LOL okay, lets see if I can find that topic.

http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=71539220&f=27&o=50

here we go!

This post was edited by ChrisKz on Oct 29 2014 11:14am

you do realise this has more to do with infant mortality than with how they lived
i don't get what's up with the libertarian infatuation with pollution and toxins.

Are you talking about when you claimed you had studied evolutionary theory and it says we evolved from neanderthals and I said that was bullshit? Because it is. It doesn't claim we evolved from neanderthals and 10 people did not arrive to shoot me down on that point. If they did then they would be wrong as well.

Knowing what a particular theory claims and telling you you are wrong when you claim it says something that it doesn't is not ignorance. It could be viewed as arrogance but in this case it is mainly frustration at your inability to comprehend what you are arguing against. The thread you linked is a further example of that and does nothing to help your case here.... unless you'd care to point out where this brutal mob-style indictment of me, that you claim happened, took place?

This post was edited by Scaly on Oct 29 2014 11:31am

That would take way too much work to literally take screen shots of every comment saying your claims aren't exactly true. If you can't see the people agreeing with my course of discussion you need to look it over again. Me and one other person talked about the Neanderthals, yes, but there are many others saying that your line of thinking is incorrect in that situation.


Just no. You were never right in that discussion.

Just to resolve this argument, I don't think you are dumb/ ignorant/ much of anything. I just said that basically because you said it at me. In fact I think it is impressive that you know a lot about another nations politics when you do not even live there, and I bet you take part in your politics as well.
My only problem is that you seem to think me trying to learn things is wrong, and that even though I don't know much I can catch other people out on bad wording or having wrong official ideals. I'm going to argue even if I don't know everything, and there are times where I was wrong and I accepted that when I deemed there to be enough counter evidence.

I think you disagree too much with what I say because you seem to hate the idea of religion even though it embodies the same simplistic ideals that just about any philosophy or moral code has. We should just avoid each other if we are going to be like this.




Do they include infant mortality rates when they calculate the average living age? That seems counter productive when calculating anything that lives beyond infancy.

This post was edited by ChrisKz on Oct 29 2014 11:36am

and those who died really young. if one made it past that point then one had an okay chance of surviving to see one's (somewhat) elderly days


i'm sure that risk factors for early death and causes of death are pretty well known

This post was edited by Gastly on Oct 29 2014 11:40am

That kind of makes me think they are lazy =/. If they did a study on the infants, the young, and then the old it would give a better picture as to what they could do to improve living rates.



Yeah, but only upon those who did the research, having separate statistics would help the average person.

This post was edited by ChrisKz on Oct 29 2014 11:44am

Evolutionary theory does not state that we evolved from neanderthals, you said it did and that you had studied it.



I don't think that trying to learn things is wrong. I think it's great that you want to learn. I think attacking people's views before you even know what they're saying is wrong. I wish you'd do the majority of your learning before you did your arguing. Ask questions, don't attack people's views simply because they contain a few buzzwords you've heard your pastor say are bad things.

This post was edited by Scaly on Oct 29 2014 12:01pm

who do you think would win?

because it'd be big daddy H rather than the watered down French weakling.
funny though, Heidegger joined the Nazi Party (not being a full fledged Nazi while also hoping much to come out of this new movement, he later on became disillusioned with nazism and resigned from it. his "Black Books" have recently revealed an underlying anti-semitic thought even though his mentor was a Jew, as was his lover - Hannah Arendt) whereas Sartre worked in the French resistance with many other future French figures. it's in fact where he met Maurice Merleau-Ponty. yet the two's works correspond (Heidegger and Sartre) and somewhat draw from the same source (iirc Sartre only took from Early Husserl, whereas Heidegger was pretty much mentored by Husserl)
my favourite early Frenchie is probs Merleau-Ponty though (a hipster choice lel).

This post was edited by Gastly on Oct 29 2014 02:31pm

Sartre is great, Camus is probably my favorite and most useful.

I think Kant is the greatest philosopher since Aristotle.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 29 2014 02:39pm

yeah, they deal with actual problems and are pretty concrete with how one faces life. they've certainly got their places in how history has turned out (they're, say, a product of modernism and its' disappointments)
don't forget about Dostoyevsky as well though, he's as masterful as a "proto-psychologist" as Nietzsche is.

i don't dig the two that much, but they've got their places and are fairly important at understanding modern Europe and have their places within it.


he's a giant and the father of all modern philosophy from tradition to tradition.
my main problem with his works was that reading them was hell even with prolegomena helping with his critique of pure reason. on the other hand his writing style helps when dealing with much of the later philosophy.

This post was edited by Gastly on Oct 29 2014 02:50pm