But yeah, of course you always have to consider whether you're making something too abstract, to the point where it has nothing to do with the real world. I always keep that in mind.
Life of a Female Chess Player Pt. II: Competition
Sort:
Look, I genuinely thought that when I said "the best moral test..." that it was very clear where that came from. Perhaps I was completely wrong in that assumption. I don't know what to tell you. There is always the problem that you don't know how someone else, who might think in a very different way than you, will perceive of something. I can't read minds though so... what can you do.
If I was trying to make my post indecipherable I would have said something like "So you think the essence of morality encompasses the fact that voting would be acquainted with such a thing, bearing no resemblance to any self-consistent reality."
That's what you might see in a (bad) philosophy paper :) I try to stay clear of such things, but I guess I just fail :)
I used to be with Tony, but you're not a kid anymore. It's time to get over the idea that you have the market cornered on philosophy.
Like I said, I just think how I think. And it's probably different from a lot of people. So maybe some level of miscommunication is just unavoidable. There will be times where something seems, very, very natural to me and I genuinely can't see why it would be that unclear to so many people. But I can't actually feel for how others think, I know they think differently, but I don't know how to adjust to it because I'm just not them. If you tell me to "just say it simply," I'll often say something I think is simple, but then someone else will think it's unclear.
For what it's worth, there are people here that really like my posts, too, they've told me that. So it does depend on the person, although the general trend is, I come across as unclear.
Anyway, I don't know, I don't understand all of what's going on myself.
Although, to be fair guys... keep in mind that I only tend to post in topics that I consider open ended, so of course you'll see that side of me when you see one of my posts. I post in topics where I don't consider the reasoning all that obvious. I could post in threads where there is an obvious answer, but what's the point, someone would beat me to it, anyway. So I'm going to seek out cases where the answer isn't obvious or simple, because those are the ones that interest me.
In other words, you might find that when it comes to more objective, straightforward questions, we (maybe trysts, bigpoison, etc) deal with them in a fairly similar way. At least, more similar than you would think :) But you generally won't see me in threads like that.
PoolPlayerToo wrote:
dashkee94 wrote:
Well, we disagree on Bernie--he's been fighting the good fight for years. I'm one of those 60s kids who still believe that we were right, and history has born out that all we fought for and fought against was the right fight. And he is a third-party candidate: Sanders became a Dem in order to run a serious campaign to win the Pres and actually change things. He's the longest serving independent is US political history, and if you read his speeces from 1972 to now, the message hasn't changed. He's never taken big-business money, not then or even now when it could help out--if he gets bought, he wants to be owing you and me, not them. But--and this is a big but--he can't do it alone. He needs like-minded people in the House and Senate to vote for his policies, and that is the problem. If they are bought and paid for, it doesn't matter who occupies the White House.
And, BTW, I know more that a few people who were anti-war, anti-corporation, anti-Nixon until they got some cushy jobs and completely turned a 180, and I have nothing to do with them--people with no moral compass and no core values, swayed by nothing more than what the crowd around them yells. They are traitors to themselves, sheeple who will vote for going to the slaughterhouse with a smile on their face. I agree with your distain for them. But there is a chance here to get one of us in the WH, and I'll do whatever I can to get him there. He, like me, believes in the same values and has the same moral compass--how can I not support him? He and I are both children of the 60s and neither one of us has wavered on this long road of life. Besides, look at the others in the race--fear-mongering war-hawks who have as much integrity as a snake-oil salesman. This is a once-in-my-life chance to vote for someone rather than against someone and that feels good to me. As I said earlier, if Sanders doesn't win and chooses not to run as a third-party candidate, then I'm voting for Jill Stein--I cannot vote for any of the others. A vote for them means we're at war within a year.
that was pretty intense. a child of the 60's were you. by my math you were a child in the 60's. you must have had some hippie parents to be so politically aware at that age. anyway, anyone who lists the MC5 as a favorite band is ok with me.
Yeah, I was 11 during the 68 convention, but I was in NYC, not Chicago. My mother was a devout Roman Catholic, my father an ex-Marine WWII vet who loved Joe McCarthy, hated hippies and rock&roll. We didn't see eye-to-eye on a lot of things. And MC5 and Blue Cheer should be required listening for the world. Peace, brother.
Apr 19, 2016
0
#188
Elubas wrote:
I put in tons of time to think my thoughts through
Haha! No way. You post these walls of text in a few minutes or even seconds. I've had discussions with you where I take an hour or more to form one paragraph and you respond in like a minute with three or four paragraphs. Just based on the timestamp of everything you wrote in this page and the page before it was within an hour and I bet you spent five or ten minutes total.
In the text you wrote where I said I didn't understand and you basically said that I belong in preschool, here is one of your masterpieces of deep thought:
"Whether the term "moral test," or something similar, is used or not, one has to exist to make a comment about someone's morals."
uh huh...really? So comments are made by people who exist?
Like in Darwin's theory. Actually it's all about spreading your seed and nothing more, but obviously you must be alive to do that.
Elubas wrote:
TRextastic wrote:
Elubas wrote:
I'm not sure what part doesn't make sense. If you know what words mean, you shouldn't have any trouble. I assume you know what words like "test" mean, but there is google if you need it.
Uh no, it's you. You may have a solid grasp of "what words mean", but you have a very poor grasp of how to compose a comprehendable sentence. Your comments are unnecessarily wordy and the point of most of your comments is impossible to understand. You go on tangent after tagent in a single post, the aftermath of which is only clear to you. Your comments are a mess and then you feel the need to subject us all to 30 of them a day.
You criticizing someone else's language comprehension skills is ridiculous. You have poorer communicating skills than anyone I've seen on here. And this site is full of foreigners who speak/write English as a second language.
You should stop your attempts to sound intelligent and relearn the basics of how to communicate with someone other than your own conscious.
You seem to not at all want to consider that maybe you just don't want to actually figure out what a person is saying. Yeah, there's always the question of how much is it about the person posting, and how much is it about the person reading it, but you just go 1000% with blaming me and that is just vicious.
"Vicious" lol. You seem to already have realized that many people across many posts have pointed out that your communication skills are subpar. And yet you think me pointing you out as the common denominator is "vicious".
The entire purpose of human beings creating language is so that we don't have to "figure out" what people are saying. This isn't poetry, it's a conversation. It's like it takes you 300 words just to say "the sky is blue." It's not a style. It's a sign of a disorganized mind. It doesn't mean I don't like you. I have no opinion of you considering it takes entirely too much effort to read anything you write so I have no idea what your opinions on most things are, lol. I ignore 99% of your comments. They don't really bother me. It's the idea that you think Trysts is the one with the comprehension issues that bothers me. It's 100% you. Yes, we could all spend an hour of our time deciphering what it is you're trying to say, but that's on you.
I think you need to seriously consider proofreading your comments and cutting every single one in half by way of simplifying and organizing your thoughts. If you reread your comments I think you'd see that they end up all over the place. Whenever I read my comments I think, "wow, stop being an a-hole". And then usually I'm too lazy to edit.
trysts wrote:
Elubas wrote:
I put in tons of time to think my thoughts through
Haha! No way. You post these walls of text in a few minutes or even seconds. I've had discussions with you where I take an hour or more to form one paragraph and you respond in like a minute with three or four paragraphs. Just based on the timestamp of everything you wrote in this page and the page before it was within an hour and I bet you spent five or ten minutes total.
In the text you wrote where I said I didn't understand and you basically said that I belong in preschool, here is one of your masterpieces of deep thought:
"Whether the term "moral test," or something similar, is used or not, one has to exist to make a comment about someone's morals."
uh huh...really? So comments are made by people who exist?
"Haha! No way. You post these walls of text in a few minutes or even seconds. I've had discussions with you where I take an hour or more to form one paragraph and you respond in like a minute with three or four paragraphs. Just based on the timestamp of everything you wrote in this page and the page before it was within an hour and I bet you spent five or ten minutes total."
You're missing the point, which shows to me that you're biased towards making me look bad rather than actually trying to understand me. Why? Because even taking five to ten minutes, numerous times, is a lot more effort than making some lame joke about me, which is usually just a sentence or so. So you're still blatantly overlooking effort I take. It's pretty rude on your part. You simply have to interpret anything I do negatively.
""Whether the term "moral test," or something similar, is used or not, one has to exist to make a comment about someone's morals."
uh huh...really? So comments are made by people who exist? "
So here's the thing: "one" is used as a pronoun here, referring to a "moral test." Now, if I took one extra minute per pronoun, to remove pronouns like that, I'd be spending like 45 minutes per comment. So yeah, I use pronouns, and I shouldn't always. But if you were really trying to see what I was saying, you might consider that what I meant was not what you initially thought. If I appear to say something weird, like, "you have to be alive to read," it's courteous to consider that maybe I meant something different. That's what I do when I read other people's comments like yours. I try to see what you are trying to say, rather than get carried away with one tiny sentence, sound byting if you will.
And trysts, you attribute any time you don't understand something to me. Well, I don't have responsibility to tailor my comments in just the way you want me to. Sometimes, a little bit of extra effort you could have made would have saved me some. And that obviously goes the other way around too. That's why I have myself said that I want to gradually find ways to change. But I'm not going to tend to it like it's a legal duty, you should realize that. Sometimes, I'm going to ask you to read my comment again, so that I don't have to post another one.
""Vicious" lol. You seem to already have realized that many people across many posts have pointed out that your communication skills are subpar. And yet you think me pointing you out as the common denominator is "vicious"."
It's vicious that you attribute 100% of the blame to me, yes. I often accurately and carefully word things, and when you don't get the reason why I'm doing so, yes, you should at least consider, that maybe you're not trying to get what I'm saying. Yeah, a reasonable person would say "ok, maybe there are some things you're saying that I'm being too biased towards, but you should also work on what you're saying." But someone like you is not willing to compromise at all, and will yell at me for an hour for that, even if it's a result of your misunderstanding. There are courteous ways to suggest what you're suggesting, and you're being the total opposite of that.
I simply don't like that. You're simply being rude. There are no rules against being rude I guess, but I'm not going to enjoy it, and I will complain about it.
So again, T Rex, yes, communication goes both ways, but your 100% attribution shows to me that you have a total lack of regard to where I'm coming from. If my idea is legitimate, yes, I want to explain it in a good way, but there comes a point where people are talking to me like I'm their parent that has to explain every little thing to them.
Except you know what the difference is? A child will at least figure that it's them who are not understanding something. Whereas you people only think that I'm stupid if you don't understand something. That's bias. There are many reasons why an idea might not make sense to you.
For example, maybe an idea will sound unclear because it is complex and new-ish to you. For example, there aren't a whole lot of people who talk about how the word "rape" is used way too broadly now. (That's an idea I discussed on another thread.) Maybe it sounds abstract. And as a result, if I bring it up, it'll sound cryptic I guess, it did to trysts, anyway. But that does not mean that the idea is not legitimate. In fact, really, to argue with someone with whom you disagree, you sort of have to show them things they haven't considered. Right?
And I hope you know what I mean when I say "too broadly." This is what I mean. It's one thing for me to clarify, but if you can't understand something because of a word you could look up, come on, don't make me do that for you. That's when I don't want to spend the effort on you.
As for proofreading, well again, T Rex, I can comment in any way I want. Sometimes I just want to ramble because that's interesting to me. The purpose of being here is to talk about things. So I should be able to do that in a natural way.
You're not an authority. I have no obligation to get you to understand what I'm saying. So don't act like one. Bottom line, I, believe it or not, do try a little to organize what I say. It's just that there are a lot things I have to say. It's always possible for me to put in more effort, but I'm not going to turn it into a chore. This is supposed to be fun discussion, not someone grading my homework assignment.
"It's not a style. It's a sign of a disorganized mind."
Again, no nuance. Obviously it's partly a style and partly a disorganized mind, but you can never look at the other side of things.
I do, actually, look at the other side of things. For example, I think trysts has good things about her posting style. She has legitimate things to talk about, and she makes good points. I can say all that even though there are also a lot of problems I have with her style. But no one can ever say a single positive thing about me. "That's because there is no positive thing about Elubas." No, I'm sure there is at least something positive about me, you just don't want to admit it.
Besides, I don't see how communication on these forums is supposed to translate into communication in general. This is a completely different context from, say, the audience of a newspaper column, or a real life conversation; they're uncomparable.
But, T Rex, you unfairly make that jump. Extremely unfairly, I'll add. It's vicious, in fact. It's like criticizing someone's grammar in an internet chat room. Again you think you know more about than me than you really do. I may make long posts, but I don't claim I know people on the internet when I don't.
"You seem to already have realized that many people across many posts have pointed out that your communication skills are subpar"
Only you are taking something specific, chess.com posts, and, viciously, generalizing that to communication skills in any context. Again, it's like saying someone has bad grammar based on an internet chatroom conversation.
That would be like me saying that you're critical to any stranger you walk by, simply because you are being critical of me, here on chess.com. You see how silly that is, T Rex? I don't know how you behave towards other people in general just based on how you behave towards people on the internet.
Wolfbird wrote:
Loobie would be a real hoot at a party.
I wouldn't say any of these things because I know people wouldn't want to talk about them. I'll just talk about whatever they want to and be pretty diplomatic about the whole thing. Unless they crossed a line, obviously.
But the internet allows us to talk about controversial things openly. We should take good advantage of that.
actually I will be voting for HIllary, not because I think she's capable of changing much, but because I think she is the best qualified in a field of weak candidates. I don't think anyone else is even close. Her gender is NOT an issue for me. I hope and believe she will be our next president.
None of that really has anything to do with this thread
Best qualified to organize coups, bomb countries to oblivion, laugh at heads of State being murdered, support the horrible governments of Saudi Arabia and Isreal as they murder thousands of innocent people, etc., etc. It's clear to me that when someone says they're voting Hillary because she is "best qualified", that they have no moral compass or are just breathtakingly ignorant.
So the best moral test of a human is who they arbitrarily feel like voting for. 95% of people just sit back, pick the person with the best hairstyle and they're done with it.
So do you see how who just make up stuff and ask people to respond? Where did you see in my writings about "the best moral test"? You made that up.
Well yes, trysts, I expect you to follow things that are logically implied. Whether the term "moral test," or something similar, is used or not, one has to exist to make a comment about someone's morals (talking about someone's moral compass is indeed making such a comment). That's just what it means for there to be a moral test. You could say my use of the word "best" was hyperbole, though.
If I talk about apples, I'm talking about a fruit, whether I use the word fruit or not.
Another lesson in loobelian logic. It's cool that you think a throw in sentence is the most significant contained in a paragraph.