Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Joey wrote:
Well I quite enjoy being on bridges that don't collapse.

Well, why do you need a bridge? People got along fine without them.

Huh, there must have been some underlying desire to improve their ability to travel.


I guess mathematics made them do it.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Well I quite enjoy being on bridges that don't collapse.

Well, why do you need a bridge? People got along fine without them.

Huh, there must have been some underlying desire to improve their ability to travel.


I guess mathematics made them do it.

Bridges save time.
Time taken to go from point a to point b without a bridge=3 days
Time taken to go from point a to point b WITH a bride=2 hours
Plus economic bonus from goods/services moving from a to b and, yeah.

Joey wrote:
Bridges save time.
Time taken to go from point a to point b without a bridge=3 days
Time taken to go from point a to point b WITH a bride=2 hours
Plus economic bonus from goods/services moving from a to b and, yeah.

Why would they want to save time?

Really though, I can do this forever.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Bridges save time.
Time taken to go from point a to point b without a bridge=3 days
Time taken to go from point a to point b WITH a bride=2 hours
Plus economic bonus from goods/services moving from a to b and, yeah.

Why would they want to save time?

Really though, I can do this forever.

Yeah arguing with "philosophers" is pointless. They'll just take what you said and put a question mark on the end.
"If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."

Alright, let me put it this way.

For someone going on about the irrelevance of life and how time is fleeting, you're wasting an awful lot of time.

You continue to make statements about philosophy that you can't provide non-philosophical evidence for.

This is inane. Fun, definitely; I'm having a great time. But still, completely and utterly inane.

Nerivant wrote:Alright, let me put it this way.

For someone going on about the irrelevance of life and how time is fleeting, you're wasting an awful lot of time.

I'm drunk and have nothing better to do. Tomorrow I will be sober and have nothing better to do, but I will have a woman harassing me with things to do.

Nerivant wrote:
You continue to make statements about philosophy that you can't provide non-philosophical evidence for.

Because YOU are making up on the spot what is "philosophical" by virtue of it being whatever the feth you want it to be.

Nerivant wrote:
This is inane. Fun, definitely; I'm having a great time. But still, completely and utterly inane.

There is no nobler raison d'être than the pursuit of pleasure.

Joey wrote:
Because YOU are making up on the spot what is "philosophical" by virtue of it being whatever the feth you want it to be.

I could say the exact same to your claims of what is not philosophical.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Because YOU are making up on the spot what is "philosophical" by virtue of it being whatever the feth you want it to be.

I could say the exact same to your claims of what is not philosophical.

Nothing is anything unless it is proved so, no you can't.

Joey wrote:
Nothing is anything unless it is proved so, no you can't.

Prove it.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Nothing is anything unless it is proved so, no you can't.

Prove it.

I don't know if you're impetulant or just trolling me. I don't really care either way.

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Nothing is anything unless it is proved so, no you can't.

Prove it.

I don't know if you're impetulant or just trolling me. I don't really care either way.

Impetulant? Do you mean impetuous? Impertinent?

And no, I'm not trolling. You continue to extol the requirement of evidence while providing no evidence for your claims.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Nothing is anything unless it is proved so, no you can't.

Prove it.

I don't know if you're impetulant or just trolling me. I don't really care either way.

Impetulant? Do you mean impetuous? Impertinent?

And no, I'm not trolling. You continue to extol the requirement of evidence while providing no evidence for your claims.

Apparently "impetulant" is not a word.
I'm bored now and it's half 4 in the morning so i'm going to bed.
Peace.

'Night. Hopefully the hangover is somewhat... manageable.

spam post

Every time I open the OT, this thread has a new post in it.

Madness I say, madness!

Joey wrote:
Those questions were supposed to be examples of why questions are pointless.

I know what you intended, my point is that its telling that the supplied questions each had clear, and relevant purposes with respect to the fields you're putting on pedestals.

Joey wrote:
Throwing words at something doesn't prove a point. I may well come across as a dick but unless something can be explained in logical axioms, I don't buy it.

That's all well and good, but logic is central to modern philosophy, so I'm wondering at what you're really complaining about.

Joey wrote:
No, people wander the planet with chemicals telling them what to do. Those chemicals are a mixture of genetics and environment. There really isn't much more to human nature.

I agree, for the most part, but that doesn't preclude the self. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Well damn, that was a very interesting, if a tad long, read.

I thank you all and return to the spectators stand.

A variety of off topic, spam filled and thoroughly unsuitable for this site posts removed. Please remember that the normal site rules do still aplly in the OT board as well.

Well....doesn't philosophy challenge another to prove them wrong? Without philosophy would we have come up with laws? Doesn't philosophy kick offa sceintific approach? I know I'm out the league here but curious. "cringing" incase the MOD gives this the ole arterial bleed

Well. I'm back from the Banhammer. I'm sporting a excruciating hangover. I honestly feel a tad BA. It's almost like the Mod team erases all evidence of me. Like i'm a taint,a cancer that can only be cured by Bolter and Chainsword.

Well to resurrect my thread. I plan on going a hike around the Terrace Area of BC. Because I love the forest. Even more in wintertime. Which leads me to ask.

Why on Midgard is trail mix so damn salty? I'm almost positive it would just be better to backpack it with a sandwich and you're canteen.

I would presume that it's salty because a lot of people tend to crave salt after long periods of exertion. I certainly do.

Because the people who are hired to package them have nut fetishes, and tend to give in to their urges during work.

Salt...Salt...

I personally go for a Ice cold -tall- glass of coke'o cola. Although I know for a fact there is salt in that.

Locked for a thoroughly pointless necro.

This is not a blog, or your live journal.