You misunderstand. The people that did go to the moon must have been smart.

It is the ones since then that have gone stupid.
Current NASA Missions. (http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/)

They're still brilliant. Pseudo scientists like you couldn't even dream of achieving so much.

You are well acquainted with faggots?Well you're here so that makes one.

You are well acquainted with faggots?

I am not too sure if he is up to par on his knowledge of the gheys, but then again he doesnt sit around all day circling mens assholes and staring at pictures of guys whackin it.

When you talk like a wise man to a fool, you model wise behavior for them. The fool copies your wise behavior.
Jesus says hello.

http://stephenamurphy.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/buddy-jesus.jpg

100+ pages? Is there some ceremony or something?


Actually, this reminds me of something else I was going to mention, in regards to the question of Aristotle's existence and credentials. Although as a rule I try to look at discussions as an opportunity to learn (both through listening and teaching), a conversation that moves to the subject of conversation can serve as a meta-experiment of sorts. Aristotle's claims of successful persuasion through ethos, pathos and logos are testable and falsifiable. Given that I've been primarily conversing with you thus far, I'll ask your opinion about how they've held up.

Have I established that I am a credible source (or rather, conduit) of information on the subject of rhetoric?
Have I demonstrated a genuine interest in your needs and concerns?
Have I provided sound claims supported by appropriate evidence?
Have I persuaded you of my claims?

I await your appraisal.

Ya know, I tried this approach at first as well - though not quite as eloquently philosophical. Interesting that both times the first thing Happeh does is question the polite poster's intelligence. I suppose it could be said that those who try to engage in normal conversation with him should have their mental capacity doubted, but I kid.

I, however, would enjoy talking about talking, and I wanted to start by responding to your questions:

You have established to me that, if not credible yourself, you know where to find credible conduits of information - though in a way that's exactly the same thing.

I do not believe that you have established genuine concern, though I blame much of this on the medium. It is very easy to post politely and mask insincerity on the internet, and if we were able to view your body language, it would do a lot to confirm or contradict your concern. However, in as far as is possible, you have shown concern.

I believe it was a sound claim that proper rhetoric should include ethos, pathos, and logos, and was well documented by the founder of such ideas, but it could use a few examples and explanations of counter examples. For instance, say a person who speaks a foriegn language takes a crowd hostage and coerces them to all lie on the ground. I doubt pathos and logos are there, but successful persuasion still takes place, though I admit not of the violition of the crowd.

Ultimately, I would say that you have persuaded me of your claims, though for someone skeptical of them, it would not be entirely convincing.

Current NASA Missions. (http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/)

They're still brilliant. Pseudo scientists like you couldn't even dream of achieving so much.
Psuedo Scientist? Let's take that charge head on.

There has been lots of mystical kinds of talk lately. We started out talking about things much more concrete. Masturbation will make you blind and crippled. Let's go back to that. I say that masturbation will make a human being blind and crippled. I would guess that you or others here would disagree.

Discussing why masturbation makes a human being blind and crippled was too complicated for most people, so let's try something easy. Asymmetry. Asymmetry is easy. Asymmetry means something is different from one side to the other. We all should be able to see something as simple as Symmetry or Asymmetry.

Let's see if that is true. For everyone that is interested, let's test your observational abilities, and how much your brain works. The example picture is below.

http://www.happeh.com/Images/BullShido/SymExample1B.jpghttp://www.happeh.com/Images/BullShido/SymExample01B.jpg

The test is: Is the face/head of the human being in that picture Symmetric, the same on both sides, or Asymmetric, one side is different from the other? If the face/head is Asymmetric, please describe where you see the signs of Asymmetry.


Let's see you demonstrate some intelligence Evil. Is the example Symmetric or Asymmetrc? Or what about Arjuna or MrRuss or MrGalt or Fedeykin or DannyMac or DannyBoi or any of the others who think they know what is going on and I do not?

Prove yourselves. Don't run away and hide. Prove you can observe. Prove you can describe what you observe.

All the world's a stage
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts -As You Like It (http://shakespeare.mit.edu/asyoulikeit/asyoulikeit.2.7.html), Act 2, Scene 7

A million monkeys on a million typewriters may eventually reprise Shakespeare, but who really has that kind of time? I came to these forums for reasons that are perhaps too obvious to be surmised. I like the people here and I want to be part of the community they've created, so I can learn from their experiences and contribute my own. It's perfect in its simplicity.


The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being. -Socrates via Plato

I have a book sitting in my Amazon cart right now. It's called "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works Of Richard P. Feynman". I tried to push my way through The Feynman Lectures On Physics, but ran out of steam embarrassingly early on - ironic, no? Feynman's one of those great minds birthed before your World Domination ruined everything. They called him the Great Explainer... what a thing it would have been to take one of his classes. In any case, from what I've heard, the book explores motivations of scientists like Feynman. What drives them to do the things they do?


At the full moon, in the Antelope Kiva, secrets would be told, secrets would be done and borne. They would go down, boys, into the kiva and come out again, men. The boys were all afraid and at the same time impatient. And at last it was the day. The sun went down, the moon rose. He went with the others. Men were standing, dark, at the entrance to the kiva; the ladder went down into the red lighted depths. Already the leading boys had begun to climb down. Suddenly, one of the men stepped forward, caught him by the arm, and pulled him out of the ranks. He broke free and dodged back into his place among the others. This time the man struck him, pulled his hair. "Not for you, white-hair!" "Not for the son of the she-dog," said one of the other men. The boys laughed. "Go!" And as he still hovered on the fringes of the group, "Go!" the men shouted again. One of them bent down, took a stone, threw it. "Go, go, go!" There was a shower of stones. Bleeding, he ran away into the darkness. From the red-lit kiva came the noise of singing. The last of the boys had climbed down the ladder. He was all alone.

All alone, outside the pueblo, on the bare plain of the mesa. The rock was like bleached bones in the moonlight. Down in the valley, the coyotes were howling at the moon. The bruises hurt him, the cuts were still bleeding; but it was not for pain that he sobbed; it was because he was all alone, because he had been driven out, alone, into this skeleton world of rocks and moonlight. At the edge of the precipice he sat down. The moon was behind him; he looked down into the black shadow of the mesa, into the black shadow of death. He had only to take one step, one little jump. … He held out his right hand in the moonlight. From the cut on his wrist the blood was still oozing. Every few seconds a drop fell, dark, almost colourless in the dead light. Drop, drop, drop. To-morrow and to-morrow and to-morrow …

He had discovered Time and Death and God. -Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (http://www.huxley.net/bnw/eight.html)

So tell me, Jalon. What would you like to know?

Alright, the face is asymmetrical - things that could be easily fixed would be his smirk and his hair. Things that are part of the skeletal aspects of his face are his eyebrows, his cheekbones, his nose, and his ears. Things that are part of the muscular "resting point" of his face are his eyelids and the tilt of the entire head.

You gave me a picture of the most symmetrical face you have ever seen, and I also showed how that face was asymmetrical. So, unless you know of someone with a perfectly symmetrical face I think it can be said that ALL people are in some way asymmetrical. What is the point?

And that last post, TheRuss, was a bit arrogant. Was there a point to it besides stirring me to read Brave New World? Also, are you not responding to anyone besides Happeh right now? If so, that's cool, but I 'd like to know so as not to waste my time talking with you right now.

Oh snap. Arjuna, my apologies for the slight - I wrote the post up earlier today, went to make myself some breakfast, read it over and submitted it... it was in reply to HiThere, not you. I suppose that's a risk of posting in a thread, rather than, say, sending you a PM directly.

I agree with your assessment of pathos and the difficulties with establishing it via the Internet. On top of the lack of non-verbal cues and the ever-present problems with anonymity, something else that impairs me from establishing pathos is the fact that I haven't been here for very long, and don't know anyone here too well. It's hard to address someone's needs if you don't know what their needs are, hence the end of my previous post.

I like the idea of providing examples, but I've noticed that one of the risks with providing examples is that, if they're not distilled right down to the essence, they risk derailing the train of thought. I relate an ancedote with some details that I find amusing, someone else latches onto one of these details as making the ancedote inapplicable to the current situation, and everything gets bogged down. I suppose it's my responsibility as an amateur rhetorician to keep things as clear and direct as possible.

I thought a bit about the terrorist example, and I've come to the conclusion that the requirements of ethos, pathos and logos still apply, although in a twisted sort of way.

Terrorist's ethos: "I have a bomb/gun and am willing to use it on you."
Terrorist's pathos: "If I shoot/blow you up, you will be injured."
Terrorist's logos: "If you do what I tell you to do, I will not injure you. You would be better off alive and uninjured than dead and unbowed, therefore you should do what I tell you to do."

The success of the coercion relies on establishing a legitimate means of doing violence (not a guy making a gun with his fingers in his pocket), the potential for the audience to be injured (think of Palestinians throwing rocks at Israeli tanks), and the coercer's ability to convince the audience that their demands are preferable to said injury (if you've seen Pulp Fiction, think of Marsellus Wallace telling Butch to throw the fight).

It's a bit of a stretch, but I think it's still somewhat relevant. What are your thoughts?

Edit: Also, Brave New World is a good book. If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend it - its tyranny of hedonism makes for a great counterpoint to 1984's tyranny of thought.

As much fun as I've had with him, I think the monkey with his cup and the organ grinder have finally played through all of their songs. We've finally come full circle to:

Happeh: Asymmetry is bad.

Us: How is asymmetry bad?

Happeh: Assymetry is bad.

As much fun as I've had with him, I think the monkey with his cup and the organ grinder have finally played through all of their songs. We've finally come full circle to:

Happeh: Asymmetry is bad.

Us: How is asymmetry bad?

Happeh: Assymetry is bad.

Don't forget.

Us: Please explain to us how asymmetry is bad.

Happeh: You guys lack intelligent. C'mon, let me see some actual discussion, and intelligence.

Us: So tell us how asymmetry is bad?

Happeh: Now you guys so you're true colors, Isreal is bad, you guys lack intelligence, and you guys aren't reasonable.

Terrorist's ethos: "I have a bomb/gun and am willing to use it on you."
Terrorist's pathos: "If I shoot/blow you up, you will be injured."
Terrorist's logos: "If you do what I tell you to do, I will not injure you. You would be better off alive and uninjured than dead and unbowed, therefore you should do what I tell you to do."
I don't think that's a stretch at all. Reading up on ethos definition, wouldn't it be more of the terrorist being not concerned with the crowd's welfare - actually, that's what you said in the willing part. Dammit, how am I supposed to respond and continue this when I agree with all that you've said?!


The success of the coercion relies on establishing a legitimate means of doing violence (not a guy making a gun with his fingers in his pocket), the potential for the audience to be injured (think of Palestinians throwing rocks at Israeli tanks), and the coercer's ability to convince the audience that their demands are preferable to said injury (if you've seen Pulp Fiction, think of Marsellus Wallace telling Butch to throw the fight).
Nice examples, this is kinda what I meant, although also instances of past commincations that worked vs. ones that didn't. Like Hitler's rallies vs. the Unabomber manifesto.

It's a bit of a stretch, but I think it's still somewhat relevant. What are your thoughts?


Edit: Also, Brave New World is a good book. If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend it - its tyranny of hedonism makes for a great counterpoint to 1984's tyranny of thought.Alright, next library check-out now. I loved 1984, and basically any story that doesn't end in flowers - I still think the original Matrix had the best ending in any movie ever....right up until Neo got up from being shot.

I like how Happah believes that everyone in the world but him is a fool, and that he doesn't understand why so many people don't believe his perfectly sane and logical theories and comments.

Mr. Anderson, have you ever entertained the notion that perhaps the reason SO MANY PEOPLE disagree with you is because your theories are not as sound and reasonable as you have led yourself to believe? Have you ever wondered why your beliefs and concepts are always OVERWHELMINGLY disagreed upon, no matter which venue you choose to espouse them?

Another query: how is it that you are able to see incorporeal "Yin Limbs" in photographic representations of individuals? Claiming to see them in real life is one thing, but how are chemical and digital facsimiles of real people able to reproduce this phenomena?

Also... do you really believe that Aristotle's teachings are no longer relevant due to their classical nature (i.e., being very old)? Do you not believe that they still have some value in today's society? If TheRuss had espoused the teachings of 21st century philosophers in regards to rhetoric, would you have felt the same way as you did about Aristotle's teachings?

Alright, the face is asymmetrical - things that could be easily fixed would be his smirk and his hair. Things that are part of the skeletal aspects of his face are his eyebrows, his cheekbones, his nose, and his ears. Things that are part of the muscular "resting point" of his face are his eyelids and the tilt of the entire head.

You gave me a picture of the most symmetrical face you have ever seen, and I also showed how that face was asymmetrical. So, unless you know of someone with a perfectly symmetrical face I think it can be said that ALL people are in some way asymmetrical. What is the point?

Slow aren't we? The point is masturbation will make you asymmetric. Now that you have said you can see asymmetry, did you ever think of applying that skill to people who are masturbating? Then you could either prove or disprove my claim that maturbation makes people asymmetric.

I like how Happah believes that everyone in the world but him is a fool, and that he doesn't understand why so many people don't believe his perfectly sane and logical theories and comments.

Mr. Anderson, have you ever entertained the notion that perhaps the reason SO MANY PEOPLE disagree with you is because your theories are not as sound and reasonable as you have led yourself to believe?

Nope. When you get older, you will find that 99% of hte people in the world are either stupid, or they are liars. Why would anyone listen to stupids or liars?


Have you ever wondered why your beliefs and concepts are always OVERWHELMINGLY disagreed upon, no matter which venue you choose to espouse them?

No.


Another query: how is it that you are able to see incorporeal "Yin Limbs" in photographic representations of individuals? Claiming to see them in real life is one thing, but how are chemical and digital facsimiles of real people able to reproduce this phenomena?

I will tell you something that will fly right over your head, but the people that collect what I write to learn from it will probably get it.

If your finger is cut off, and someone said they could see your finger moving, would they be lying? Your finger is not there. It was cut off and thrown in the trash. So how could they see your finger moving? They must be lying right?

Not really. How does you finger move? The muscles of your hand move the finger. If your finger is cut off, can the muscles of your hand still move? Sure. What would happen if the muscles of your hand tried to move your finger? The muscles of your hand would make the exact movements they make to move your finger. The only real difference is that your finger is not there to move.

Do you get it? I see the muscles in your hand move, and extrapolate the movement of your finger. I don't have to see your finger. I know what your finger must be doing, based on the movements of the muscles of your hands.

I can see Yin arms, because I can see the movements of the.......stub muscles where they attach to the body.

Someone somewhere is going to be jumping up and down about that description. I like to be mysterious because it is fun and it keeps the bad guys from stealing too much. When people like you demand straight answers, and I provide one like the one above, now the bad guys know. No telling what nefarious purposes they will put the knowledge to.




Also... do you really believe that Aristotle's teachings are no longer relevant due to their classical nature (i.e., being very old)? Do you not believe that they still have some value in today's society? If TheRuss had espoused the teachings of 21st century philosophers in regards to rhetoric, would you have felt the same way as you did about Aristotle's teachings?

I don't care about Aritstotle. It is a side argument for someone interested in that subject. It has no bearing on this discussion.

This discussion is about physically observable phenomenon related to the effects of masturbation on the human body, and the possible explanations for the phenomenon. It is not about Greek philosophers.

As much fun as I've had with him, I think the monkey with his cup and the organ grinder have finally played through all of their songs. We've finally come full circle to:

Happeh: Asymmetry is bad.

Us: How is asymmetry bad?

Happeh: Assymetry is bad.
Danny and Avenger both. Why are you lying? I never refused to say why Asymmetry is bad. If I really didn't say, it was because it seem so obvious.

If you go get in your car, and you have two good tires and two bad tires, your car is asymmetric. Is it good that your car is asymmetric, or bad? It is hard to drive a car with two flat tires, so an asymmetric car is bad.

If you have two eyes, and asymmetry causes one to go blind, is that bad? Most people would say yes. If Asymmetry limits the movements of one of your arms and one of your legs, is that bad? Most people would say limping and having limited arm movement are bad.

Why do you insist on being stupid? I really don't get it. Why would it be bad for us to have a real informational discussion about all of this? What do you fear is going to happen, if we sit around like friendly people who are working together to solve a problem?

I know what I think it is. World Domination trained you that cooperating with other people is for losers. They trained you that only faggots are friendly with each other. They taught you that showing your intelligence will get you jumped, so now you are afraid to show your intelligence.

The only way to throw off their control is to throw it off. You will have to deal with the pain that comes with it. All the other people who are afraid to throw off the control of World Domination will try to hold you back with them, like drowning people trying to take you under.

I will even help you throw off World Domination. The next time someone calls you a ******? Look them right in the face and say "No thank you. I am flattered, but I like girls". That's it. It is that easy. What can they say? "No. I am calling you a ******!". Then you say "Nope. That is not me. I don't suck dick. I don't take it in the butt. I don't put it in the butt. Sorry. I am not a ******".

If you look people right in the face when they are trying to put evil on you, and you matter of factly refute that evil, they lose. It is the way the world works. One of the rules of the universe.