RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2120Goal: $3500

Difference between revisions of "User talk:Mei II"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Some thoughts about absolute truth: using my new template)
(I'd like my comment to stay in one part, thank you. I will answer later perhaps.)
Line 137: Line 137:
 
I think you were making interesting point. However, I do not necessarily agree... I asked some questions from one of my teachers, who helped to bring some clarity into absolute truths.
 
I think you were making interesting point. However, I do not necessarily agree... I asked some questions from one of my teachers, who helped to bring some clarity into absolute truths.
  
It is logical to say that "there is no absolute truth except for the statement, 'there is no absolute truth.'"  However, making an absolute negative statement is difficult, because you would have to have absolute knowledge of everything in the universe in order to say that something absolutely doesn't exist. {{subsigned|Earthland}}
+
It is logical to say that "there is no absolute truth except for the statement, 'there is no absolute truth.'"  However, making an absolute negative statement is difficult, because you would have to have absolute knowledge of everything in the universe in order to say that something absolutely doesn't exist.  
  
:First off I have to point out that I don't believe 'there is no absolute truth' is an absolute statement. You can't refute me by arguing against something similar to what I believe. When I state that there is no absolute truth, I mean that nothing can be proved beyond any doubt, because there is no objective standard of proof. I do not try to prove this statement, as it is a negative, so it does not fall into the category of statements that it criticizes. {{subsigned|Mei II}} 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
+
Of course, your comment expressed a relatively newer view of human logic and knowledge. Most people do believe and most people throughout history have believed that we can see the world around us and think and know about it. Almost everybody in the world right now agrees, and that's how we all live our lives. In the last three hundred years, though, some philosophers have said that maybe we can't; maybe we only think we know. Immanuel Kant went so far as to say that objects outside ourselves exist only because we think they do.
   
 
Of course, your comment expressed a relatively newer view of human logic and knowledge. Most people do believe and most people throughout history have believed that we can see the world around us and think and know about it. Almost everybody in the world right now agrees, and that's how we all live our lives. In the last three hundred years, though, some philosophers have said that maybe we can't; maybe we only think we know. Immanuel Kant went so far as to say that objects outside ourselves exist only because we think they do. {{subsigned|Earthland}}
 
  
:My view isn't as new as you think. Even in my limited knowledge, I know of classical philosophers who drew attention to the frailty of our view on the world.
+
Intellectual anarchists don't believe in any absolutes, but they don't build bridges out of cardboard. You have limits to your disbelief in any truth. If I was to lock you in a closet and not giveyou food or water for days, we all know that you would scream and beg for food and water. If I told you, "I'm not sure that you or food really exist, and even if they do, I can't be sure that you really need to eat or drink," you won't feel any better and won't stop demanding food and drink. You may use philosophy that says that you can't know that I exist, but if I hit you in the face with a log, we all know that you would acknowledge it as true.
:But despite that, how old it is and how many people believe in it are irrelevant. I agree that many (probably not 'almost everybody') people think that they can identify absolute truths. They are idiots. {{subsigned|Mei II}} 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
+
 
 +
By stating that there are no absolute truths, you are playing games. But you only play games as long as the consequences are small.
 +
 
 +
Morality is rather similar. If a person says there is no right or wrong, it's often times (and many people, like Aldous Huxley, admit this) because they don't want right and wrong to apply to them completely. But, if you tell me there is no right or wrong, and then I punch you and steal your wallet, we all know that you will believe that it is wrong.
 +
 
 +
Appeal to consequences, you said? What about ''reductio ad absurdum''?  Here's a quote from a logic textbook:
 +
 
 +
''"Consists in proving that if you accept a certain proposition as a premise, that premise necessarily leads to a conclusion which is "absurd," i.e., one which everyone knows is false, and therefore the premise cannot be accepted.  It is not fallacious to argue that 'If p were true, then q would be true.  But q is not true, for it is absurd.  Therefore p is not true.' One of the two premises of this argument may be false - it may be false that q follows p, or that q is absurd - but there is no formal or material fallacy in the argument."''
  
Intellectual anarchists don't believe in any absolutes, but they don't build bridges out of cardboard. You have limits to your disbelief in any truth. If I was to lock you in a closet and not giveyou food or water for days, we all know that you would scream and beg for food and water. If I told you, "I'm not sure that you or food really exist, and even if they do, I can't be sure that you really need to eat or drink," you won't feel any better and won't stop demanding food and drink. You may use philosophy that says that you can't know that I exist, but if I hit you in the face with a log, we all know that you would acknowledge it as true.  
+
Arguing from adverse consequences is indeed fallacious, but that is just not liking the consequences. This question is about common sense and how we all live. Again, you live according to the older, common-sense understanding of logic, but you follow the newer foundation of logic when it suits you. But either we can know the world or we can't. Either things exist whether we think about them or not, or we make them exist. These two principles are contradictory.
{{subsigned|Earthland}}
 
  
:Just because I reject the idea of absolute truths doesn't mean I reject the idea of provisional truths. Like everyone in the world, I accept, tolerate and experiment with different 'tiers' of proof, but this doesn't prevent me from stating the ''absolute'' truth is impossible.
+
One more thing: science uses and is built upon the older understanding of reality and knowledge.  We can't have a law of gravity if gravity doesn't necessarily exist.  We've seen it happen enough that we accept it as a law.  I'll bet you don't challenge the law of gravity by walking off of cliffs, right?
:About your log thing - I have frequent dreams in which I experience pain. You used that example as an extreme of something I would have to accept as a proven reality beyond all reasonable doubt, and it ''still'' doesn't work. {{subsigned|Mei II}} 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 
  
By stating that there are no absolute truths, you are playing games. But you only play games as long as the consequences are small.
+
All in all, you  have adopted a system of thought that cannot be proven and cannot be disproven, but one that you know, on a basic level, does not work in life and that you don't always use.
  
Morality is rather similar. If a person says there is no right or wrong, it's often times (and many people, like Aldous Huxley, admit this) because they don't want right and wrong to apply to them completely. But, if you tell me there is no right or wrong, and then I punch you and steal your wallet, we all know that you will believe that it is wrong. {{subsigned|Earthland}}
+
--[[User:Earthland|Earthland]] ([[User talk:Earthland|talk]]) 15:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  
:I can easily express an opinion on right and wrong without claiming to be absolutely correct. There is [[liberal|a whole movement based on this]].
+
:First off I have to point out that I don't believe 'there is no absolute truth' is an absolute statement. You can't refute me by arguing against something similar to what I believe. When I state that there is no absolute truth, I mean that nothing can be proved beyond any doubt, because there is no objective standard of proof. I do not try to prove this statement, as it is a negative, so it does not fall into the category of statements that it criticizes.
:The motives behind an argument are not relevant. Especially not when they're made up. You expect me to believe Aldous Huxley is quoted as saying 'I don't believe in right and wrong, because I don't want right and wrong to apply to me'? {{subsigned|Mei II}} 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 
  
Appeal to consequences, you said? What about ''reductio ad absurdum''?  Here's a quote from a logic textbook:
+
:My view isn't as new as you think. Even in my limited knowledge, I know of classical philosophers who drew attention to the frailty of our view on the world.
 +
:But despite that, how old it is and how many people believe in it are irrelevant. I agree that many (probably not 'almost everybody') people think that they can identify absolute truths. They are idiots.
  
''"Consists in proving that if you accept a certain proposition as a premise, that premise necessarily leads to a conclusion which is "absurd," i.e., one which everyone knows is false, and therefore the premise cannot be accepted. It is not fallacious to argue that 'If p were true, then q would be true.  But q is not true, for it is absurd.  Therefore p is not true.' One of the two premises of this argument may be false - it may be false that q follows p, or that q is absurd - but there is no formal or material fallacy in the argument."''
+
:Just because I reject the idea of absolute truths doesn't mean I reject the idea of provisional truths. Like everyone in the world, I accept, tolerate and experiment with different 'tiers' of proof, but this doesn't prevent me from stating the ''absolute'' truth is impossible.
 +
:About your log thing - I have frequent dreams in which I experience pain. You used that example as an extreme of something I would have to accept as a proven reality beyond all reasonable doubt, and it ''still'' doesn't work. {{subsigned|Mei II}} 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  
Arguing from adverse consequences is indeed fallacious, but that is just not liking the consequences. This question is about common sense and how we all live. Again, you live according to the older, common-sense understanding of logic, but you follow the newer foundation of logic when it suits you. But either we can know the world or we can't. Either things exist whether we think about them or not, or we make them exist. These two principles are contradictory. {{subsigned|Earthland}}
+
:I can easily express an opinion on right and wrong without claiming to be absolutely correct. There is [[liberal|a whole movement based on this]].
 +
:The motives behind an argument are not relevant. Especially not when they're made up. You expect me to believe Aldous Huxley is quoted as saying 'I don't believe in right and wrong, because I don't want right and wrong to apply to me'? {{subsigned|Mei II}} 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  
 
:#No they're not. I can, as I said above, accept provisional truths despite rejecting the idea of absolute truth. This is an extremely simple concept, Earthland.
 
:#No they're not. I can, as I said above, accept provisional truths despite rejecting the idea of absolute truth. This is an extremely simple concept, Earthland.
 
:#Your argument was not ''reductio ad absurdum'', it was a shockingly transparent argument from adverse consequences. You said '[not believing in absolute truth] is also a completely non-practicable way of living'. This does not elaborate my argument into an absurd form, it only says 'it would be inconvenient if this was true'.
 
:#Your argument was not ''reductio ad absurdum'', it was a shockingly transparent argument from adverse consequences. You said '[not believing in absolute truth] is also a completely non-practicable way of living'. This does not elaborate my argument into an absurd form, it only says 'it would be inconvenient if this was true'.
 
:#'common sense' is just a nicer way of saying 'I can't prove anything but you have to agree with me anyway' {{subsigned|Mei II}} 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 
:#'common sense' is just a nicer way of saying 'I can't prove anything but you have to agree with me anyway' {{subsigned|Mei II}} 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 
One more thing: science uses and is built upon the older understanding of reality and knowledge.  We can't have a law of gravity if gravity doesn't necessarily exist.  We've seen it happen enough that we accept it as a law.  I'll bet you don't challenge the law of gravity by walking off of cliffs, right? {{subsigned|Earthland}}
 
  
 
:There was a point in the timeline of the big bang where gravity was 'created'. So basically, my provisional acceptance of gravity would have been sensible, whereas your proposed stance of taking it as an absolute fact is clearly wrong. (I can't find a neat link to cite the timeline of the big bang, but I'm fairly sure this is an accepted scientific observation) Science is actually based on the recognition of the limitations of our viewpoint, and this is its ''strength''. Gravity is a perfect example. One day the bizarre nature of gravity will be the inspiration for a dazzling new conception of the universe, which will be as alien to us as relativity would have been to Newton. If we accepted things as absolute truth based on your standard, we would never reach that point. {{subsigned|Mei II}} 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 
:There was a point in the timeline of the big bang where gravity was 'created'. So basically, my provisional acceptance of gravity would have been sensible, whereas your proposed stance of taking it as an absolute fact is clearly wrong. (I can't find a neat link to cite the timeline of the big bang, but I'm fairly sure this is an accepted scientific observation) Science is actually based on the recognition of the limitations of our viewpoint, and this is its ''strength''. Gravity is a perfect example. One day the bizarre nature of gravity will be the inspiration for a dazzling new conception of the universe, which will be as alien to us as relativity would have been to Newton. If we accepted things as absolute truth based on your standard, we would never reach that point. {{subsigned|Mei II}} 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 
All in all, you  have adopted a system of thought that cannot be proven and cannot be disproven, but one that you know, on a basic level, does not work in life and that you don't always use.
 
 
--[[User:Earthland|Earthland]] ([[User talk:Earthland|talk]]) 15:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 
  
 
:I do always reject absolute truths, actually. I know how they can creep up on you. And actually it works very well in real life, because accepting my fallibility makes me stronger. Pretensions toward absolute truth, on the other hand, are deeply destructive and unscientific. There is no standard of proof to prove something absolutely - if you say something is absolutely true all you are saying is 'I want to believe this'. Worse, it usually implies 'and you have to as well'. [[User:Mei II|Mei]] ([[User talk:Mei II|talk]]) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 
:I do always reject absolute truths, actually. I know how they can creep up on you. And actually it works very well in real life, because accepting my fallibility makes me stronger. Pretensions toward absolute truth, on the other hand, are deeply destructive and unscientific. There is no standard of proof to prove something absolutely - if you say something is absolutely true all you are saying is 'I want to believe this'. Worse, it usually implies 'and you have to as well'. [[User:Mei II|Mei]] ([[User talk:Mei II|talk]]) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:07, 28 April 2010

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, (new)

It disturbs me...

That you know more about UK politics than I do. I suppose that's what I get for dropping History. Word cubic Phantom!

You should make that "cupid stuck up sucker" just an idea. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Mei is useful, but is Mei not a Brit? Not that I've ever actually thought about it. SJ Debaser 11:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure she's not, but I haven't any proof. Word cubic Phantom! 11:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Mei's location is ambiguous, much like Captain Nemo and electrons. Mei (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
So the uncertainty of Mei's position and the uncertainty of Mei's velocity is greater than or equal to ħ? Your velocity must be pretty certain. Word cubic Phantom! 08:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The uncertainty of Mei's position and velocity depend on these critical factors
  • ħ (obviously)
  • ultimate kerning (u) - for example, letters against numbers. I won't bore you with the specifics
  • methodology (m)
  • area-specific variables (a) - these variables do not include area
  • nuclear gravity (n) - very simple
These factors must be multiplied in that order to get the uncertainty. Mei (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I added them and got me, not Mei! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
If they are next to each other they are multiplied, aren't they? I had to make this joke because of the line on the h. It was there, staring at me, and I knew what to do. Mei (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Good point. When I multiplied them I got 42, though. So I tried adding. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It is lucky your name doesn't have repeating letters. If it was Phantom Hoover I would have had to make him into Ph2anto3m ver. Which does not make sense. Mei (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It also sounds rather explosive. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
When I typed it, I thought 'that looks convincing as a chemical'. I still like it, and I would like to see it become as popular as the other chemicals. Mei (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Or at least as popular as the other white meat. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, we know a rough area where we have a better than 0.5 chance of finding an electron. Can you give us the same odds? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
There is an equal chance of finding Mei at any place across the surface of the world. This chance does get lower when you increase the altitude. Mei (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there a chance of finding Mei underground? Or behind me... Word cubic Phantom! 07:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It is unlikely to find Mei underground. Mei (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Crap. Corry (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

w

Why do people start sections on your talkpage with "w" as the title? Is it a secret code? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I can never think of good titles, so I often put stuff like blank spaces in the title field. I eventually discovered that if I make the title the letter w, it appears as ==w== in the actual code, and I like that because it is the text version of a Cat Smile. Or very close at least. Mei (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
OIC, carry on. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You might not want to do it multiple times, though: it mucks up the sectioning. Word cubic Phantom! 07:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Mei always adds another "w" from what I've seen to avoid that Schenectady, NY. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Schenectady? Word cubic Phantom! 11:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Curious Psy

Now that you have shown yourself to be not only useful, but a person of refined tastes too, Psy is curious about what other anime/manga tickles Mei's fancy? --PsyGremlinPrata! 10:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The other white meat. ħumanUser talk:Human 11:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Belgian tourists? --PsyGremlinTal! 11:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
And the Swiss. Never forget to toast - or roast - the Swiss. ħumanUser talk:Human 11:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Silly boy. You're supposed to fondle the Swiss. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
In their little shorts? With a big horn? Or just to get a numbered account to hide my cash? ħumanUser talk:Human 12:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Is Mei one of those anime fans with which TV Tropes seethes? Word cubic Phantom! 12:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Gasp! Retract that scurrilous comment Sir. Did I not just say she be a lady of refined tastes. --PsyGremlinPraat! 12:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, a duel at dawn over the honour of a young lady. Just let me get persecuted by the mathematical establishment, become a radical republican and change my name to "Galois" first. Word cubic Phantom! 13:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget my leather shorts :( ħumanUser talk:Human 13:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
My answer to this might be long and confusing so I need a few minutes to think about it. I am really tempted to make it an update for CLoM, since as always I have no ideas right now. Mei always does this to me. Why does Mei do this to me? Mei (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Why does Mei do this to Psy? *Psy waits in suspenders --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not actually watch that much anime.
Things I like - Azumanga Daioh, Bokurano, Haruhi-chan, Lucky Star
Things I might like possibly - FLCL, Haruhi
Things I did not like despite thinking I would - Fullmetal Alchemist
Thing I am in the middle of right now and might like - Candy Boy, Higurashi Mei (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Good choices, at least the ones I recognize. Strangely, for an animation student, I don't watch much anime, although I like manga a lot. --Kels (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Which ones did you recognize? Do you have any recommendations? I can always use good stories. Mei (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Mei is indeed a lady of taste. Agree with all of your likes, to which I could add K-on, Manabi Straight, Minami-ke, Hidamari Sketch, Moyashimon for comedies. On the more serious side - Gunslinger Girl, Kino's Travels, Aria, Black lagoon, Dennou Coil, anything by Ghibli, anything by Satoshi Kon, anything by Makoto Shinkai... erm... and a few others, but I won't bore you. (Most of the series are also available in manga, of course) --PsyGremlin講話 14:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Be useful!

i don't understand. i can't troll you because i guess you made of our mods so happy that theres actually a rule against it. yet you remove an innocent comment expressing my opinion of an issue from the saloon bar board. why the fuck do people like you so much? i just want to know. how the fuck it "mei useful"?

Sorry. We kind of frown on telling people to be sodomized with inventive implements. It is a bit too personal. Mei (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why people like me. I don't like me very much. Mei (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
We like you because you're smarter and funnier and more creative than most of us. And the whole "nobody loves me everybody hates me I'm gonna eat some worms" thing is really boring and not really endearing. Find a way to get over it or get used to the idea that you'll end up putting some therapist's kids through college...P-Foster (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I get my brain medicine from the national 'elf. :p Mei (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
OTOH this does explain why everyone likes PFoster. ^_____^ Mei (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
yea i think someone thinks ur a guy and has a crush on you or something
Attention all Trollz, Hackerz, Oldfagz, and Newfags at this unhealthy forum: I have found this new wiki that's actually more fun to vandalize than Wikiepedia: it be called Rational Wiki. Vandalizing it is fucking hilarious and you will have about ten mods there debating whether or not u r a good person. However, no one is 2 fuck with mod "Mei" because he is useful, he is the ultimate, he is the only wikifag on the planet that I think is actually human. Violate this and I will share ur email address with now less than 100 opt in spammers. Shyenne <3
just though you might like to see that. what did you do for her to make her so happy? — Unsigned, by: 66.90.73.223 / talk / contribs
I'm touched. But really I don't know what I've done to deserve that. Mei (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged

I have also heard people (well, one person anyway) make fun of Part 2, Chapter 1, Section 1, in which Dr. Ferris writes, "Thought is a primitive suspicion. Reason is an irrational idea." It seems like Rand is just creating a straw man that she can bash. However, I have actually met a lot of people in Boulder, Colorado who agree with that sentiment, so it's really not all that farfetched. Tisane (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. You know people who agreed specifically with that statement? I think Rand considers it an approximation of the view that thought (and human experience) is subjective, but in rephrasing it she butchers the argument completely. I doubt there are people who think that reason is unreasonable.
  2. Regardless of whether there are people who take that view, Rand's implication seems to be that this viewpoint is representative of her opposition in general. This is self-evidently illogical.
  3. Since you are a libertarian, what is your view of Atlas Shrugged? Mei (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

True, I haven't met anyone who made the exact arguments that Rand puts in Dr. Ferris' mouth. But I have met people who think that reason ("left-brained stuff," which is probably not even a physiologically correct term) is to be viewed with suspicion, and that we receive information from other sources, such as intuition or from some sort of spiritual realm, that are more reliable. I would compare it to the sentiments expressed by some of the people in QualiaSoup's Openmindedness video. They accuse one of being closed-minded for refusing to believe in spiritual stuff (e.g. reincarnation) without evidence, while they themselves are skeptical of science. Granted, I am kinda skeptical of some science too (see my article on antidepressants), and I think QualiaSoup overstates his case in other videos when he says that scientists are skeptical and base their conclusions on solid evidence. Actually, I think scientists are as capable of being ego-driven, and of perpetrating fraud, or making mistakes, or twisting the data, as anyone; and often, they have incentives to do so. Sometimes the system prevents them from doing so, and sometimes it doesn't.

I have somewhat of a perfectionist and stubborn/independent personality, so I identify with certain characters in Rand's novels, such as Dominique Francon and Howard Roark. And I think entrepreneurs have been stifled by taxation and regulation, to the detriment of society. But, Rand didn't seem to examine anarcho-capitalism very thoroughly, and her views on certain issues such as intellectual property were simply wrong. The idea of seceding from the rest of society is appealing, and I think Rand is correct that the reason the statists would want to prevent that from happening is that they couldn't handle the brain drain of productive individuals leaving to join a freer society. Since we don't have a force field to protect a secessionist community from the government, I think the independence of secessionists will need to be secured through an effective private sector means of defense, probably in the form of a capability for retaliatory force. And I just noticed that I compulsively wikified this whole thing. Tisane (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am going to answer this in a long post, in a few hours time, because of tiredness. Mei (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your userpage

Is by far the most interesting and fun userpage to read here. I love it!Love eyes.gif LimpWrist (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :3 I do not know really what it's for, but it is fun to do. Also, we have new features arriving - hold onto your hats. Mei (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

deleted "Pharaoh" ‎ (Off mission)

Hey Mei--not to start a stink, but there doesn't seem to have been any discussion about this on the talk page. I haven't looked @ the article, and I trust your judgment, but we should sorta follow the rules. P-Foster (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh hi. Yeah I was unsure about that. I deleted it because it basically defined the word, and that seems pretty far out from what pages normally do. I'm going to resurrect it in a sec, and we can vote/discuss. Mei (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Manga

Know any good ones you can recommend? AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 03:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read exactly one manga and you probably would not like it. Psygremlin probably knows lots about manga, though. Mei (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

question

How do you know Shyenne? — Unsigned, by: 64.255.180.66 / talk / contribs

I am trying to write an answer, but it is difficult to make it not sound like a song. I think it's in one of my archives. Mei (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
See link [1] Mei (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Wha, she can ban people? How did she ban 82.198.250.2 for an hour? You ARE nice! So wait, she was useful hear? I'm all confused cause the thread you show'd me said she was a vandal but I look at what she done and it looks like she was helpful? Is there more than 1 SRQ Girl?
It's possible. She was helpful for a bit, but then she left IIRC. Mei (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I havent seen her much at all anywhere in a while I think she hurt her self really good and went to the hosp last I saw her she was posting about screwing up in a basket toss. I hope shes ok.— Unsigned, by: 67.159.36.22 / talk / contribs
Oh dear. I hope she is ok. I suppose we have a good chance of hearing news since so many of her affiliates turn up here. Mei (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand....

There are a lot of things about you that I just don't understand, but could you please explain the 'capt.' thing to me? Thanks! Keegscee (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

<capture></capture> FTW. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I suppose that's kind of useful. Keegscee (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought saying Capt would make sense because it is like 'capped' but also short for 'capture'. It was also short and not obtrusive, which is why I liked it. My latest capture was also very important because it helped me archive evidence of Jinxmchue [2] Mei (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think 'Major Mei' has a better ring to it. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 10:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a song about that. It alleges I visit space, but fails to provide any convincing evidence. Mei (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Neat"

Neat neat neat. SJ Debaser 12:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That *is* neat. Vaguely reminds me of ..... [3] Mei (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Intriguing arrangement of sound. The playing of this through my speakers has prompted my housemate to walk into my room and say, "what the fuck are you listening to?" SJ Debaser 12:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Now look... if you're going to be posting Damned vids, at least play the classics. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of turning Mei's talkpage into grotty punk club where people shoot up whilst fornicating in the corner, how's this for a Damned classic? SJ Debaser 12:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Meh, we'll have her pogo'ing and feeling suicidal before the night is out. Now... on the subject of goth classics...ta-dah! --PsyGremlinSpeak! 12:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Superjosh! If you are using speakers you must listen to this [4] Quickly! Mei (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
My housemate returned during that song. Luckily he's a trainee paramedic, quickly turned off the music and injecting me with a shot of adrenaline to revive me after ingesting a rather large amount of sleeping pills. SJ Debaser 14:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't tell if you mean it made you sleepy or suicidal. This is a puzzler and no mistake. Mei (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts about absolute truth

I think you were making interesting point. However, I do not necessarily agree... I asked some questions from one of my teachers, who helped to bring some clarity into absolute truths.

It is logical to say that "there is no absolute truth except for the statement, 'there is no absolute truth.'" However, making an absolute negative statement is difficult, because you would have to have absolute knowledge of everything in the universe in order to say that something absolutely doesn't exist.

Of course, your comment expressed a relatively newer view of human logic and knowledge. Most people do believe and most people throughout history have believed that we can see the world around us and think and know about it. Almost everybody in the world right now agrees, and that's how we all live our lives. In the last three hundred years, though, some philosophers have said that maybe we can't; maybe we only think we know. Immanuel Kant went so far as to say that objects outside ourselves exist only because we think they do.

Intellectual anarchists don't believe in any absolutes, but they don't build bridges out of cardboard. You have limits to your disbelief in any truth. If I was to lock you in a closet and not giveyou food or water for days, we all know that you would scream and beg for food and water. If I told you, "I'm not sure that you or food really exist, and even if they do, I can't be sure that you really need to eat or drink," you won't feel any better and won't stop demanding food and drink. You may use philosophy that says that you can't know that I exist, but if I hit you in the face with a log, we all know that you would acknowledge it as true.

By stating that there are no absolute truths, you are playing games. But you only play games as long as the consequences are small.

Morality is rather similar. If a person says there is no right or wrong, it's often times (and many people, like Aldous Huxley, admit this) because they don't want right and wrong to apply to them completely. But, if you tell me there is no right or wrong, and then I punch you and steal your wallet, we all know that you will believe that it is wrong.

Appeal to consequences, you said? What about reductio ad absurdum? Here's a quote from a logic textbook:

"Consists in proving that if you accept a certain proposition as a premise, that premise necessarily leads to a conclusion which is "absurd," i.e., one which everyone knows is false, and therefore the premise cannot be accepted. It is not fallacious to argue that 'If p were true, then q would be true. But q is not true, for it is absurd. Therefore p is not true.' One of the two premises of this argument may be false - it may be false that q follows p, or that q is absurd - but there is no formal or material fallacy in the argument."

Arguing from adverse consequences is indeed fallacious, but that is just not liking the consequences. This question is about common sense and how we all live. Again, you live according to the older, common-sense understanding of logic, but you follow the newer foundation of logic when it suits you. But either we can know the world or we can't. Either things exist whether we think about them or not, or we make them exist. These two principles are contradictory.

One more thing: science uses and is built upon the older understanding of reality and knowledge. We can't have a law of gravity if gravity doesn't necessarily exist. We've seen it happen enough that we accept it as a law. I'll bet you don't challenge the law of gravity by walking off of cliffs, right?

All in all, you have adopted a system of thought that cannot be proven and cannot be disproven, but one that you know, on a basic level, does not work in life and that you don't always use.

--Earthland (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

First off I have to point out that I don't believe 'there is no absolute truth' is an absolute statement. You can't refute me by arguing against something similar to what I believe. When I state that there is no absolute truth, I mean that nothing can be proved beyond any doubt, because there is no objective standard of proof. I do not try to prove this statement, as it is a negative, so it does not fall into the category of statements that it criticizes.
My view isn't as new as you think. Even in my limited knowledge, I know of classical philosophers who drew attention to the frailty of our view on the world.
But despite that, how old it is and how many people believe in it are irrelevant. I agree that many (probably not 'almost everybody') people think that they can identify absolute truths. They are idiots.
Just because I reject the idea of absolute truths doesn't mean I reject the idea of provisional truths. Like everyone in the world, I accept, tolerate and experiment with different 'tiers' of proof, but this doesn't prevent me from stating the absolute truth is impossible.
About your log thing - I have frequent dreams in which I experience pain. You used that example as an extreme of something I would have to accept as a proven reality beyond all reasonable doubt, and it still doesn't work. — Part of a larger comment by: Mei II / talk 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I can easily express an opinion on right and wrong without claiming to be absolutely correct. There is a whole movement based on this.
The motives behind an argument are not relevant. Especially not when they're made up. You expect me to believe Aldous Huxley is quoted as saying 'I don't believe in right and wrong, because I don't want right and wrong to apply to me'? — Part of a larger comment by: Mei II / talk 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. No they're not. I can, as I said above, accept provisional truths despite rejecting the idea of absolute truth. This is an extremely simple concept, Earthland.
  2. Your argument was not reductio ad absurdum, it was a shockingly transparent argument from adverse consequences. You said '[not believing in absolute truth] is also a completely non-practicable way of living'. This does not elaborate my argument into an absurd form, it only says 'it would be inconvenient if this was true'.
  3. 'common sense' is just a nicer way of saying 'I can't prove anything but you have to agree with me anyway' — Part of a larger comment by: Mei II / talk 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
There was a point in the timeline of the big bang where gravity was 'created'. So basically, my provisional acceptance of gravity would have been sensible, whereas your proposed stance of taking it as an absolute fact is clearly wrong. (I can't find a neat link to cite the timeline of the big bang, but I'm fairly sure this is an accepted scientific observation) Science is actually based on the recognition of the limitations of our viewpoint, and this is its strength. Gravity is a perfect example. One day the bizarre nature of gravity will be the inspiration for a dazzling new conception of the universe, which will be as alien to us as relativity would have been to Newton. If we accepted things as absolute truth based on your standard, we would never reach that point. — Part of a larger comment by: Mei II / talk 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I do always reject absolute truths, actually. I know how they can creep up on you. And actually it works very well in real life, because accepting my fallibility makes me stronger. Pretensions toward absolute truth, on the other hand, are deeply destructive and unscientific. There is no standard of proof to prove something absolutely - if you say something is absolutely true all you are saying is 'I want to believe this'. Worse, it usually implies 'and you have to as well'. Mei (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)