Food stamp cuts hit 9 million elderly and disabled people

[vy65]

Shouldn't sink to your level

[vy65]

It was over a long time ago, you lying sack of ignorant pus.

I guess I'm back on the ignore list?

[Wild Cobra]

So you think the answer is "no".

Thank you.

I just understand a losing battle when i see one.

Just how are we suppose to help the world?

[RandomGuy]

I guess I'm back on the ignore list?

Nope. Not done skewering you yet. You deserve more abuse, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

such imagery is deployed in the real world to create the psychological drive for more suffering

So, you have a psychological study with data that shows this?

I call bull . Put up evidence.

[vy65]

So, you have a psychological study with data that shows this?

I call bull . Put up evidence.

No, I don't. I said as much earlier. It's called phenomenology. The world doesn't revolve around numbers accountant.

[RandomGuy]

No, I don't. I said as much earlier. It's called phenomenology. The world doesn't revolve around numbers accountant.

So you don't have any evidence to support your assertions.

[RandomGuy]

No, I don't. I said as much earlier. It's called phenomenology. The world doesn't revolve around numbers accountant.

So when you say:

a psychological level, you desire that suffering

You have no evidence, just some copied and pasted bull philosophy that you think means something? Is that about accurate?

No.

I'm not asking for numbers. I asked a simple yes or no question to get you to clarify what you meant, Councillor.

You just said you have no evidence to prove your statement, now you are contradicting yourself.

Do you have evidence or not?

Is the statement:

I have no evidence that randomguy "on a psychological level, [desires] that suffering, other than the philosophical argument I posted earlier.

accurate or is it not?

[vy65]

So you don't have any evidence to support your assertions.

No. I dont not have numbers. The blurbs ivepostedsuffice.

[RandomGuy]

The logical default position is to reject something until it is proven. Is this accurate?

[vy65]

Bull . Numbers aren't the sole province of evidence. Nor do you have a monopoly on what qualifies as such ...

[vy65]

The logical default position is to reject something until it is proven. Is this accurate?

Huh? Relevance?

[RandomGuy]

No, I don't. I said as much earlier. It's called phenomenology. The world doesn't revolve around numbers accountant.

So when you say:

a psychological level, you desire that suffering

You have no evidence, just some copied and pasted bull philosophy that you think means something? Is that about accurate?

No.

I'm not asking for numbers. I asked a simple yes or no question to get you to clarify what you meant, Councillor.

You just said you have no evidence to prove your statement, now you are contradicting yourself.

Do you have evidence or not?

Is the statement:

"I have no evidence that randomguy "on a psychological level, [desires] that suffering, other than the philosophical argument I posted earlier."

accurate or is it not?

[RandomGuy]

Huh? Relevance?

How do you know what is true and what is not?

Do you simply believe everything that is told to you as true?

Is there some process to sifting through what is true or not?

[vy65]

So when you say:



You have no evidence, just some copied and pasted bull philosophy that you think means something? Is that about accurate?

Incorrect. I do not have hard scientific data. I don't have numbers. But numbers or hard data isn't the sole province of data, and the absence of such doesn't mean anything I've posted is less true.

Your glib dismissal is duly noted, along with your failure to substantively engage anything I've posted. I'm actually to blame for giving you more credit than you're due. You seemed intelligent enough to have a conversation about the issues I've raised in this thread. Sadly, you've demonstrated you aren't ....

that suffering, other than the philosophical argument I posted earlier.

accurate or is it not?

This is so de-contextualized so to mean nothing. I don't have numbers, but I have evidence. See above. My characterization of your replies in this thread thread (specifically the use of imagery) along with support from the blurbs I've posted is "evidence" according to your terminology.

[vy65]

How do you know what is true and what is not?

Do you simply believe everything that is told to you as true?

Is there some process to sifting through what is true or not?

Lol are you serious?

There is no truth as such. Only what works in a particular situation.

For someone who believes in a universal set of morals, you're appearing awfully relativistic ...

[RandomGuy]

Lol are you serious?

There is no truth as such. Only what works in a particular situation.

For someone who believes in a universal set of morals, you're appearing awfully relativistic ...

There are some truths that are clearly, objectively superior to others.

yes or no?

[RandomGuy]

II don't have numbers, but I have evidence.

I have given no firm definition of evidence. I prefer something that can be objectively verified.

How would you define "evidence"?

[vy65]

There are some truths that are clearly, objectively superior to others.

yes or no?

Absolutely not, no. I don't believe in "truth," much less an objective truth.

Truth is only a means to or the actual exertion of power. Nothing more, nothing less

[vy65]

I have given no firm definition of evidence. I prefer something that can be objectively verified.

How would you define "evidence"?

External corroboration devoid of subjective interest

[RandomGuy]

Your glib dismissal is duly noted, along with your failure to substantively engage anything I've posted.

You have posted very little of substance *to* engage with, hand waving and deflection aside.

[RandomGuy]

External corroboration devoid of subjective interest [is evidence]

So what external corroboration do you have that "imagery is deployed in the real world to create the psychological drive for more suffering"?

or, for that matter, that I have a "psychological need for more suffering"?

[RandomGuy]

Absolutely not, no. I don't believe in "truth," much less an objective truth.

Truth is only a means to or the actual exertion of power. Nothing more, nothing less

So, if I have a box, and I look in, see 3 dice in it, and somemone comes along and says that his truth is that there are 4 dice in it, we cannot determine which truth is superior?

[vy65]

So what external corroboration do you have that "imagery is deployed in the real world to create the psychological drive for more suffering"?

or, for that matter, that I have a "psychological need for more suffering"?

The bit I quoted from Baudrillard

[vy65]

So, if I have a box, and I look in, see 3 dice in it, and somemone comes along and says that his truth is that there are 4 dice in it, we cannot determine which truth is superior?

Is this at all analogous to our discussion of morality? Do you think morals are reducible to dice?