Is Nationalism A Good Thing?

Ah, is that what you think you were doing?

But thanks for affirming its not about a lack of time that you refrain from explaining. Its about you (conveniently) deeming it an unworthy effort.

 

And you putting words in his mouth. We all speak a different language, talking in defense.

 

You are being rather unfair on me there Asmodean.
But you know how it is.
One logs on to the computer, checks E. Mails and all sorts of other stuff.
Then perhaps a look in the forum.
On and off there are quite a few threads I try to contribute to, including this one.
But one thing leads to another and before you know it there can easily be an hour or two gone.
Not good for my heath and well being as I am always mindful of sitting here on my arse for too long.
So please feel very honoured if I have given you this very valuable time I will never get back in my life.

I am not meaning to be ignorant towards either you or anyone who has also taken the time to post in this thread I started.

So regarding giving time?
I am trying.
Honest I am!

 

Well put.
I see at least you can see the woods from the trees Wool.
Thank you.

 

I'm a navy brat, and grew up surrounded by warriors. When we forget who we are fighting for, we become our own worst enemy, and anything that contributes to the normal confusion is not welcome. Warriors can agree to disagree, try to speak their peace, or speak the words of war. Wannabe lawyers debate the meaning of war and peace, so warriors use them as cannon fodder.

 

Very wise words there wool.
Thank you.

 

I rephrased his words to make apparent what's the crux. It's his willingness (or lack there of) to spend time on it. Not the actual lack of time (as we can also see in plenty of his other posts he does spend time on).
It's pretty clear he's not here to converse in depth about this subject (he prefers others to do that so he can state agree- or disagreement). Which is ok, but then its also fair and even good to point out he's excusing himself at first with a bogus motive.
In his last response on that he's more clear, and it does not conflict with my assertion

 

Philosophers have assertions, people have issues.

 

Philosophers are people.

 

Philosopher debate that.

 

Irrelevant

 

They contest that as well.

 

All of them? Doubt it. But I for one applaud their efforts any way.

 

All of them, trust me, I've been booted off just about every academic website open to the public. Despite quantum mechanics and linguistic analysis being a century old, they still cling to classical bullshit and debate the definition of the word dictionary. Richard Dawkins even invented his own nonsense word "meme", encouraging millions to babble nonsensically, in the name of science, reason, and survival of the fittest atheist. Nobody ever said the military-industrial complex promoted intelligence.

 

Thanks for clarifying how you reached your conclusion. Certain other persons could learn from it :-D

 

When they discover they are arguing with bots, that can easily imitate their nonsense, and that they can be replaced with a cheap microprocessor, we shall see how they reach their conclusions. Perhaps then, academics might learn what it means to know the truth, instead of mindlessly debating the truth.

 

^ this post made me wonder if Woo is a bot.

Then I thought, well no he probably isn't.. But just imagine how weird it would be to find out a regular user on here was.

 

AI chatbots aren't quite at the point where it could interpret a multiple sentence post on a forum and post a rational response yet.

So yeah. Wooleeheran is probably a bot.

 

More like a biological computer.

 

IF one of the regular users on here would be a bot it would definitely be Wu Lee