Interesting and Humour - page 4065
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
It would be possible to discuss Freud, to argue, but for that you should read at least three books of Freud and understand what is written there. As a rule, Freud's critics have not read Freud himself, but have read only some other critics, and at most three pages of Freud himself have been read. What is interesting, there are no substantive objections from Freud's critics, just one record - "Freud is bad" and that's it. Even those critics who have written some work can clearly see that they haven't studied everything in Freud's works and don't fully understand him.
Every Mozart has his Salieri, and Salieri has a pile of admirers, just like him, resentful of life.
And here what picture is shaped - even got to criticism of Einstein, and dig, so it turns out that are not familiar with the basic premises from which the theory of relativity (and physics itself). But they argue...
And what about when you're a shelf and the answer is you're a fool, and you're a shelf again and the answer is you're a fool. The next time, even a tolerant person will not have the desire to do it again.
In the end you are a fool - you are a fool. So is it worth judging by the bottom line? What's that got to do with the kindergarten?
Yeah...reread the posts that started it all.
I'll take it. I'll try to refrain from unconstructive dialogue.
Respectfully.
In an argument, there is no one who is right. You have a point of view, you can express it, and the other person can express his or her opinion about the matter. People argue because they think that "arguing gives birth to truth," or they try to measure you against your opponents, there are no other options.Dialogue is only dialogue when there is a conversation between people, and when madness is on one's mind and tongue it shows the absence of arguments, shifting to personalities also shows that.
Respectfully.
Not at all. The number of bullshit generators in the world is off the charts, it's stressful as a result. Don't call bullshit an opinion. To have an opinion about something, you must first become familiar with it.
Not at all. The number of bullshit generators in the world is off the charts, it's stressful as a result. Don't call bullshit an opinion.
You understand what is gibberish and what is not from your point of view, so you do not need to think or change your point of view to what is being proposed.
a dog has a point of view that a cat is its enemy, a cat has a point of view that a dog is an enemy and that is true for the most part. but if a cat and a dog live in one house they will be friends and their point of view will be different from the majority and they will not attack each other, chew on their teeth and claw at each other. i think i got the point across.
with respect.
You understand what is delirium and what is not, from your point of view. So you do not need to think or change your point of view to what is being suggested. But someone may have a different point of view and due to their knowledge they understand that something interesting is being said, not necessarily they will change their point of view to what is being suggested, but they may ponder what is being said.
for instance a dog has a point of view that a cat is its enemy, a cat has a point of view that a dog is an enemy and that's true for the most part. But if a cat and a dog live in one house they will be friends and their point of view will be different from the majority and they will not attack each other, chew on their teeth and claw at each other.
Respectfully.
Once again, don't call bullshit a point of view. Don't promote delusional points of view and pressurise the masses. If they don't change their point of view, then let them just get bogged down with their nonsense. There is nothing interesting about delusion. You just don't understand the cause and purpose of these phenomena because you yourself are either a victim or an activist of the same.
Once again, don't call bullshit a point of view. Don't promote delusional points of view and pressurise the masses. If they don't change their point of view, then let them just get on with their nonsense.
I myself will decide what and how I should call it, I have no intention to propagandize anything, let alone prove to anyone that what is nonsense and what is not can only be proven by time or proof of a theory, do not be so critical, I have told you about it.
P.S. and I forgot to write more about reading carefully what a person writes, rather than picking out a phrase from the text, there will be fewer conflicts.With respect.
There are no rightists in an argument. There is a point of view, you can express it and the other person can express his/her point of view. They argue because they think that "truth is born in an argument" or they try to measure each other with their pi ...., there are no other options.Dialogue is only dialogue when there is a conversation between people, but when insanity is on one's mind and tongue it already speaks of the absence of arguments, shifting to personalities also speaks of it. you should not stoop to humiliate an opponent, do not be at his level of development, be higher than the one who calls you names or sends you away, do not give in to provocations.
With respect.
One point. These are different things.
I won't talk to the child on my level. One way or another, I will try to get down to his level, otherwise we just won't get along. And "humiliation" in this case is left out of the picture, it doesn't apply when talking to children.
That's why "being superior" is a very controversial position. I am not above "close friends" or "distant relatives". It's a different frame of reference.
General rules for individual cases is a stick. And in general. An argument is not about finding the truth, it's about solving a problem. Which in fact (in relation to the topic of the dispute) ... well, there's a long way to go.
One point. These are different things.
I won't talk to the child on my level. One way or another, I will try to get down to his level, otherwise we just won't get along. And "humiliation" in this case is left out of the picture, it doesn't apply when talking to children.
That's why "being superior" is a very controversial position. I am not above "close friends" or "distant relatives". It's a different frame of reference.
General rules for private cases are a stick. And in general. An argument is not about finding the truth, it's about solving a problem. Which in fact (in relation to the subject of the dispute)... well, one could write here for a long time.
this is saying that if your interlocutor started insulting you, he has stooped to the level he is at in his development, you don't need to stoop to his level and insult him back, let him amuse himself that he is so super advanced and knows bad words.
With a child, you understand that he is a child, but that does not mean that you have to make pussy with him, children understand everything you say to them without any extra words. Of course, you can't talk about integrals and complex conversion functions with him because he doesn't know them yet, but all words should be understandable, when you start shining with your abstruse words you on the contrary push your opponent away, who needs to rack their brains for a plurality of opinions when there is a diversity of opinions?
Respectfully.
P.S. arguments are not problem solving is a war for a position in life. he does not solve anything, and creates problems that then really have to be solved.