• @jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    12
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The only issue I have with your last statement is your arguments are not logically consistent.

    A lot of your responses have been emotional, appealing to feelings, rather than a cohesive interconnected philosophical framework that’s internally consistent. And that’s fine, just don’t assume I’m responding in the same way.

    • @SirToxicAvenger@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -201 year ago

      yep, I’m an aspiring politician - or perhaps faith leader. it’s basically the same thing - lying to the proles. one needs to learn to appeal to the common man/woman/whatever. the need to find meaning of existence. the need to know what we do matters - that the individual matters. the need to be significant, or be seen as contributing to that significance - it’s accumulation of social credit. an appeal to emotion - and yes, to feelings. feelings existed before language - and language existed before religion, but only just. tapping into that power is the only magic that truly exists

      no, it’s quite all right - you respond how you respond. how you’ve been shaped to respond ;)

      • @mriormro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        181 year ago

        Christ, you’ve used a whole lot of words to say a bunch of nothing throughout this whole comment chain. This is the kind of high school nihilism that used to spew out 4chan.