To the red-jacket homeless man I keep passing by at multiple places on Spring Garden:
I have nothing against homeless/jobless people and understand that life has dealt you a pretty bad hand for you to be where you are now. I’m in no place to speculate about how or why you are where you are. When I’m employed/not struggling to pay my own bills I give change when I can. Maybe not as often as I should, but I try.
I thought it was a isolated incident when you started shouting profanity at me when I didn’t give you change one day. You actually shouted at me until I was out of earshot. I summed it up to you having an off day.
The next time you actually followed me to the corner of spring garden telling me how you hoped “God struck me dead” and how “my people” don’t deserve to live.
And it’s happened again. And again. And again.You follow me, you yell at me, and I’ve had to duck into different shops just for you to leave me alone.
I have never said anything to you, or done anything to you. I don’t know if it’s something in particular about me that you hate, or if you do this to everyone who passes you by. I don’t respond to you – frankly because I’m scared of you.
It’s getting ridiculous though. Homeless or not, it’s harassment. If you were anyone else, I would have called the police by now. Grown man follows young woman for 3 blocks shouting profanity and death threats? Yeah. That’s harassment. —Trying To Be Patient
This article appears in Feb 21-27, 2013.
It’s called mental health difficulties, brought on by poverty and other factors.
It comes as a result of lack of leadership and caring in our provincial and federal governments and health care system.
And if you call the police, you’ll get a better result than bitching online about it.
“If you were anyone else, I would have called the police by now”
So, lets see, repeated verbal threats, menacing behavior and , by your own admission, you feel frightened.
What is it about “him” that is preventing you from calling the police? I don’t give a toss about his mental state or his economic status – this scumbag has crossed a line and I seriously doubt he’s just doing it with you.
Call the police next time he so much as looks sideways at you.
maybe it was wogdogs vacation. mexicali rosa is so MEXICO!!!
99.98% sure this guy doesn’t have Internet access…Just sayin’
What the fuck… I don’t even…. ^^^
citizens, remain calm
i know who GOT MY FIRST ACCONT DELETED!!!
OP…you’re way more patient than I would be.Next time, turn around and give him crazy right back.That always shuts em up.He’s doing it cause you keep letting him.Stop feeling sorry for him..he got himself where he is.We all have the power to change our situation.You don’t owe him your sympathy.Besides, he’s probably spending the money on booze or Lysol or some shit anyway.
Sonictroll?
^^ sure looks like his style
poop;
I assume you think I’m Kay’ because of my involvement with Nukka. I post my opinion on various Bitches that interest me, thats it, thats all. Sonic is now the one and only, and speaks only the Truth. Nukka was created for a legitimate reason, and after he was no longer needed, I discarded him. Please get over it. Now I enjoy this site as it has gotten very entertaining. However, the endless Troll hunts by individuals like you have gotten annoying. I should also point out that your comment today at 5:24pm would fit the definition of a Troll. You are now Trolling me, so give it up Troll.
Also, as entertaining as some posters are, I would never go on a personal attack against someone as has been demonstrated on this thread. I am above that, now I am above you too. You could also be wogdog for all we know, see how pointless Troll hunts are? Anyone can be anyone, everyones a Troll, and we now live in a paranoid Troll state.
my notes are in my head, i had you crossed off the list from the getgo. i don’t care who it is, i’m just along for the scenery
Just walk on the other side of the street.
I enjoy the blogs but why can’t we stick to the bitch and give our thoughts (about the bitch), accordingly? OP I was on Spring Garden yesterday and I agree with you…some of the homeless are out of hand and are pretty scarey. Mind you, I also feel a lot has to do with mental illness. I help when I can (not money, but the offer of food)…that’s all I can do. If only we had more resources 🙁
There’s all types of crazy on SGR.
i call it the gauntlet
kay’, you are one phony bitch, and everyone is now going to find out why. first off, i never emailed you at all, don’t have your addy, so i can’t lose it, as you said on another thread. and second, kay and i did get along, but i won’t say how. and lastly, you could never know what kay called m,e, because therenever was any meeting. so take the fuck off you phony cocksucker. you might think that you are being cute by using her tags, but you aren’t and i hope she does happen to drop by, then you’ll get a real taste of what the REAL kay can be like. ask some that have been here a long time, but of course, you are one of them.
anyway dolt, have your fun, because we who really knew kay, know you are nothing but a very hollow imitation of who she was/is.
Someone thinks they’re big and tough on line. But if I stood in front of them I’d make them a quivering mass. Love the tough I can beat you mentality of some on the internet.
and as to the bitch itself, next time, give him a good kick in the nuts, and yell for a copper.
Lol, Sucks actually thought he had to prove Kay’ is a fake. Lol, dumbass!!!
Oh, my bad.
I guess I thought that since you wasted so much time pointlessly trolling the boards as Nukka, you’d have plenty of time to waste now too. Boy do I look stupid…
I’d take wads of cash out of my pocket and give it to the homeless guy next to him. then flip him off and stroll away.
poop;
Can I have your definition of pointless, please? If you would like to provide an email address, I can forward what I wrote regarding Nukka’s life. To you it may seem pointless, to me, it was well worth the greatest grades I have gotten in my writing class. As far as wasting time goes, well you just put your foot in your mouth. We seem to spend an equal amount of time on this site. The majority of my time I must point out, was spent on here because of a school assignment. Now, I just find it entertaining and like making comments. Have you accomplished anything constructive out of the time you’ve spent on this site? I doubt that you have, but you claim I waste my time. Pot, this is kettle, over.
Now, please stop Trolling me with your Troll hunt games. You also have to let Nukka go man, if you fell for him, I understand. But its over and hes never coming back, you have to accept this for what it is, no more, no less.
Really disappointing that no one came to your defense! If I saw a bum yelling death threats at a lady I would damn sure ask a question or two. Come on, people of Halifax. Call the cops next time. It is me behind this Kay imposter obviously, since I am Sonic. I think I am. I have to be, since he was Nukka, and I was Nukka. Do I have that correct GDM?
Firstly,if this gent is getting that aggressive, a phone call to the police might be in order. Secondly, Kay Dot, get a hold of yourself man. Thirdly, Nurse Hezz, two minutes for looking so good.
Two words.
“Starlight tour”
“The majority of my time I must point out, was spent on here because of a school assignment” – So you were using us for your own gains this whole time?! I feel so used… I hope we at least helped you earn an A+++
“99.98% sure…” – that you’ve got the prettiest profile pictures on LTWWB
“Two words.” – Okay, how about… ‘tablature’ and ‘galactophagist ‘. Those, kids, are the words of the day.
“fuck you cato, fuck you wogdog, oh and fuck you pretty fatkitty I still HATE YOU!!!” – The Captain heard many horror stories about the abominable Kay, but she’s beginning to grow on me. I like the brutal honesty, all caps sentences, and the bristling directionless rage. What’s not to love?
“i call it the gauntlet” – Very nice, a fitting title most days.
The Captain has half a mind to going sailing up the center of Spring Garden, broadside barrels blazing, to wipe away some of the filth and slime from the cities underbelly that has taken up residence.
I have another secret; I will reveal it only because Good dog molly started another Troll hunt.
I wrote “Trying to start a real business” that was published 02/05/2013 at 1:54pm. In that Bitch, my friend Stephen Harper is the Devil sniffed my style, well done Harper. Good dog molly in her amazing wisdom built another mental narrative in her mind about the Bitch and honestly thought it was real. Being a “know it all” doesn’t work fifty percent of the time, lol. I kept it quiet because Harper knew it was me and Molly thought it was real, I could side with neither one. Now, because Harper is an amazingly funny asshole and has made me laugh many times, and Molly just can’t let sleeping dogs lie, I reveal the Truth.
Paingirl, Ivan and blastbeats, well done on knowing something was up with that Bitch.
Also: Paingirl, I want to say the L word about you again for your post at 6:48pm, 02/26/2013. I got lots of flava, but I would never waste it.
OOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! TROLLS ARE FUN TO FUCK, eh there DENNIS CATO. gary more SO YOU LIED AGAIN!!! WHAT A SHOCK!!!!!!
heather_ann01.
I guess some people can’t grasp the concept of what the comments section is for. Apparently it has transformed into a BitchSlap Blog for trolls.
OP. Wait for the summer. The panhandlers will outnumber the pigeons on SGR.
most cities have ordinances governing pan handling. for example, it can be illegal for a pan handler to approach you or block your path.
report this guy to the police. no ‘ifs’ or ‘but’s, just do it.
AN INTERESTING QUESTION
“Homeless or not, it’s harassment. Grown man follows young woman for three blocks shouting profanity and death threats. That’s harassment.” Trying To Be Patient
There’s no question about it. That is indeed harassment, the substantive form of the verb “to harass” which The American College Dictionary defines as “to disturb persistently; torment as with troubles, cares, etc.” Clearly the poster was disturbed persistently, tormented as with troubles, cares, etc.” so that’s not the “interesting question.” The interesting question relates to the mental state of the harasser. If it can be shown that he is mentally deranged, with what offense can he be charged and , presumably, found guilty? What, then is to be understood by the meaning of “deranged?
To be deranged is defined as to be “disordered; insane” but “insane,” in circular fashion common with dictionary definitions, is defined as “not sane, not of sound mind; mentally deranged.” But how are we to escape dictionary circularity and arrive at some conception as to what is to be understood by a “sound mind”, the contrasting form of what it means to be “insane”? How is a “sound mind” to be conceived? In the absence of some coherent definition the homeless man, while he might be charged with harassment, can never be found guilty. Of what, then, does a “sound mind” consist? To come to grips with that we need to leave the dictionary and engage in a bit of philosophy.
Ordinarily, if one is said to possess a sound mind it means that he is aware of the consequences of his acts. Is the harasser aware of the consequences of his acts? If he claims that he aware then he is deemed to possess a sound mind and can be charged and found guilty of harassment. But knowing this, the harasser may well claim that he is not aware of the consequences of his acts, that he is not of sound mind and that, as a consequence, cannot be charged with harassment and found guilty. What then? On what grounds could it be shown that he was, in fact, aware of the consequences of his acts? In other words, how is the possession of a sound mind, of sanity itself, established? That is the “ìnteresting question”.
To off-load the “interesting question” to psychology in the hope that it will resolve the issue is, rather, to misconceive it. Psychology, the “science of man,” possesses its own non-empirical (i.e., non-psychological) assumptions which, like dictionary definitions, are ultimately circular.
In contrast, philosophy would claim that we can distinguish a deranged from a sound mind in the same way that we can distinguish other distinctions in non-physical reality. It is analogous to other acts of human understanding which, at its most basic level, is continuous with the understanding we have of another’s words in daily conversation. It is irreducible to the empirical and “objective” observations of psychology. It is intuitive and it is intentional but it is not random and chaotic. We use it every day. That is the answer to the “interesting question.”
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
If I recall right, Halifax does have some vague panhandling rules out, something to the effect to curb ‘agressive panhandling’. But the OBs situation is just plain assault.
Kay, I’m strictly dickly, but thanks for the offer lol
Troodon ans Captain, you sure know how to make a girl smile :)… Thank you!
kay’kay’kay’I luvs u for yur brass balls hawtgurl..
mm streamin shit outta hissssss fingerrrrrrrrrrrrrs again. doesaaaanybody here read his blob o sheeet?? woggy’s off to mexico to get operation so heain’t garymoore no more
MM. Without knowing whether or not the guy harasses everyone or just meek young women he CHOOSES because the chance of retaliation is about nil, kinda makes your point moot. Too bad really. Putting all your eggs in one basket in such an ambiguous case is just arrogant, and makes you look stupid. Seeing as you spent some time construction your philosophical diatribe, I will give you a c- for effort.
“Kay, I’m strictly dickly, but thanks for the offer lol”
http://replygif.net/i/138
RSVP
: Stephen Harper (2/27, 1:59PM)
Sorry Stephen but it is your comment which, owing no doubt to both your reduced cognitive capacity and limited intellectual attainment, which is moot.
First, your distinction between “everyone” on the one hand and “just meek young women” on the other is – as the old saying goes, “a distinction which doesn’t distinguish”- since the class of “meek young women” are a subsection of a class called “everyone.” The governing assumption is that the harasser harasses the latter and, by logical necessity, the former as well. Further, it is your argument to the effect that the harasser chooses to harass meek young women because the threat of retaliation “is about nil” is to place all YOUR eggs in one basket and is therefore arrogant and makes YOU look stupid. But I don’t suppose you will be able, for the reasons cited above, to grasp that.
More importantly, your response indicates that you have missed the entire point of my “An Interesting Idea.” I won’t say that I’ll refresh your memory Stephen since you obviously have never understood what that point was in the first place. Nonetheless, to repeat, my point was that if the court was to win a conviction against the harasser it must show that he was not in fact deranged but rather that he was of sound mind, that he was fully aware of the consequences of his actions. That was the point of “An Interesting Question” Stephen, a point which obviously passed you by for those very same reasons cited in my first sentence.
My final point – by this time Stephen you will have been clearly left well behind – is that the determination of the possession of a sound mind cannot be reduced to so-called “objective” psychological criteria. In other words Stephen, what does or does not constitute a sound mind cannot be determined by some sort of “objective” checklist since the components of that checklist – are you still there, Stephen? – are not obviously self-evident but rather require an interpretation, one which transcends the empirical criteria of psychology itself.
Now Stephen, I KNOW that you will not understand my final point, once again for those reasons cited in the first sentence but, in the spirit of academic magnaminity and good fellowship, I’m going to give you a C- for effort.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Kay3
Are you trying to have this board shut down?For what reasons would you want LTWWBL to cease? It seems you’re trying to make a lot of trouble for bitchers and moderators for some reason.
LOL YEA, WHATEVER.
Thanks, MM, for making my point, ya toolbox.
If in fact the aggressor has the thought process to CHOOSE HIS VICTIM based on, lets just say GENDER or anything else that my give him the confidence he needs to perpetrate his crime successfully, then he is clearly of sound mind. If he is just an aggressive ass and there is no rhyme or reason to his assaults, then you might very well be right. Although I highly doubt it, seeing as the aggressor has been picking on this one person, but, ASSUMING the latter with absolutely nothing to go on except this one anecdote, is just uneducated and underclass. Basing your dumbass theory on your ASSUMPTION, then beating your chest about how awesome philosophy is, compared to psychology just makes you look like a colossal ass.
Now, back to stuffing your face with woggies woolly pelt.
A sucker,yes.But,I’m far from stupid.
Mmmm and does anyone here not understand why K keeps getting banned? It’s a mystery to me – not.
Senor Campana…..thanks for trying. It worked……for a few blogs anyway……..sigh (and zzzzzzzzz yet again)!
What happened Kay? How did it all come to this? Please tell us so we can all understand.
You realize that trying to engage it in conversation only makes things worse, right?
RSVP
: Stephen Harper (02/27, 5:39PM)
Good morning Stephen.
Just four points:
(a) THE ROLE OF CHOICE: Your claim that the harasser is of sound mind is based solely on “the thought process to CHOOSE his victim.” But Stephen, this is a very “thin” definition of what constitutes a sound mind. A more robust definition, one underpinning the legal requirement for an offender to be charged together with the possibility of being found guilty, extends far beyond the simple ability to choose. It is not so much the thought process of choosing a victim but rather the CONTENT of that thought process, particularly the MOTIVATION which constitutes the driving force behind that choice together with an understanding of the CONSEQUENCES of having acted on that motivation. Your “thin” definition of choice would apply to any conscious human being, from the infant right up to the criminally insane and, as such, is of very restricted utility in rendering justice.
(b) THE AGGRESSIVE ASS THEORY: You claim that the harasser might, after all, be just an aggressive ass with “no rhyme or reason to his assaults.” But, Stephen, this is just circular, taking us back to (a) and what constitutes a legitimate reason which, as we have seen, has already been discussed.
(c) THE DUMBASS THEORY: You claim that my “dumbass theory” rests on my ASSUMPTION that the harasser is an aggressive ass, an assumption with nothing to go on “except that one anecdote” which is just “uneducated and underclass.” It is true that we only have the one anecdote but I think that you’ll find that this is not a one-off event. People like the harasser are overwhelmingly indiscriminate in their abuse and, as such, it falls to you to demonstrate that this WAS a one-off event. Failure to do so, of course, results in YOUR being just “uneducated and underclass.”
(d) THE COLOSSAL ASS THEORY: You claim that my claim that philosophy is “awesome” compared to psychology makes me look like a “colossal ass.” As I suspected you would Stephen, you have misconceived my remarks about the relation between the two. It was in this area, as I remarked in my previous rejoinder, that you would be “left far behind.” My claim was never that philosophy is “awesome” as compared to philosophy but rather – are you listening Stephen? – that at the end of the psychological explanatory trail, so to speak, psychology must necessarily invoke philosophy to render such explanation coherent. Psychology, conceived as “the science of man,” necessarily comes to a full halt at the end of the trail for the simple reason that there exists no such “science of man.” Indeed, current psychological theory has for the most part transcended its coarse, mechanistic and behaviouristic origins and transformed itself into “cognitive psychology” which, of course, is little more that down-market philosophy.
But Stephen, your efforts do not go unrecognized. I’m revising your grade to C+ for effort.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Just a touch of sarcasm Orgasmatron but you’re right, the less said the better.
MM
Have you ever even considered that the principle of sufficient reason is sometimes, not necessarily false, but inapplicable.
RSVP
: Daniel Abraham (02/28, 12:48PM)
An interesting distinction, Daniel. Perhaps you would like to “colour it up” as the expression goes. (If you have difficulty, perhaps those three “likes” could help you out.)
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
MM – You are an intellectual coward. I find it funny that you respond and reply to people that don’t even direct their comments to you, and yet never debate Daniel when he openly challenges you. You’re a coward and lack the intellectual integrity to be taken seriously, considering you back down from the challenge of debating Daniel, regularly. Now please, come in here and Profess your reasoning in not ever debating Daniel, and how your stance on not debating him is correct…based upon some BS theoretical philosophy principle that means nothing to anyone but yourself.
I don’t know a lot about MM and even less about Dan.. But,I think MM is hesitant to debate Daniel because Daniel’s education or lack there of, isn’t clear to MM.
Is Daniel a construction worker or a PHD?I don’t remember Daniel saying what he does for a living.Not that it matters to anyone except MM.
My theory as to why MM is ignoring Dan’s challenges may be way off.
THe poor montreal mumbler is a just another type of troll. To be truthful a troll normally doesn’t bother me too much. But this so called educated individual comes on here with his boorish comments ( & if you’ve ever bothered to read his pathetic attempts at erotic writing) … they lean to down right creepy.
Yeah, attempting to bring a so called ‘enlightened’ opinion to those of us who frequent this sites, like bringing bringing caviar on toast points out to your pigs & thinking they’ll appreciate that over their usual slops.
Boru
I did very well as an undergraduate in university but stopped there because I decided I didn’t want to be a lawyer. I was already in enough debt so I went into metal fabrication. I’ve also dipped into some carpentry work. Very boring story; I’m responding because you seem curious.
Anyways, the principle of sufficient reason states that all thing have a reason whether it be causal (physical interaction), motivational….. MM seems to(as I have noticed) have constantly entered this sufficient reason perspective as to illuminate the ultimate question of why. He has made the distinction to me directly some time ago where he contended that “why” in terms of explanation was actually “what” and “why” in terms of justification remains “why” but I can’t see how there are enough distinctive essential characteristics between the two; “what” to me is a deductive categorizing type question instead of anything that has to do with “why” in the sense of a question. Maybe he was hinting at that and we are talking about the same thing I don’t know.
Ah, so fun. When I first landed so many of you weren’t even interested in my experience because I was obviously “un intelligent”. Like that should make a difference.
Fucking eat it.
🙂
Not you Boru, just a few people I won’t mention who are on this board.
” “cognitive psychology” which, of course, is little more that down-market philosophy. “
Kinda like “the philosophy of education”, right MM? I bet somewhere, there’s a room full of arrogant philosophers calling your subject of study “the homeopathy of philosophy”.
OP
Unfortunately you’ll have to give up the privileges of that part of the street. Avoid him. Don’t feel “defeated” by it; it’s similar to staying away from bears. He’s just messed up.
I disagree, Daniel. You avoid bears when you are in their habitat. When they came into your territory you deal with them – humanely, if possible. But the object is to prevent harm from coming to innocent people. There is only one “victim” in this story and that is the young woman who posted it. We’ve ceded control of enough of our city to the filth. No more.
OB – Have you reported this to the Police? You don’t have to press charges, but if everybody who he harassed, reported him to the cops, there would be a pattern of behaviour on record for the Cops to act on if and when someone actually decides to file a comlaint.
————————————–
I haven’t been able to go back and read everything from the past two weeks, but OMG!!!!???
lolz – Smeagol and wogdog have (ahem) “teamed-up”, I so totally CALLED IT!!! 🙂
and now it looks like MM is getting a 4-way spanking, gawd…he must be rolling around on the floor in an orgasmic ball of masochistic fulfillment, happy Smeagol be.
Daniel, you were rather abrasive when you first joined LTWWB, and you were treated as people perceived you. You must admit that the Bitcher’s attitudes towards you change along with with your attitude change (you have noticed right?).
So Daniel and Smeagol (MM) have something in common and a difference at the same time. They’ve both studied law, but Daniel dropped out, whereas Smeagol flunked out.
Boru & dtwg – Smeago won’t go head to head with Daniel, because he knows he can’t. Same with me, he doesn’t even reply anymore because of all the times I’ve made him “cry into his pillow”.
Lets see if I can trool him into responding…..
From SG-1, 200.
Science fiction is an existential metaphor that allows us to tell stories about the human condition. Isaac Asimov once said, “Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinded critics and philosophers of today, but the core of science fiction, its essence, has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all.”
RSVPs
: dtwg (02/28, 3:29PM)
See Daniel’s post of 12:38PM). So you see that it’s addressed to me? I never debate Daniel? See below.
I’m not a coward but you seem to be cognitively challenged.
: More (5:27PM)
I’ve spanked you before but without visible effect. You’re a buffoon. I’m not going to bother again.
: Daniel Abraham (7:38PM)
“The principle of sufficient reason,” Daniel writes, “states that all thing (sic) have a reason, whether it be causal (physical interaction), motivation …” Daniel, you have made a very fundamental error. A cause is restricted to physical interaction and is NOT a reason. You contract the flu because of a virus. The virus is the cause of your flu but not the reason. The virus did not intend, reflect upon or assess the consequences of its actions. In other words, Daniel, it did not have a reason. It operated in accordance with the laws of nature (a cause), not in accordance with rational reflection (a reason). I found the remainder of your post incoherent. The “why” refers to reasons, the “what” to a thing or an event. This confusion follows from your previously confounding causes with reasons.
: Stephen Harper (7:53PM)
No Stephen, there is no relationship between philosophy of education and “cognitive psychology.” In addition to not being an empirical study as psychology claims to be, philosophy of education may indeed study psychology in terms of both its basic assumptions and the legitimacy of its methods but – and this is important Stephen – psychology (cognitive or otherwise) never studies philosophy. The reason for this is that it cannot since it operates at a lower conceptual. Your last sentence was incoherent.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
** “a lower conceptual LEVEL.” **
Oh dear Optimus, we desperately need some new content.
A COUPLE OF POSTSCRIPTS.
Time to have a bit of fun tying up some loose ends.
: Daniel Abraham (02/28, 12:38PM)
“MM Have you ever considered the principle of sufficient reason is sometimes, not necessarily false, but inapplicable.”
Firstly, while Daniel is obviously not aware of it, what he is really talking about is not “the principle of sufficient reason” – there is no such thing as “the principle of sufficient reason” – but rather “sufficient conditions” as contrasted with “necessary conditions.” In the present context it would bear on the question of the harasser’s “sound mind” or the lack of one. The necessary conditions would simply be that the harasser is alive or, in Stephen’s view, that he is capable of minimal choice. But necessary conditions are insufficient to establish guilt in law. Sufficient conditions, on the other hand, raise the bar well beyond that set for necessary conditions. To demonstrate that the harasser is of sound mind would require that he be shown to possess the relevant motivation, awareness of the consequences of his acts, and so on. Sufficient conditions, in other words, entail reflection on the part of the harasser. That is very difficult thing to do. That is why I called it “An Interesting Question”.
Secondly, Daniel fails to demonstrate just how such sufficient conditions in a court of law, while not necessarily false, are sometimes inapplicable. In other words, what are the criteria of applicability for sufficient conditions? Daniel doesn’t say. The reason he doesn’t is that he can’t because his account, as I have shown, is completely muddled.
: Boru (4:35PM)
Yes Boru, your theory as to why I am ignoring Daniel’s challenge is, in fact, “way off.” The fact Boru, is that I am not ignoring Daniel’s “challenge” at all since (a) there was no challenge and (b) I demolished his position in any case, both in respect to his failure to distinguish causes from reasons and also in respect to the collapse of his so-called “principle of sufficient reason.” (See above.)
Also Boru, you must be in no doubt. Daniel’s education is indeed very clear to me.
: dtwg (02/28, 3:39PM)
“I find it funny that you respond and reply to people that don’t even direct their comments to you, and yet you never debate Daniel when he openly challenges you.”
Well, the second part of Daniel’s “challenge” has been laid to rest, but I find the first part of your sentence funny. I never normally respond to those who don’t direct their comments to me but here’s the funny part. I have never directed my comments to you but – wait for it – you directed yours at me. That’s called “irony” dtwg. Do you understand irony dtwg? It means that you are guilty of the very charge you bring against me. I know you won’t understand that dtwg because to grasp irony requires a little bit of intelligence and, clearly, you lack even that little bit. That is why I found it funny, dtwg.
:Pope Orgasmatron (03/01, 11:20AM)
I’m going to change my “normal practice” and reply to you even though you haven’t addressed me directly. The reason am doing so is that your comment about “desperately needing some new content” doesn’t reflect on the Moderator failing to provide it but rather on your own feeble resources, sometimes called “ignorance” but at other times, depending on ts strength, “stupidity.” But for your sake, I hope that your “new content” will be soon forthcoming and you will then be able to post your superficial comments.
Well, that was a bit of fun.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sB8w5LOaJo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_…
Pbbbbffffffttttttt!!!! That’s where you “intellectuals” go all wrong. This is a court of public opinion, not a court of law.
The supreme court of public opinion, would never have let that dumbass doctor get away with murdering his children cause he was shoooo shaaaad :-(.
Is a Kay 4 coming to a bitch board near you?
My dog’s quiffs smell like burnt wool :-/
Nurse, you kinky girl you.
RSVPS
: Daniel Abraham (03/1, 7:12PM)
Good morning Daniel.
The “principle of sufficient reason” as given in Wikipedia and drawing on the thought of Leibniz is an old ontological formula which simply asserts that everything has a cause. In other words, everything that exists has a cause which brought it into being. That, of course, is how Aquinas “proved” the existence of God. He called it the “Uncaused Cause.” But this type of causation – it is ontological relating as it does to the physical universe – lies at the level of what I referred to as “necessary conditions”. In other words Daniel, you have confused ontology – that aspect of philosophy concerned with the evolution of the physical universe – with epistemology – that aspect of philosophy concerned with our knowledge of, among other things, other minds. This can be acquired only at the level of “sufficient conditions”, those which take into account such things as motivation, awareness of the consequences of one’s acts, and so on.
In my example Daniel, the harasser would have to be found to be in possession of a “sound mind,” in order to be charged with harassment, but your “principle of sufficient reason” would involve only the possession of a mind, sound or otherwise. In epistemology – in the present case the knowledge of the mind of the harasser – it is sufficient rather than necessary conditions which obtain in a court of law.
I don’t respond to youtube attachments Daniel, but if you want to put its message in your own words I would be happy to do so. In any case, it was gratifying to learn that your “principle of sufficient reason” did not come off the top of your head.
: Stephen Harper (7:45PM)
Good morning Stephen.
“This is a court of public opinion, not a court of law.”
Well yes Stephen, Bitch is a court of public opinion as you say but my original post (“An Interesting Question”) concerned the grounds upon which the harasser might be convicted of harassment in a court of law, i.e., to be in possession of a “sound mind.” So Stephen, another egregious confusion on your part – the confusion between Bitch on the one hand and the legal system on the other. Your second statement, as a consequence, is both factually wrong and legally incoherent.
Have a nice day.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
MM
As for what you describe as causes (epistemological) being distinct from reasons (ontological), I was off topic referencing your “What” and “why” distinction on an earlier thread.
Going to the man who might be out of his mind, what it means for someone to be out of his or her mind is a question, and in that question there are reasons for defining what it means for someone to be out of his or her mind, that will be assessed in the court of law given that there are individual factors in most cases. This to me is in the realm of reason. What caused him to do it is in the realm outside of motivation IF he was “out of his mind”, and even that is another debate. This is what I think you mean by, all there is is the mind, if you take literally Leibniz’s view on the principle of sufficient reason. Since much of your posting involves defining what something means or is, I was curious as to what your position was on the principle of sufficient reason.
I don’t see cause being epistemological and outside of ontology because of the prerequisite of the reason and question “what does it mean to know(the nature of knowledge)”, which I see as ontological. The causal aspect of the universe doesn’t even exist without being defined by an observer; as you have pointed out, the “mind”.
Thanks MM you’re getting me back into this stuff.
MM
Clarification
In that last paragraph I said
I don’t see cause being epistemological and outside of ontology because of the prerequisite of the reason and question “what does it mean to know(the nature of knowledge)”
I just wanted to clarify that cause is definitely in the realm of epistemology. Take epistemology out and change it to.
I don’t see cause being outside of ontology because of the prerequisite of the reason and question “what does it mean to know(the nature of knowledge)”. Or what does it mean to know the cause.
I worded it wrong when I first wrote it, and edited it leaving the epistemology part there.
Furthermore, given that ontology is the construct or view of the nature of reality itself, it will obviously be relevant in some respect to most subjects if you dig far enough. So, It could be objected that of course cause can be viewed under ontology just as everything else, but the distinguishing feature of cause is that it is such a massive encompassing term that I can’t see it being so limited to epistemology. Cause and effect (under principle), being in relation to so much of the universe must be ontological since it HAS TO HAVE IT’S PLACE in ontology. WHY is cause ONLY epistemology is to me an ontological view, and would then be under the principle of sufficient reason.
3rd post
MM
The principle of sufficient reason states that everything has a reason “everything has a cause” was you own construction. You might have mis read the Wiki explanation.
P.S I have spent a lot of time studying the validity of this principle and thus know a lot about what it means. Even given you interpretation of it you are wrong as I am attempting to show.
RSVPS
Good morning Daniel. I was a bit delayed over on “Bitchers” but I’ll have a look at your posts.
(03/02, 2:42PM)
I see that you have reversed the proper order of ontology/epistemology. It should be “causes (ontological)” and “reasons (epistemological).” It was always the basis of my “what/why” distinction. This is a classic distinction usually framed in the form of “the knower and the known” . While the knower is himself part of reality he is not reducible to his physical components. This is why the mind is not reducible to the brain. The knower/known distinction must be maintained since it is fundamental to any coherent philosophy. The “known” relates to the object of knowledge, its structure, evolution and so on. It aims at empirical knowledge, the observable and testable knowledge of physical reality in all its forms. In contrast, the “knower” relates to the quality of the reflection and judgement of the one who claims to know. The object of his knowing is not empirical reality but truth. Truth is not an empirical concept. It cannot be measured, observed or “experimented” upon. The result is that the knower and the known, epistemology and ontology are separate categories but both are part of philosophy.
Your confusion of causes (ontology) and reasons (epistemology) extends to your analysis of the “sound mind.” Whether or not someone is of “sound mind” or not follows from principles conceived to constitute it, i.e., awareness of the consequences of his acts. In a court of law the next step is judging whether or not the harasser displays such characteristics or not. This judgement is interpretive – not empirical – in the sense that no determination can be made by reference to some “objective” checklist. It lies at the heart of the epistemological enterprise since that judgement, in its turn, is open to further judgements in terms of ITS adequacy.
I have already given my account of “the principle reason” above (03/01, 4:41PM) and will not repeat it here. Of course, epistemology is not “outside” of ontology – nothing is “outside” ontology – but the distinction between the two remains. The first lies on the side of the knower, the other on the side of the known. Neither can be “reduced” to the other.
(3:38PM)
Of course, “cause” is in the realm of epistemology when the knower attempts to determine the truth of that cause but the focus is then on the knower coming to know that cause. The concept of cause itself requires a knower who identifies it as being a “cause.” Causes, in other words, have no separate ontological standing. They are identified as being causes by the knower whose claim is then scrutinized further by other knowers who might take issue with his interpretation of its standing as a “cause.” Yes, ontology is a “massive encompassing term”. It’s called “reality” but it must never be reduced to its physical components, particularly in the case of the human being. As the old saying goes, “Why must reality be equated with tangibility?” The mind, Daniel, is not tangible but, in terms of human beings, it is “more real” than his body in the sense that it constitutes his ultimate reality.
(4:59PM)
I think that it is you who are mistaken about my misreading of the Wikipedia explanation of “the principle of sufficient reality.” To simply assert that I am mistaken is very bad philosophical practice. You must SHOW that I am mistaken which, of course, you have not done. Also Daniel, it is very poor form to proclaim that you have spent a great deal of time studying “the validity of this principle.” One must never preen, Daniel. I have not spent a lot of time studying it because it is irrelevant to my (epistemological) concern with reasons rather than causes.
Anyway Daniel, nice talking.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
You’re definitely NOT alone. He followed me one day screaming death threats at me.
He actually followed me from the Dartmouth bus terminal into Halifax, got of the bus at my stop, and continued ranting about how he wanted to kill me.
He was even saying this to other passengers on the bus, who seemed to think it was funny.
He must be known for this sort of thing.
Got a general description of this guy? Other than the red jacket.
Excellent point lost boys vampire leader.