Forums / Discussion / General

168,591 total conversations in 5,401 threads

+ New Thread


The Thread For Advanced Conversationalists

Last posted Apr 17, 2013 at 08:07PM EDT. Added Apr 07, 2013 at 04:40PM EDT
39 posts from 15 users

I think the general populous has forgotten about the idea of interestingness, and have given up by using the same phrases, acronyms and abbreviations as everyone else.
So sheep, we’re probably doing this because for many interesting conversation is HARD but fear not, for here can be found nuggets of factual information, lore and quotation that can be tactfully slipped into work-a-day conversation to add zest and spice.
Please contribute and add your own blends and flavors of fact to be enjoyed by all.
Here’s the first one:
There are two countries in the world in which children do not have rights, these countries are Somalia and the United States of America.

Apr 07, 2013 at 04:40PM EDT
Quote

When Charles Darwin first discovered the Galapagos Tortoises, he tried to ride on their backs. Seriously.

Last edited Apr 07, 2013 at 04:44PM EDT
Apr 07, 2013 at 04:43PM EDT
Quote

Is this a serious fact thread? Cause if not, I have a good idea as to how Isaac Newton discovered his Law of Gravity.

Apr 07, 2013 at 04:49PM EDT
Quote

If this is the thread for advanced conversationalists, why am I the first?

One does not converse with others simply through telling great truths, yet by merely speaking in a way that encourages interesting and enthusiastic conversations.

Last edited Apr 07, 2013 at 05:09PM EDT
Apr 07, 2013 at 05:03PM EDT
Quote

>“Advanced Conversationalists” thread
>I’m one of only two Conversationalists thus far
>Original post riddled with grammatical errors
>OP’s name begins with “Eloquent”
>…and yet this thread is neither fluently written, nor clearly expressed

For real, though… What is the purpose of this thread- just interesting facts for the purpose of making conversation less difficult…?

Apr 07, 2013 at 05:06PM EDT
Quote

Patrick wrote:

>“Advanced Conversationalists” thread
>I’m one of only two Conversationalists thus far
>Original post riddled with grammatical errors
>OP’s name begins with “Eloquent”
>…and yet this thread is neither fluently written, nor clearly expressed

For real, though… What is the purpose of this thread- just interesting facts for the purpose of making conversation less difficult…?

I’d just like to say that the first part of your post and the question both helped each other get the point across, I agree with all that you say and I have not either gotten the gist of this thread.

Apr 07, 2013 at 05:11PM EDT
Quote

eloquent atheist wrote:

I think the general populous has forgotten about the idea of interestingness, and have given up by using the same phrases, acronyms and abbreviations as everyone else.
So sheep, we’re probably doing this because for many interesting conversation is HARD but fear not, for here can be found nuggets of factual information, lore and quotation that can be tactfully slipped into work-a-day conversation to add zest and spice.
Please contribute and add your own blends and flavors of fact to be enjoyed by all.
Here’s the first one:
There are two countries in the world in which children do not have rights, these countries are Somalia and the United States of America.

Apr 08, 2013 at 12:13PM EDT
Quote

Well, we can wait for OP to return, or we, ourselves, can make a defined something out of a vague nothing.

Personally, I would suggest we use flowery and poetic language but not superfluous or pretentious prose in the process. At least, until OP can articulate what he or she desires, we can practice using words and organizing them in a way we normally would not.
 
The topic of conversation…could be the current art of conversation? Can a person be witty enough to not only speak what’s on their mind, but do so in an pleasing manner with alliteration, rhyme, time, and/or specificity (in the moment and on the demand, no less?) Even this stream of thoughts took several minutes to piece together, because I don’t take to conversation in an artistic manner enough to…“flow.”

Removing redundancies, avoiding already used words, incorporating imagery…
 
Merely a suggestion.

Apr 08, 2013 at 12:40PM EDT
Quote

Or we could all just talk like this, like true precariat Brits.

Apr 08, 2013 at 01:00PM EDT
Quote

I hate it when I have something to say, but then someone else takes the conversation along another route. Then, once I can get a word in, my comment is no longer relevant.

Apr 08, 2013 at 02:05PM EDT
Quote

After viewing the OP, I understand what he means now. He wants us to post interesting facts or information that could be used in conversation to impress others with our knowledge.
For Example: Did you know that Coca-Cola used to contain cocaine in the drink? (obviously, this one is well-known, I’m just using it as an example)

Apr 08, 2013 at 02:30PM EDT
Quote

Laud Piestrings wrote:

After viewing the OP, I understand what he means now. He wants us to post interesting facts or information that could be used in conversation to impress others with our knowledge.
For Example: Did you know that Coca-Cola used to contain cocaine in the drink? (obviously, this one is well-known, I’m just using it as an example)

amidoinitrite?

Last edited Apr 08, 2013 at 04:52PM EDT
Apr 08, 2013 at 04:25PM EDT
Quote

Laud Piestrings wrote:

Is this a serious fact thread? Cause if not, I have a good idea as to how Isaac Newton discovered his Law of Gravity.

Not necessarily serious, if it’s funny and interesting enough. Sometimes made up nonsense may sound as good as fact but in truth, reality is stranger than fiction.

Apr 08, 2013 at 06:11PM EDT
Quote

Verbose wrote:

Well, we can wait for OP to return, or we, ourselves, can make a defined something out of a vague nothing.

Personally, I would suggest we use flowery and poetic language but not superfluous or pretentious prose in the process. At least, until OP can articulate what he or she desires, we can practice using words and organizing them in a way we normally would not.
 
The topic of conversation…could be the current art of conversation? Can a person be witty enough to not only speak what’s on their mind, but do so in an pleasing manner with alliteration, rhyme, time, and/or specificity (in the moment and on the demand, no less?) Even this stream of thoughts took several minutes to piece together, because I don’t take to conversation in an artistic manner enough to…“flow.”

Removing redundancies, avoiding already used words, incorporating imagery…
 
Merely a suggestion.

I shall not throw upon you the shackles of authoritarian control or the crystal club of blunt clarity. Post upon this whatever will continue to strengthen, lengthen and revitalize an otherwise awkward, or dying exchange.
If you wish to speak only of conversation itself, I am not barricade to impede you in this endeavor; it is a noble one indeed and I will perhaps assist in this endeavor though my promises cannot be set in stone.
As for the grammar, I sincerely apologize for any mistakes made and all were created due to my weariness and near entrance into the realm of slumber.

Apr 08, 2013 at 06:18PM EDT
Quote

So basically, Verbose, I was the first conversationalist and the first person to be acting in the correct etiquette.

Apr 08, 2013 at 07:10PM EDT
Quote

eloquent atheist wrote:

I shall not throw upon you the shackles of authoritarian control or the crystal club of blunt clarity. Post upon this whatever will continue to strengthen, lengthen and revitalize an otherwise awkward, or dying exchange.
If you wish to speak only of conversation itself, I am not barricade to impede you in this endeavor; it is a noble one indeed and I will perhaps assist in this endeavor though my promises cannot be set in stone.
As for the grammar, I sincerely apologize for any mistakes made and all were created due to my weariness and near entrance into the realm of slumber.

Alright, I get it. He wants us to use big words.

Now, OP, your post up there is absolute nonsense, because you completely ignore a certain Muslim country that infamously forces their young women into marriage during their teenage years – Afghanistan. Then we have Pakistan, where a young girl had her head blown in for trying to go to school. Not exactly what I’d call “having rights.”

Your statement baffles me. That’s really all I can say, other than the fact that I am currently picturing you as a 14 year old boy with thesaurus.com open in the next tab, trying to be something he’s not.

Basically, intelligence does not come automatically with an advanced vocabulary. The statements you make with the words you choose must be thought out and organized. Otherwise, you’re going to end up looking like a fool.

I apologize if any of the above insulted you; I’m just calling it like I see it.

Apr 08, 2013 at 07:22PM EDT
Quote

Fridge wrote:

Alright, I get it. He wants us to use big words.

Now, OP, your post up there is absolute nonsense, because you completely ignore a certain Muslim country that infamously forces their young women into marriage during their teenage years – Afghanistan. Then we have Pakistan, where a young girl had her head blown in for trying to go to school. Not exactly what I’d call “having rights.”

Your statement baffles me. That’s really all I can say, other than the fact that I am currently picturing you as a 14 year old boy with thesaurus.com open in the next tab, trying to be something he’s not.

Basically, intelligence does not come automatically with an advanced vocabulary. The statements you make with the words you choose must be thought out and organized. Otherwise, you’re going to end up looking like a fool.

I apologize if any of the above insulted you; I’m just calling it like I see it.

Different countries have different customs, ethics and cultural settings. No country has the right to question how they live and try and force change upon it.

From my culture and background, a child being shot in the face for wanting an education is “wrong”…But then again who am I to determine whats “right” and what is “wrong”….

Apr 09, 2013 at 12:20PM EDT
Quote

Laika wrote:

Different countries have different customs, ethics and cultural settings. No country has the right to question how they live and try and force change upon it.

From my culture and background, a child being shot in the face for wanting an education is “wrong”…But then again who am I to determine whats “right” and what is “wrong”….

There are some universal, market concepts of right and wrong. They have usually played upon the “Golden Rule,” and adherence to it yields the most returns socially.

Having paid that piper (and having played out any further references to finances,) there are instances where some neutral preferences can be exempt from critique. But I hesitate to say that many unkind atrocities from the hypocritical racism of the United States to the unholy Holocaust of Germany should be granted the same kindness.
 
Any implied segues about Jewish people and gold should not be implied. Silly goose…

Apr 09, 2013 at 12:35PM EDT
Quote

Verbose wrote:

There are some universal, market concepts of right and wrong. They have usually played upon the “Golden Rule,” and adherence to it yields the most returns socially.

Having paid that piper (and having played out any further references to finances,) there are instances where some neutral preferences can be exempt from critique. But I hesitate to say that many unkind atrocities from the hypocritical racism of the United States to the unholy Holocaust of Germany should be granted the same kindness.
 
Any implied segues about Jewish people and gold should not be implied. Silly goose…

lets not forget the Nanjing Massacre
or the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima
or cultural destruction of Vietnam
or the old pogroms/blood libels in Europe
destruction of mesoamerica during the 1500’s
murder of the nomad tribes during the occupation of north America
even the the crusades, all eleven of them

Nobody has the “right” to judge another countries ways…‘people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’ and all that.

The holocaust? im not saying a thing.

Apr 09, 2013 at 01:30PM EDT
Quote

Laika wrote:

lets not forget the Nanjing Massacre
or the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima
or cultural destruction of Vietnam
or the old pogroms/blood libels in Europe
destruction of mesoamerica during the 1500’s
murder of the nomad tribes during the occupation of north America
even the the crusades, all eleven of them

Nobody has the “right” to judge another countries ways…‘people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’ and all that.

The holocaust? im not saying a thing.

That only adds to my evidence. Despite there being other countries, regions, and times with their own catastrophic ills, we all recognize them as being catastrophically ill. You, yourself, have identified events that we see as being terrible as examples. And as such, you judge them as being “bad” (and rightfully so.)
 
Then if you state these examples that exemplify terrible events, then you also judge that culture, and you do so in the negative.
 
There is objective judgement and fair emphasis of all these events (of your own setting and of others,) and this is how one can be fairly critical of another culture.
 
This is not the same as being hypocritical, as being hypersensitive to faults outside of your own is not objective.
 
There are many things that are subject to personal perception, but the relative reality of harming others in an unwarranted manner is always an affront and can be criticized.


Removing myself from intentionally artistic language for a bit:
As long as you can be fair, you remember that the culture you’re being critical of consists of humans just like you, and you critique objectively or with the intentions of learning from those errors, then I believe it’s actually a good thing to criticize.

We don’t have to make the same mistakes ourselves if we can learn from others.

Last edited Apr 09, 2013 at 02:19PM EDT
Apr 09, 2013 at 02:15PM EDT
Quote

To judge another culture would be hypocritical hence my ‘glass houses’ idiom.

Im not trying to judge, instead im running off your golden rule idea that death is always going to equal wrong or bad therefore these events would be bad ones, but then again you have to know why these events happened and for what purpose and the culture back then that shaped those actions.
That’s the point where the death of the “enemy” is questioned and that it is possible a good thing.

(on another one of those little closing statements)
Its not called the “Nijang Success” because death outweighs the reason and because today’s society wouldn’t allow it because its “bad”, blimey its all catch-22

Apr 09, 2013 at 03:11PM EDT
Quote

Fridge wrote:

Alright, I get it. He wants us to use big words.

Now, OP, your post up there is absolute nonsense, because you completely ignore a certain Muslim country that infamously forces their young women into marriage during their teenage years – Afghanistan. Then we have Pakistan, where a young girl had her head blown in for trying to go to school. Not exactly what I’d call “having rights.”

Your statement baffles me. That’s really all I can say, other than the fact that I am currently picturing you as a 14 year old boy with thesaurus.com open in the next tab, trying to be something he’s not.

Basically, intelligence does not come automatically with an advanced vocabulary. The statements you make with the words you choose must be thought out and organized. Otherwise, you’re going to end up looking like a fool.

I apologize if any of the above insulted you; I’m just calling it like I see it.

Sorry I should’ve made the statement clearer. that’s my failing; no-one else’s. What I mean is that the UN document for Child Rights was signed by all members except for Somalia and the US, whether those nations adhere to the rules differentiates If what you say about Afghanistan and Pakistan is true and encouraged by the state, then I begs the question ‘Why aren’t these countries being sanctioned or their decisions vetoed? The veto power nations do generally care about human rights but it’s possible that these nations don’t care because they believe they have bigger problems, this could also be said for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I’m presenting some possibly conflicting points here and that may be confusing, but I’m trying to see a few different sides of this idea.

On the topic of ‘14 year old looking at Thesaurus.com’ I swear I’m not using that website; I barely knew it existed and that burst of ‘big words’ was mainly because I sometimes find it liberating to write in such a way.

Overall, I’d say some intelligent points are being made by people far more capable than me at this conversation lark, even though I’m the founder of this post I certainty don’t feel I’m the best at conversing or in fact a veritable expert on the topic.
I salute you for pointing out my failings so I may clarify, expand and correct.

Apr 09, 2013 at 03:57PM EDT
Quote

This subject of ‘universal and local right and wrongs’ intrigues me and I’ve often considered the subject myself. I have a friend who is a perfectly nice person who isn’t violent or cold but has been classified as a psychopath. It’s not extreme but one main difference I’ve noticed with him is that for some reason he cannot grasp why bad things are bad. This may seem strange but for example he doesn’t see death as an ultimatum, it’s just a thing that happens like stubbing your toe and he believes it should be treated as such.
This is probably due to his inability to feel empathy but it does make one look at bad events differently. Now rather than seeing any event which includes a bad thing as bad or unfortunate I first weigh up exactly what happened and see whether it really was bad or good.
It seems more logical but it often justifies crime, you seem like the right people to discuss this with; what really is bad,what really is good?
BTW Disregard the OP, this has morphed into something more natural and beautiful now.

Apr 09, 2013 at 04:10PM EDT
Quote

I’ve actually been running a “daily” feature on Facebook consisting of Oddly Specific, Oddly Useless Facts. Would this fall under this thread?

I’ll give you a select few:
- “Computers do not generate truly random numbers. They instead make them by using variables that constantly change, such as the time.”
- “Pokemon hasn’t used the slogan ‘Gotta Catch ’em All!’ since around 2003.”
- “The word ‘Oxyphenbutazone’ currently holds the record for the highest scoring Scrabble move.”

And a weird one from the 2nd:
- “The date today, 4/2/13, contains the numbers 1-4.”

Apr 09, 2013 at 04:10PM EDT
Quote

“what really is bad,what really is good?” nothing is certainly bad and nothing is certainly good.

Apr 09, 2013 at 04:43PM EDT
Quote

Laika wrote:

“what really is bad,what really is good?” nothing is certainly bad and nothing is certainly good.

I think this idea needs more development and examples which I can provide, first of all we must think of ourselves purely biologically and as animals rather than moral beings.
The aim of all life is to pass on genes and ensure survival, is this better done as a selfish creature which takes lots but can produce lots for it’s family? Unfortunately doing so can lead to the downfall of others and may prevent the passing on of their genes.
On the other hand, it may be better to be a benevolent creature which is devoted to teamwork and the assistance of others but due to this, cannot pass on as many of it’s own genes.
Is there a way of being bad for the greater good, or good for the greater bad?
I think overall we cannot predict many of the repercussions of our actions, their are far too many in a society of complex beings to be able to use and predict these variables is difficult.

Apr 09, 2013 at 06:07PM EDT
Quote

Your basically talking about evolution if you talk morality out of the whole equation, morally speaking, right and wrong doesn’t exist within the animal kingdom because it is a creation of a advanced thinking creature

Apr 09, 2013 at 06:14PM EDT
Quote

I considered dropping in to go all grammar Nazi on y’all*, but this thread just ended up being too much to handle in that respect. Is it so wrong that I dream of a world where “advanced conversationalists” also happened to be “decently capable grammarians”? Anyway…

Something I thought I would chime in about is the concept of what makes for good conversation, which does seem to have taken up a fair portion of the thread. First of all--and there was a thread on this quite some time ago--using fancy words doesn’t mean that you are smarter and/or have more interesting things to say. I often think of my stepfather as an example; I sometimes want to say he’s a high school dropout, but that would be incorrect, as he never attended high school at all. Yet if you were to speak with him over the phone at a time when he was sober and and discussing a topic concerning which he knew a fair amount, you’d come away thinking he was a college professor. Some people just talk fancy!

Secondly, I think what makes for an interesting discussion topic is far more subjective than morality, which some conversationalists in this thread seem to be taking as quite subjective. While that in itself is probably an obvious observation, I’d also say that it’s been my experience that interesting and thought-provoking discussion does not only come from the sharing of facts among parties of advanced intelligence. In my opinion, thought-provoking discussion usually consists far more of questions than answers, which is why I feel some of the most thought-provoking discussions I’ve had have been with people of average-to-low intelligence or children. Relatedly, I was a bit unhappy to see eloquent atheist essentially shooed away from the math thread for asking questions to which others in the thread happened to know the answers. I neither know eloquent atheist’s intelligence nor educational background, but questioning of just about any sort should, in my opinion, be encouraged.

Perhaps I’ll come back to the thread later with some of my own questions. The morality of animals is actually a topic in which I have a fair amount of interest.

*Yes, “y’all” is a perfectly acceptable contraction of “you all”, not to mention a useful word since modern English fails to distinguish between second-person singular and second-person plural.

Apr 10, 2013 at 09:25PM EDT
Quote

My argument is so profound and eloquent that you can’t help but to agree.

Apr 10, 2013 at 09:47PM EDT
Quote

Dr. Coolface wrote:

My argument is so profound and eloquent that you can’t help but to agree.

I agree with what Dr. Coolface thinks

Apr 11, 2013 at 10:45AM EDT

Right and Wrong have just been set on how they affect humanity, right? It’s wrong to kill others because you are getting rid of members in your race (e.t.c.), this transferred to animals and such because people like them and believe they shouldn’t take it either.

That’s just how I think about these kinds of topics, I’m not saying I’m correct, it’s just how I look at it.

Apr 11, 2013 at 11:22AM EDT
Quote

Ernest Is dead wrote:

I agree with what Dr. Coolface thinks

<stage whisper>Ernest, you do know it’s only a picture of a gun, right?</stage whisper>

Apr 11, 2013 at 04:42PM EDT
Quote

Okay, morality and evolution:

I’ve recently been reading (for months now, I really need to finish it) an economic theory book that applies the concepts of Darwinism to the way free markets work. The main focus of the author is the inherent problems of natural selection (ones known to and discussed by Darwin) that sometimes lead to a breakdown of the entire process. For this discussion, I’ll leave the economics out of it, but that’s an interesting subject in itself.

Most people think of evolution/natural selection as a force working on a species over time. While indeed, natural selection over the long run has an affect on a species as a whole, in the short run natural selection works on a basis of individual animals. Because of this, rather than natural selection being a battle between various species in the same ecosystem, the real battle of natural selection is usually within a species. The most biologically fit wolf is not so much the one who kills and eats a lot of rabbits, but the one who eats more rabbits and raises more pups than any other wolf. Thus it sometimes is advantageous for a wolf not only to hunt rabbits, but also hunt rival wolves. This is not the moral issue I’m trying to imply, but merely the way things are: there was another post in my blog besides the one I linked to above in which I pointed out that due to the pressures of natural selection, various species practice cannibalism, infanticide, murder, cuckoldry, and a long list of things that. whether we accept them in animals, we would find them abhorrent behavior in humans. But that’s just nature.

Here’s the thing: The prime example for the problem is the Irish Elk. Like most animals with horns or antlers, during mating season, the males battle for females by butting heads (as pictured above). As is also typical, the male with the biggest antlers would most likely win. Over time, natural selection will favor elk with bigger and bigger antlers, as the small-antlered males will never reproduce. In reality, there is no practical reason for an elk to have big antlers, in fact, it’s very impractical. Bigger antlers mean a heavier, larger head, leading to a difficulty in movement, especially through wooded areas where they would be caught in tree branches to become easy prey, and a calcium deficiency as the yearly growth of huge antlers would have no doubt sapped this vital nutrient from their bones. But because the elk with the biggest antlers wins during mating season, Irish Elk antlers eventually became so large that they are believed to be a major factor leading to their extinction.

Now the issue of antler size is essentially genetic, and it’s not like the elk chose to have large antlers any more than peacocks choose to have ostentatious tail feathers. Yet there are certainly actions that animals will tend to engage in that have a similar effect, such as various forms of siblicide.

If an animal is engaging in activity that is not only damaging to rivals, but in fact threaten the continued existence of their own or another species, might one consider this to constitute immorality?

Apr 11, 2013 at 05:57PM EDT
Quote

Brucker wrote:

I considered dropping in to go all grammar Nazi on y’all*, but this thread just ended up being too much to handle in that respect. Is it so wrong that I dream of a world where “advanced conversationalists” also happened to be “decently capable grammarians”? Anyway…

Something I thought I would chime in about is the concept of what makes for good conversation, which does seem to have taken up a fair portion of the thread. First of all--and there was a thread on this quite some time ago--using fancy words doesn’t mean that you are smarter and/or have more interesting things to say. I often think of my stepfather as an example; I sometimes want to say he’s a high school dropout, but that would be incorrect, as he never attended high school at all. Yet if you were to speak with him over the phone at a time when he was sober and and discussing a topic concerning which he knew a fair amount, you’d come away thinking he was a college professor. Some people just talk fancy!

Secondly, I think what makes for an interesting discussion topic is far more subjective than morality, which some conversationalists in this thread seem to be taking as quite subjective. While that in itself is probably an obvious observation, I’d also say that it’s been my experience that interesting and thought-provoking discussion does not only come from the sharing of facts among parties of advanced intelligence. In my opinion, thought-provoking discussion usually consists far more of questions than answers, which is why I feel some of the most thought-provoking discussions I’ve had have been with people of average-to-low intelligence or children. Relatedly, I was a bit unhappy to see eloquent atheist essentially shooed away from the math thread for asking questions to which others in the thread happened to know the answers. I neither know eloquent atheist’s intelligence nor educational background, but questioning of just about any sort should, in my opinion, be encouraged.

Perhaps I’ll come back to the thread later with some of my own questions. The morality of animals is actually a topic in which I have a fair amount of interest.

*Yes, “y’all” is a perfectly acceptable contraction of “you all”, not to mention a useful word since modern English fails to distinguish between second-person singular and second-person plural.

I quite agree with you on this one and I’m aware my grammar may not be brilliant on this site (I only really worry about it when I know it’s being assessed for something important). I also love questions and getting answers isn’t necessarily the point of most of them, I think they’re necessary for getting people to think.
So a question on the subject of animal morality?
Since animals aren’t perceived to be as smart as humans (although sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference), does morality come as a form of intelligence or as a form of instinct?

Apr 14, 2013 at 08:16AM EDT
Quote

I’m not sure what it is that morality is “a form of”. Although animals in general are certainly less intelligent than humans, I don’t think that means that they have no concept of morality. Something I’ve noticed with domesticated animals is that they will often indicate with their body language something akin to guilt. That of course may be less a matter of morality than self-preservation, since domesticated animals are subject to the judgment of their owners, but at least they do seem to understand acceptable vs. unacceptable behavior, which seems strongly akin to morality.

Which I suppose leads me to the question of what morality really is. Above, you said “we must think of ourselves purely biologically and as animals rather than moral beings.” I’m not sure I understand what you meant by that. Is morality related specifically to biological directives, then?

Also, the subject of moral absolutism is always an interesting one. Your psychopath friend, for instance suggests some interesting thoughts. If something is considered morally wrong, is it still morally wrong when the person committing the act doesn’t know? We tend to treat children and people with mental deficiencies differently with respect to moral judgment, which seems right to me, but I’m not sure why. If you commit an act which, unbeknownst to you, had consequences that would be considered immoral if you had done them knowingly, society generally does not judge you as guilty. Nonetheless, in such a situation don’t you often feel guilty after you realize the consequence of your actions? (Is that too vague?)

Apr 14, 2013 at 03:20PM EDT
Quote

It’s not as though KYM owns the word “Conversationalist” and one needs to have the title in order to converse. If it really bothers you, I’ve got nearly 5k forum posts and I’ve not been using my “Conversationalist” title for a couple years now, so I can share.

Apr 15, 2013 at 01:54PM EDT
Quote

No further conversation in over 24 hours? Fine then, bring on the random interesting facts, I’m all for it.

markhoax14 wrote:

Did you know that Coca-Cola used to contain cocaine in the drink?

Did you ever ponder that Coca-Cola is claimed to still use the original recipe?

Intergalactic Joe wrote:

Computers do not generate truly random numbers. They instead make them by using variables that constantly change, such as the time.

Did you ever realize that there is a sense in which there is no such thing as a “random number”? Some time ago, there was a study done in which results from coin flips by humans vs. coin flips from a robotic arm were compared. The robotic arm’s results were essentially 50/50, while human coin tosses had something like a 0.02% favor towards “heads”. In addition to that, standard dice favor higher numbers.

The date today, 4/2/13, contains the numbers 1-4.

Did you ever consider that 12 = 3 × 4 and 56 = 7 × 8?

Brucker wrote:

English fails to distinguish between second-person singular and second-person plural.

Did anyone ever tell you that Japanese pronouns are far more likely to indicate the gender and social status of the person speaking than the person being spoken of? (Or at least, that seems to be a great source of my confusion in continued individual study of Japanese.)

Apr 16, 2013 at 09:39PM EDT
Quote

Brucker wrote:

It’s not as though KYM owns the word “Conversationalist” and one needs to have the title in order to converse. If it really bothers you, I’ve got nearly 5k forum posts and I’ve not been using my “Conversationalist” title for a couple years now, so I can share.

It was a joke.

Apr 17, 2013 at 08:07PM EDT
Quote
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Hello! You must login or signup first!