the point. It gives people an option to have no opinion when they may actually have one.
It gives you something besides yes and no to vote on. Why? Because sometimes people start polls when they'd do better keeping their mouth shut.
Divinus Arma
04-08-2006, 08:05
It gives you something besides yes and no to vote on. Why? Because sometimes people start polls when they'd do better keeping their mouth shut.
A Tad harsh don't you think?
Tribesman
04-08-2006, 09:10
Next,” said I, “compare our nature in respect of education and its lack to such an experience as this.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Really Pindar such an inappropriate passage considering the poll ,as those with the positive view could be either those that are fettered or those that descend from the light .
"...would he not provoke laughter, and would it not be said of him that he had returned from his journey aloft with his eyes ruined and that it was not worth while even to attempt the ascent?"
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Really Pindar such an inappropriate passage considering the poll ,as those with the positive view could be either those that are fettered or those that descend from the light .
“Well then, if he recalled to mind his first habitation and what passed for wisdom there, and his fellow-bondsmen (to gah), do you not think that he would count himself happy in the change and pity them?” “He would indeed.”
-Plato
R'as al Ghul
04-08-2006, 10:09
-Plato
GAH!
I'm not sure what to make of this Plato quote directed at me.
It may be that you see yourself as a kind of Prometheus that descends from time to time into the dark cave that is the backroom, to bring us cave-dwellers the light of your intelligence and get killed for it. I'm not sure.
Personally, I respect your educated views and posts, but your style makes it sometimes difficult to sympathize with you.
I think this has been discussed in the past.
The reason for my amusement was that your off-hand comment "Gah is for the retarded" caused such a reaction. I'm aware of the inane tradition of GAH! and so should you. You even remind us that you are a long-time member. Obviously you underestimated the importance. Reading the dispute was like watching a Knight get pitch-forked to death by a mob of peasants.
I'm truely sorry if you feel offended, although I don't think you do.
Concerning the question if a poll is valid without GAH, I have to say that I see GAH as a third option to pro and con. Voting GAH is, for me, equal to voting "other". It requires further explanation why you voted GAH. And so it was handled in the past. Polls without GAH are as valid as those with. But, you have to expect an ironic reminder that you left it out and I'm guilty of reminding people, too.
I've to add that I see GAH! as a fun tradition and if we start to bully members for ignoring it then we've crossed a line. Reminding and introducing is what we should do.
:bow:
The reason for my amusement was that your off-hand comment "Gah is for the retarded" caused such a reaction. I'm aware of the inane tradition of GAH! and so should you...I'm truely sorry if you feel offended, although I don't think you do.
I'm not offended in the least. I thought it was pretty funny too: particularly the "gahfest" as you labeled it, like a gaggle of disturbed geese.
Once the peasants started to gather, at what you rightly judged was an off hand comment, I thought it was an amazing study in the herd mentality and dogma at work.
Ahh, the Plato quote wasn't directed at you per say. I simply used your post as a marker.
Reading the dispute was like watching a Knight get pitch-forked to death by a mob of peasants.
Can't agree there, myself being from a lineage of warrior-elites.
Sjakihata
04-08-2006, 11:33
The plato cave analogy is funny - I don't believe in metaphysics.
ps. Platos thinking is flawed in so many ways, that Im suprised that an illuminated man quotes him.
LeftEyeNine
04-08-2006, 12:17
Now I can understand why Pindar is soooo "comfortable" about what he says.
Mikeus Caesar
04-08-2006, 13:41
I can't help but laugh that the most serious topic in the entire backroom is this one, on the subject of our beloved 'GAH'.
I for one, believe Pindar was wrong to leave GAH off his poll, claiming it to be a 'retarded' option. After all, as many have said before me, GAH is an option for those without a proper opinion, or those with an unsure opinion. I myself have voted GAH many a time in the past because i couldn't make my mind up.
Reenk Roink
04-08-2006, 15:43
The presence of 'Gah!' in a poll is not mandatory at all. It is completly valid if an Organian wishes to forego ‘Gah’ for a variety of reasons. Of course, leaving 'Gah' off will cause a response from other Orgers, who will question why such a course of action was taken (which is why in the first post, one might wish to state his/her reasons for leaving 'Gah' off :yes:). When this inevitable query is posed, a simple explanation is all that is needed, using a certain tact that others expect from patrons of this fine community. A perfect example of the abovementioned is shown in this thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=62472
The poll creator was quickly called out on the lack of ‘Gah’ to which he promptly offered a reasonable and polite response. Others still refused to vote for the reason that there was no ‘Gah’ (humorous, if it was for the sake of ‘Gah’, or completely understandable, if ‘Gah’ was the only option to reflect ones indifference, etc…
Contrast the abovementioned situation, to the current one, in which the initial response was “Gah is for the retarded.” It is, therefore, easy to see why this condescending response brought out the ire of many Orgahs. One can recall, in the not so distant past, how labeling a certain group “retarded” was the beginning of a slippery slope…
The changed, second statement of “Gah is an inanity” perhaps served as a method to distance oneself from the earlier “retarded” comment, yet was followed by the holier-than-thou “It is the abode of those without the acumen to think through an issue or commit to a stance…” which labels quite a large number of Organs, including very respected members and moderators…
Further patronizing occurred, as the one in question used analogies to “compare our nature in respect of education and its lack to such an experience as this” as if ‘Gah’ users and supporters are like the “men dwelling in a sort of subterranean cavern” who “gaggle like disturbed geese.”
Further parallels by the one in question showed quite disturbing evidence of delusions of grandeur and narcissism as once again, ‘Gah’ supporters were given characteristics of barnyard animals and actually demoted to serfdom…
Zalmoxis
04-08-2006, 18:38
We must expel these insolent folks who say "yes"...
Death to the yessies?
The plato cave analogy is funny
It was meant to be.
ps. Platos thinking is flawed in so many ways, that Im suprised that an illuminated man quotes him.
I take it you don't agree with Alfred North Whitehead: "Philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato."
I can't help but laugh that the most serious topic in the entire backroom is this one, on the subject of our beloved 'GAH'.
Telling isn't it. I think there are now four threads referring to gah in some fashion.
The changed, second statement of “Gah is an inanity” perhaps served as a method to distance oneself from the earlier “retarded” comment...
Gah is for the retarded and it is inane. The option retards the thread's topic and given gah is not a word: it is inane i.e. empty.
Sjakihata
04-09-2006, 10:58
It was meant to be.
I take it you don't agree with Alfred North Whitehead: "Philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato."
Yes, that is unreasonable to say that. Had he said to Aristotle I'd be inclined to agree more. However, none of the socratic thinkers formulated the principle of contradiction - which is really the essesence of metaphysics, and philosophy.
See, see! The heavily criticised word GAH! might just have given us an adult discussion on philosophy and its writers...
Quid
Gah is for the retarded
Hear, hear! 80,7% of the Backroom consist of retards.
LeftEyeNine
04-09-2006, 21:26
Hear, hear! 80,7% of the Backroom consist of retards.
Let him be the wiseman and revolt one day where retards are in power :laugh4:
*expects another quote as a reply..
Krasturak
04-09-2006, 23:50
*opens coffin*
*creeps out of coffin*
Gah! Krast hears voices! Gah!
*sneaks*
*lurks*
*listens*
Gnish! Gnash! Gni!
They are saying 'Gah!'!!
*grabs axe*
.... and the rest is history ....
Sjakihata
04-09-2006, 23:52
ah, the good old :laugh4:
that settles it
I don´t get it...some people are having fun with something completely harmless and ignorable and then some others come in, play the educated 1337 and try to spoil the fun with philosophy...:no:
And the people who cry if someone leaves out Gah! should stop, because that really is stupid.:inquisitive:
LeftEyeNine
04-10-2006, 00:57
I don´t get it...some people are having fun with something completely harmless and ignorable and then some others come in, play the educated 1337 and try to spoil the fun with philosophy...:no:
And the people who cry if someone leaves out Gah! should stop, because that really is stupid.:inquisitive:
Well put.
Yes, that is unreasonable to say that. Had he said to Aristotle I'd be inclined to agree more. However, none of the socratic thinkers formulated the principle of contradiction - which is really the essesence of metaphysics, and philosophy.
Actually the principle of contradiction can be traced to Parmenides. Plato was aware of the idea as he made repeated reference to it. I'll use the "Republic" as an example since I already referred to it earlier:
"It is obvious that the same thing will never do or suffer opposites in the same respect in relation to the same thing and at the same time." -Book IV
Papewaio
04-10-2006, 07:00
So how does that definition handle Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment?
Where the same thing at the same time is in two contradictory states alive/dead...
So how does that definition handle Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment?
Where the same thing at the same time is in two contradictory states alive/dead...
I do believe that the Schordinger's Cat thought experiment was not meant to be a serious statement by itself, although it is commonly mistaken to be so, but just a creative analogy for the state that a quantum particle is in BEFORE we measure it. I think it perks people's interest because of its bending of existential laws... so basically, it's is so intriguing (even if mistakenly), precisely because it violates the familiar principle of contradiction, which you asked about. I'll put something here from a book:
"Schrodinger regarded [the cat paradox] as patent nonsense, and I think most physicists would agree with him. There is somehting absurd about the very idea of a macroscopic object being in a linear combination of two palpably different states. An electron can be in a linear combination of spin up and spin down, but a cat simply cannot be in a linear combination of alive and dead."
-from Griffiths
Sjakihata
04-10-2006, 11:30
Actually the principle of contradiction can be traced to Parmenides. Plato was aware of the idea as he made repeated reference to it. I'll use the "Republic" as an example since I already referred to it earlier:
"It is obvious that the same thing will never do or suffer opposites in the same respect in relation to the same thing and at the same time." -Book IV
Yes, he may have refered to it (it's long time since I read the Republic, can I get the international notation for the passage so that I can read the context etc?), however, he did not formulate the principle and it is not actively working in his own philosophy. It was Aristotle, I believe, who formally formulated the principle of contradiction - not Plato.
Let me get one thing straight, exactly what is your argument? That Plato has a valid philosophy?
Yes, he may have refered to it (it's long time since I read the Republic, can I get the international notation for the passage so that I can read the context etc?), however, he did not formulate the principle and it is not actively working in his own philosophy. It was Aristotle, I believe, who formally formulated the principle of contradiction - not Plato.
The reference: "It is obvious that the same thing will never do or suffer opposites in the same respect in relation to the same thing and at the same time." is Republic 4:436b
You can compare it with Aristotle's "The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect." Metaphysics G, 3,1005b18-20
Let me get one thing straight, exactly what is your argument? That Plato has a valid philosophy?
I have presented no argument. I simply pointed out that the principle of contradiction has its source in Parmenides and that Plato knew the notion and used it. As far as general views on Plato: I have issues with reification and would lean in the direction of the master of the Lyceum, but I do not despise Plato's work and consider it unwise to simply toss aside one of the Triumvirs of the Western Intellectual Tradition.
R'as al Ghul
04-11-2006, 14:23
They are saying 'Gah!'!!
*grabs axe*
.... and the rest is history ....
:laugh4: Thanks for the comment.
*walks away, fumbling for his head on the ground*
TheSilverKnight
04-11-2006, 15:29
Now where is Vanya when we need him?
As for me. Gah is like Gahd. Only missing letters. ;-)
Which heretic here says gah is retarded? Well if so, then count me in with the retards!
Ianofsmeg16
04-11-2006, 17:06
I'm a retard!
Craterus
04-11-2006, 19:24
One more for the loony bin! :2thumbsup:
AntiochusIII
04-12-2006, 00:26
I find it most surprising that Pindar would consider such a thinking as Plato's as the backbone of philosophy.
Perhaps the claim that Philosophy is a footnote back to Plato is valid, but it would be a very long footnote filled with insults and disagreements, especially if we are to consider the later ages.
And I for one truly doubts GAH! is a good example of the herd mentality. There is a difference between light-hearted jokes taken by many people as a tradition and what herd mentality is often referred to as, bigotry and prejudice.
of course, I voted gah!
I find it most surprising that Pindar would consider such a thinking as Plato's as the backbone of philosophy.
Hello,
I have made no such claim. However, Plato was the first system builder and platonic realism, in one fashion or another, has had a strong presence in Western Thought ever since. One has only to go to a Mathematics Dept. for an illustration.
Perhaps the claim that Philosophy is a footnote back to Plato is valid, but it would be a very long footnote filled with insults and disagreements, especially if we are to consider the later ages.
That is certainly true.
And I for one truly doubts GAH! is a good example of the herd mentality.
It's a perfect example. Just look at the number who run to embrace retardation in this and related threads.
Byzantine Prince
04-12-2006, 06:08
Herd mentality is to be taken advantage of by others. There will always be idiots and they will always be ignorant that will be annoyed by that fact. People don't like to be called idiots even if it is a relevent fact.
You wouldn't want me pointing out how dumb I think your religion is, would you Pindar?
AntiochusIII
04-12-2006, 06:14
Hello,
I have made no such claim. However, Plato was the first system builder and platonic realism, in one fashion or another, has had a strong presence in Western Thought ever since. One has only to go to a Mathematics Dept. for an illustration.Ah, then I have misunderstood your post. And I acknowledge the influence of Plato--nonetheless, I do not believe him right for many reasons. And Platonic realism does seem to me quite contradictory, so I'd like to ask that you elaborate on this to dispel my ignorance. Unless, of course, you mean the theoretical absoluteness that Plato likes to base his philosophy on.
It's a perfect example. Just look at the number who run to embrace retardation in this and related threads.Number does not indicate everything. You missed the more important sentence after the one you quoted, where I gave my reason: the "herd mentality" has an unavoidable connotation of bigotry and the foolish masses--the long-running joke, a tradition if you may, of Gah!, is not bigotry. It is almost satire.
Regarding the herd mentality:
I read something just today while studying for a test in an anthropology class that is pertinent:
"Among the higher primates and humans, a youngster must learn what behavior is acceptable in order to get along successfully with other members of its social group. A youngster must also acquire a repertoire of learned behaviors to deal with its environment and learn how to utilize these behaviors successfully. Such learned standards of behavior are the group's culture. Because it is learned, not inhereted, cultural behavior can only be passed on through traditions, not through genes. However, the biological bases for this sort of learned behavior - namely, a prolonged period of dependency and a large, complex brain- are themselves genetically inherited."
I'm never surprised at any herd mentality, and not often really disturbed by any except mob mentality. What does surprise me is the prolification of this strange creature that lives outside of society. These individuals are socially stunted, but not intellectually stunted. Might this be a result of the parts of their brain housing higher reasoning being dominant and leading to simply a greater proportion of time in development being occupied by asocial, "higher" they would say, thought or activity? What fascinates me is the prospect that the trend throughout the human species toward increased ability in higher reasoning, a trait that increases survivability, would result in an inability to thrive socially (something so integral to basic human survivability and reproductive success). Is this a truth, or are those who are socially stunted simply as mal-adapted as a weakling?
An easy answer would be to say that all those who are intelligent yet socially stunted are weaklings, but this is not true. I do admit a "secondary" social learning phase for some, where negative social pressure may have forced them to invest time in their development to social thinking, resulting in a socially successful and intellectually potent adult. But what about those who are definitively socially unsuccessful, physically both at least average in strength and attractiveness, and very bright? The catch is, and I have seen this supported by facts, that there are inordinately more socially unsuccessful bright people than mentally "average" people of similar physique... I'm just amazed. Yet I wouldn't hesitate to deem so many of those numerous people who have advanced the technical knowledge of humankind over time as "undesirable nerds." HURRAH ATAVISM!
Herd mentality is to be taken advantage of by others. There will always be idiots and they will always be ignorant that will be annoyed by that fact. People don't like to be called idiots even if it is a relevent fact.
You wouldn't want me pointing out how dumb I think your religion is, would you Pindar?And you wouldn´t want me to say what I think about your philosophy, it´s all subjective my friend...:juggle2:
Ah, then I have misunderstood your post. And I acknowledge the influence of Plato--nonetheless, I do not believe him right for many reasons. And Platonic realism does seem to me quite contradictory, so I'd like to ask that you elaborate on this to dispel my ignorance. Unless, of course, you mean the theoretical absoluteness that Plato likes to base his philosophy on.
I do mean the formal appeals that impact his metaphysics. What contradiction(s) are you referring to?
Number does not indicate everything. You missed the more important sentence after the one you quoted, where I gave my reason: the "herd mentality" has an unavoidable connotation of bigotry and the foolish masses--the long-running joke, a tradition if you may, of Gah!, is not bigotry. It is almost satire.
Satire suggests a subtlety of thought and position that is not demonstrated by the gaggle.
Sjakihata
04-12-2006, 17:38
I do mean the formal appeals that impact his metaphysics. What contradiction(s) are you referring to?
Have you read Platos Parmenides? A young Socrates is arguing with Parmenides and Parmenides kicks his arse verbally. Now, this is a strong self-criticism, where Plato actually points out some errors of his metaphysical system.
One question that is fair to ask Plato is, how does new things occur? Have the ideas always been there for every possible imaginable thing?
Also that last book in the republic really shows me what ancient and flawed his system is. While I, of course, do not discredit him and acknowledge his strong influence, especially on christian and neoplatonic thought, he, in my opinion, doesnt have a functioning impact on as many issues as Aristotle - who was/is refered to as The Philosopher.
Rodion Romanovich
04-12-2006, 18:03
It's a perfect example. Just look at the number who run to embrace retardation in this and related threads.
If Gah is retarded herd mentality, then the English language is a retarded herd mentality. Gah is not a political opinion but a language convention at the .org, and inside joke, or a tradition at the most. It's not like we're saying "the holy Gah commands you to kill all who don't embrace Gah!", then we'd have a problem with herd mentality. The mere sound of Gah is funny, just like Meh, or Bleh, or Muahahaha. If you wish it to be an intellectual form of satire, then you could say the satirical element is that it goes against the in a way - in comparison - ridiculously complex spelling and pronounciation of all words in existing languages, and the desire of some cultures to distance themselves from their natural heritage, that they call "barbary". None of these simple sounds that are so easy to pronounce, so natural, are words in our languages. We try to hide between exquisitly pronounced words that few can learn if they didn't learn them from when they were very young kids. Gah is a reaction against this, a reaction against self-denial.
Have you read Platos Parmenides? A young Socrates is arguing with Parmenides and Parmenides kicks his arse verbally. Now, this is a strong self-criticism, where Plato actually points out some errors of his metaphysical system.
I have read the dialogue. It is one of his later works. There is no clear consensus on just what the point is supposed to be, but it is generally agreed the work can be divided into two parts. What you refer to is in the first section, but the key lies with how one comes to understand the second section.
One question that is fair to ask Plato is, how does new things occur? Have the ideas always been there for every possible imaginable thing?
I think Plato would say the forms have always been there for any innovation. One's new idea doesn't create the form, but rather the new idea is only possible because mind has participated in the already existent form.
Also that last book in the republic really shows me what ancient and flawed his system is. While I, of course, do not discredit him and acknowledge his strong influence, especially on Christian and neoplatonic thought, he, in my opinion, doesnt have a functioning impact on as many issues as Aristotle - who was/is refered to as The Philosopher.
Yes St. Thomas did refer to Aristotle as The Philosopher as he referred to Paul as The Apostle. Even so, Scholasticism always had its rivals as seen in Bonaventure among others and it did not fair so well once the Probabilists came on the scene. I think it is hard to argue Plato's functioning impact is less than Aristotle if not so varied given there are literally billions of Christians who understand their faith along Neo-Platonic lines which of course means things trace back to Plato himself. Regardless they are two of the Triumvirs of philosophy.
If Gah is retarded herd mentality, then the English language is a retarded herd mentality. Gah is not a political opinion but a language convention at the .org, and inside joke, or a tradition at the most. It's not like we're saying "the holy Gah commands you to kill all who don't embrace Gah!", then we'd have a problem with herd mentality.
Have you not seen polls where the absence of gah brought all sorts of invective and refusals to participate simply because it was missing? The judgment stands.
Have you not seen polls where the absence of gah brought all sorts of invective and refusals to participate simply because it was missing? The judgment stands.
Generalization. Spot on!
Reenk Roink
04-12-2006, 22:24
Have you not seen polls where the absence of gah brought all sorts of invective and refusals to participate simply because it was missing? The judgment stands.
I have seen a few, yes. However, bring one example of an invective which matches the offensive nature of your "Gah is for the retarded" comment...
If this is your measuring stick of something being "retarded," surely you will also have to look closer?
Byzantine Prince
04-12-2006, 22:40
And you wouldn´t want me to say what I think about your philosophy, it´s all subjective my friend...:juggle2:
I don't subscribe to a single philosophy. Please tell me what you think...
I guess it's safe to say we shouldn't ask what Pindar thinks of the whole ninjas versus pirates thing. Plato didn't even know about ninjas and pirates, which just goes to show that Plato was a retard.
Byzantine Prince
04-12-2006, 22:54
Plato is so boring. Everytime I've read his dumbass dialogues I fall asleep wondering how it could get any more problematic and I always try to not be affected by his flawed axioms and ideas.
What's with all the
"...wouldn't you agree?"
"Certainly, Socrates."
GAH! I don't agree mother*****! ****!
What's with all the
"...wouldn't you agree?"
"Certainly, Socrates."
Certainly that is true, Byzantine! Please continue! Any man of reason can see how right your argument is. Certainly it is obvious once you explain it.
Byzantine Prince
04-12-2006, 23:00
It has thus far been important, my old friend, that we keep our heads where are asses are, so we don't forget that talking like we are intelligent makes all the crap that comes out of our mouth seem pertinent.
LeftEyeNine
04-12-2006, 23:13
Axe is as vital as primitive it is. So here it goes:
I don't like Pindar's style over here and no matter how he tries to rationalize that salad-o-philiosophic murmur and incredibly tries to correlate it with the discussion of our beloved retardedishly-simple word called GAH!, "behaving" means much more to me rather than the capacity of thinking. I am a retarded and he does not behave.
*Axe swings..
Have you not seen polls where the absence of gah brought all sorts of invective and refusals to participate simply because it was missing? The judgment stands.
I have seen a few, yes.
Good we agree.
However, bring one example of an invective which matches the offensive nature of your "Gah is for the retarded" comment...
See post #47.
I don't like Pindar's style over here...
But, do you like my style of there?
and no matter how he tries to rationalize that salad-o-philiosophic murmur...
I'll type louder.
I am a retarded...
No you're not, you're just special. ~:pat:
Generalization. Spot on!
The blood of Norway always speak the truth!
LeftEyeNine
04-13-2006, 07:40
But, do you like my style of there?
I'll type louder.
No you're not, you're just special. ~:pat:
Still speaking the wise-to-self. I have nothing more to say about this, I was obvious about what I thought. And it was quite predictable that I'd get replied in an ancient sense of humor. Ok, play on, some of us loves you for sure. ~:)
Still speaking the wise-to-self. I have nothing more to say about this, I was obvious about what I thought. And it was quite predictable that I'd get replied in an ancient sense of humor. Ok, play on, some of us loves you for sure. ~:)
Just think of how he gets on irl. To me this makes his objectivity suspect, especially so with regards to herd mentality. Certainly someone who sees modern practicality in the philosophy of Plato above all other alternatives is ailing in the area of objectivity. Anyway, the plebe Socrates was the first bloody stool of a terminal Greek culture.
Rodion Romanovich
04-13-2006, 08:45
Have you not seen polls where the absence of gah brought all sorts of invective and refusals to participate simply because it was missing? The judgment stands.
In most cases they mean "why is there no 'other' option because none of the alternatives given apply to me". I can't find a single example of Gah protests when that wasn't the case.
R'as al Ghul
04-13-2006, 11:15
I guess it's safe to say we shouldn't ask what Pindar thinks of the whole ninjas versus pirates thing. Plato didn't even know about ninjas and pirates, which just goes to show that Plato was a retard.
Gah! Everybody knows that ninjas pwn pirates, cause ninjas are cool and by cool, I mean totally sweet. :laugh4:
Good reasoning concerning Plato, though. ~:thumb:
Sjakihata
04-13-2006, 13:17
Actually, Plato would've known pirates, not the ARgghh, rum parrot and sabre types, more like bandits on the sea.
Still speaking the wise-to-self. I have nothing more to say about this, I was obvious about what I thought. And it was quite predictable that I'd get replied in an ancient sense of humor. Ok, play on, some of us loves you for sure. ~:)
I love you too. ~:grouphug:
Certainly someone who sees modern practicality in the philosophy of Plato above all other alternatives is ailing in the area of objectivity.
I have not made this claim.
I have not made this claim.
Of course not, you've just exclusively used quotes from him to shed light on all of our situations, including in your signature.
Reverend Joe
04-13-2006, 16:39
Gah is for the retarded and it is inane. The option retards the thread's topic and given gah is not a word: it is inane i.e. empty.
Well, GAH to you.
:freak:
Of course not, you've just exclusively used quotes from him to shed light on all of our situations, including in your signature.
Actually, I haven't exclusively used quotes from him: only as it applied to denizens of the cave or to give reference to a point on his thought.
Even were one to allow that every time I quote it is Plato that still would have no baring on your charge.
Well, GAH to you.
:freak:
The gaggle speaks.
I don't know that "gaggle" is the right word. Are we really geese? How a bout pod, sleuth, herd, triumph or pack? The geese reference seems awfully specific.
Oh, and in case I didn't say it this post, GAH!
Gah is for the retarded and it is inane. The option retards the thread's topic and given gah is not a word: it is inane i.e. empty.
If "gah" is not a word and makes you retarded by saying it, then what about Mr. Pindar for example getting hurt and crying something like "aargh!" or "ouch!"? Does that also make you retarded? Is that also inane?
Even were one to allow that every time I quote it is Plato that still would have no baring on your charge.
You're right, deductively I could not come to any conclusions from that. You're probably just taking quotes relating to the most fundamental nature of humankind, so in that way Plato remains relevant. But its strange that you are saying "the gaggle speaks" when all Socratic speaking traces its origins to that one famous plebian... in stark contrast to almost all other important pre-Socratic Greek thought, woven by real noblemen.
I don't know that "gaggle" is the right word. Are we really geese? How a bout pod, sleuth, herd, triumph or pack? The geese reference seems awfully specific.
Oh, and in case I didn't say it this post, GAH!
Pod was definitely an option. The single syllable has style, but gaggle has a better ring to it given the "g" in gah. Plus, its better rhetorically.
Gah is for the retarded and it is inane. The option retards the thread's topic and given gah is not a word: it is inane i.e. empty.
If "gah" is not a word and makes you retarded by saying it, then what about Mr. Pindar for example getting hurt and crying something like "aargh!" or "ouch!"? Does that also make you retarded? Is that also inane?
Gah, doesn't make one retarded. It's opting for it in polls that does.
Why would someone say "aargh' when hurt or crying? Are you thinking of hurt or sad pirates?
Ouch is a word.
But its strange that you are saying "the gaggle speaks" when all Socratic speaking traces its origins to that one famous plebian... in stark contrast to almost all other important pre-Socratic Greek thought, woven by real noblemen.
Why do you refer to Socrates as a plebian given he wasn't Roman?
Reenk Roink
04-14-2006, 02:48
All people who have opted for 'Gah' in a poll, please post your IQ's, SAT scores, university degrees, GPA's psychiatric records, and diagnoses for any sort of mental retardation...
LeftEyeNine
04-14-2006, 04:58
I love you too. ~:grouphug:
Sorry to disappoint you but DevDave is my beloved one here, Mr. Enlightening Dutchman.
Why do you refer to Socrates as a plebian given he wasn't Roman?
I had written "plebe" before but in my desire to soften a blow I committed an error... won't make that mistake again it seems. "Plebe" is often used as slang to refer to a person of the lower class, as in "That poet is a plebe who is bleeding on the street". It can also refer to the lower class as a whole.
Gah, doesn't make one retarded. It's opting for it in polls that does.
Why would someone say "aargh' when hurt or crying? Are you thinking of hurt or sad pirates?
Ouch is a word.
I was thinking of hurt, if you want the correct sound, you can take a knife and hurt yourself in some way, then you´ll know what exactly it sounds like...~;)
The blood of Norway always speak the truth!
Sure it does. :laugh4:
Sorry to disappoint you but DevDave is my beloved one here, Mr. Enlightening Dutchman.
Foiled again.
I had written "plebe" before but in my desire to soften a blow I committed an error... won't make that mistake again it seems. "Plebe" is often used as slang to refer to a person of the lower class, as in "That poet is a plebe who is bleeding on the street". It can also refer to the lower class as a whole.
I see. So, you don't like Socrates' common touch?*
* Note: the coming of the gaggle or its identification has nothing to do with aristocratic blood lines. I'm a citizen of the new world where such folly was long ago rejected.
I was thinking of hurt, if you want the correct sound, you can take a knife and hurt yourself in some way, then you´ll know what exactly it sounds like...~;)
I see. Of course, we wouldn't want to assume that all sounds are words.
Nasty imagery by the way. :ahh: ~:eek: :ahh:
LeftEyeNine
04-16-2006, 01:31
Foiled again.
Foiling is your genius. Shall I abandon such wisdom due to my pity state of being retarded, sire. What's more relationships are matters of luck than anything else as I am sure you are already enlightened about. So no worries may you fall into, master. You are a totem of attraction and wisdom, I do not think it will take long before you come across with true love.
Reenk Roink
04-16-2006, 03:43
Good we agree.
On that certain note. Not on the statement by "The Good Guys" that "Gah is retarded"...
See post #47.
QED
Foiling is your genius. Shall I abandon such wisdom due to my pity state of being retarded, sire.
Nay, stay your course DevDave needs all the love he can find.
You are a totem of attraction and wisdom, I do not think it will take long before you come across with true love.
I shall content myself with the love of truth and the protection thereof.
On that certain note. Not on the statement by "The Good Guys" that "Gah is retarded"...
Your time may come if you can rise above the shackles of dogmatism and the lure of the gaggle.
QED
quod erat demonstrandum?
Reenk Roink
04-16-2006, 15:26
Your time may come if you can rise above the shackles of dogmatism and the lure of the gaggle.
Yes...Yes...We have heard it all before. :rolleyes:
Amazingly, I don't feel "shackled" by dogma. I respond to polls without Gah. I also choose Gah as an option, when the poll choices offer less than satisfactory choices on issues that are far from black and white.
quod erat demonstrandum?
Literally: which was to be demonstrated
Yes...Yes...We have heard it all before. :rolleyes:
And yet failed to learn.
Amazingly, I don't feel "shackled" by dogma.
Given the passion you have put into your oppositionism perhaps you shouldn't trust your feelings.
Literally: which was to be demonstrated
Do you understand how Q.E.D. was used?
Reenk Roink
04-16-2006, 23:58
And yet failed to learn.
It is perhaps best, if one remains ignorant of arrogance...
Given the passion you have put into your oppositionism perhaps you shouldn't trust your feelings.
I did not come at you with such passion because you had left off Gah from your poll. I looked at it at first, and was uninterested by the subject, but when I saw I your arrogant comment of "Gah is for the retarded"...I spoke up.
Do you understand how Q.E.D. was used?
It was used originally to conclude geometric proofs.
It is perhaps best, if one remains ignorant of arrogance...
Is this a self-recrimination?
I did not come at you with such passion because you had left off Gah from your poll. I looked at it at first, and was uninterested by the subject, but when I saw I your arrogant comment of "Gah is for the retarded"...I spoke up.
So now it is your mission to defend retardation? Do you defend pig latin and ebonics as well or only retarded sounds?
It was used originally to conclude geometric proofs.
That is the traditional subject matter. Its use was to indicate the conditions to meet the proof had been met. If you use Q.E.D. as a rejoinder to my post #47 then you are agreeing the stance was sufficiently demonstrated. Is that what you want to do?
Reenk Roink
04-17-2006, 03:05
Is this a self-recrimination?
No.
So now it is your mission to defend retardation? Do you defend pig latin and ebonics as well or only retarded sounds?
And what is considered retardation? Do "The Good Guys" get to pick? Could it be possible that others have differing views on what is retarded and not? What is your personal criteria for retardation? Answer these questions please.
It has been stated many times that 'Gah' is used to indicate "none of the above." Most polls do not provide every single option that every single person would want. Also, many polls deal with complex issues, yet give simplistic options.
That is the traditional subject matter. Its use was to indicate the conditions to meet the proof had been met. If you use Q.E.D. as a rejoinder to my post #47 then you are agreeing the stance was sufficiently demonstrated. Is that what you want to do?
No, reread the discussion in its context.
And what is considered retardation?
The use of gah in polls.
Do "The Good Guys" get to pick?
Yes.
Could it be possible that others have differing views on what is retarded and not?
Yes, but they would be wrong.
What is your personal criteria for retardation?
That which retards i.e. stymies the development or progress of a thing. The gah response in polls stymies discussion and is thus a retardation. Another example would be this:
"GAH!" or
"Gah Canadian positive Gah !" or
"Gah!" or
"Gah!" or
"HaG" (this is an example of the gaggle who can't spell)
It has been stated many times that 'Gah' is used to indicate "none of the above." Most polls do not provide every single option that every single person would want. Also, many polls deal with complex issues, yet give simplistic options.
If one isn't happy with the options then they shouldn't respond to the poll obviously. If one refuses to respond because gah is not present then that is an example of the gaggle mentality.
No, reread the discussion in its context.
I did. The base use of Q.E.D. is as I described. It means sufficient proof has been given. To use it directly after a position is stated (even if it is your interlocutor's) suggests sufficiency of that stance. My guess is that is not what you wanted to say.
Krasturak
07-23-2015, 03:20
Gah ! If you keep up with that, you may arise Krast(or Vanya) ! He'll open his coffin and Gah ! you to death ! Or make head soup to ya ....
*opens coffin*
*emerges from coffin*
Gah! UglyandHasty! Gah!
*creeps back into coffin*
*closes coffin*
InsaneApache
07-23-2015, 12:02
I think a good steak to the heart of this thread is in order. It's older than Nosferatu.
Greyblades
07-23-2015, 12:33
There's nothing more annoying than a corpse with a mind of its own.
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/894/902/151.gif
Montmorency
07-23-2015, 12:40
What swine dared add a vote to the poll just now?
This is literally worse than the destruction of Nimrud. :gah2:
Gregoshi
07-23-2015, 14:24
Well, Krast never viewed "dead and buried" as a permanent thing. :shrug:
Someone is just testing whether the admins got everything with the host move...
Kagemusha
07-24-2015, 19:51
Good times and great people. Thats what Org is.:bow:
Or pardon me for quoting myself from this thread from gentle summer of 07:
GAH!Is a way of life!:bow:
ReluctantSamurai
07-26-2015, 05:17
Well, Krast never viewed "dead and buried" as a permanent thing.
:laugh4:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.