Colbert Nails Author of The Purpose Driven Life

[joobz]

Other people here aren't as rude, although I hope it becomes a trend.
This is a puzzling statement. What trend do you wish to create?

[Foster Zygote]

This is a puzzling statement. What trend do you wish to create?

I get the impression that he's in "last word mode". He seems to feel that if he can just keep denying that he could be wrong he can declare himself correct, despite the fact that he has presented no convincing evidence in his favor and has ignored evidence that contradicts his claim. I find what he chooses not to respond to far more telling than what he does respond to.

[articulett]

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome
In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.

[Foster Zygote]

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome
In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.

Very interesting. What is the source, or is that yours? I've observed that such types may begin by defending a pet idea, but after a while I often get the impression that the subject of the argument is less important than the act of argument itself (although is such cases "conflict" might be a more accurate term than "argument"). This also suggests a reason for the constant movement of the goalpost as a means of keeping the conflict in motion. I've previously discussed the idea that some people seem to debate in a very adversarial manner and view any admission of error as a sign of weakness. But in my experience the refusal to admit error, or even the possibility of error, in the face of strong evidence is the real sign of weakness.

[articulett]

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620

I understand most people here just fine. I understand you, very well, FZ. And I've gotten into the same twilight zone conversations with SirPhillip. The people I think are the most coherent and eloquent seem to have the same conversational snafus with him that I have. I think pugilistic discussion syndrome explains it.

Some people are trying to win points in some game in their head by giving (what they feel) is a logical response to anything that negates what they are saying (usually, nobody but they are clear as to what their point is anyhow... but it usually has something to do with them being right about something and everyone else being full of crap.) These people have the compounding personality flaw of anosognosia--they are not able to realize that it's themselves who are responsible for their communication problems... not everyone else as they imagine.

They tend to be terribly rude and exhibit vigilantism while never really saying anything and becoming inordinately offended when the ad homs come back at them. I usually put them on ignore and think of formosa's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formosa's_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formosa%27s_law)

When someone's favorite poster seems to be themselves... chances are they have the syndrome. And yes, they never admit error... :)

(I've noticed that these "types" are the least likely forum members to admit error, apologize, or applaud another poster... while pretending to be humble and calling everyone else arrogant.)

[Ichneumonwasp]

Oh, now you're just being argumentative, Articulett.:)

Hey, when did you get to be a vixen? I want to be a vixen. Well, maybe not a vixen, but a roadwarrior on the information superhighway sort of thing, perhaps. Or a hedgehog in the furrows of the mind. Or, maybe, oh never mind.........

[articulett]

Oh, now you're just being argumentative, Articulett.:)

Hey, when did you get to be a vixen? I want to be a vixen. Well, maybe not a vixen, but a roadwarrior on the information superhighway sort of thing, perhaps. Or a hedgehog in the furrows of the mind. Or, maybe, oh never mind.........

You have to find the secret thread of the title pixies and ply them with flattery...

(Frankly, I've always been a vixen... it's just that jref has been slow in recognizing it. :p)

[articulett]

Oh, now you're just being argumentative, Articulett.:)

Hey, when did you get to be a vixen? I want to be a vixen. Well, maybe not a vixen, but a roadwarrior on the information superhighway sort of thing, perhaps. Or a hedgehog in the furrows of the mind. Or, maybe, oh never mind.........

You have to find the secret thread of the title pixies and ply them with flattery...

(Frankly, I've always been a vixen... it's just that jref has been slow in recognizing it. :p)

[zeusbheld]

At least the author is out there trying to do some good instead of wasting his time typing on an Internet forum which will be read by .00002% of the population.

and probably doing a lot more harm than good by doing so.

[SirPhilip]

I get the impression.. If you can't write mature responses, I'll make an exhibition of it. So don't think that I don't bow immediately, it's a requirement. The constructive criticism (http://www.neurontic.com/2006/07/semen-its-better-than-cats.html) isn't invalid at all. Debunking it makes no sense, however, as it is entirely reasonable to assume this probably happens. You reject this altogether for no reason and cannot explain yourself.

Want me to correct the Wikipedia article for you?

[SirPhilip]

(What is with the server today?)

I understand most people here just fine. If exchanges were treated as a discipline where rules are followed, then argumentativeness wouldn't exist. You don't have to follow any rules, though. If you are mature enough to follow them, you have license to goad, mock and taunt those that don't. You recall your well-intentioned exchanges with Claus, don't you? He isn't aware he just attempts to justify what he doesn't like. Of course, you learned this the frustrating way. Similarly, Foster thinks he's reasonably debunking or invalidating what I stated, when anyone can Google it and see why this is not unreasonable at all to accept, but inane on his part to debunk.

[SirPhilip]

They tend to be terribly rude and exhibit vigilantism while never really saying anything and becoming inordinately offended when the ad homs come back at them. I usually put them on ignore and think of formosa's law. Ah, Formosa's "Law":

"Internet and in real life, to seek amusement by ridiculing people who spout bogus nonsense or engage in silly behavior, on the basis that they have effectively invited this ridicule by their own overt behavior, usually some combination of stupidity, hypocrisy, and pomposity, but in any case behavior that they presumably have control over."

It goes on to say:

"...Formosa's law states that if someone's weird behavior is caused by an actual pathology, it is inappropriate for others to increase their suffering by adding ridicule. Instead, ridicule should be reserved for people who know better than to engage in their improper conduct."

So something here reminds you of someone laughing at a disabled person..

[Foster Zygote]

If you can't write mature responses, I'll make an exhibition of it.
I'm perfectly happy to have our exchanges, including your frequent use of insult, stand in the public record.

So don't think that I don't bow immediately, it's a requirement.
What?

The constructive criticism (http://www.neurontic.com/2006/07/semen-its-better-than-cats.html) isn't invalid at all.
That is referring to the same flawed study that is still your only source. How about some research that has been published in peer reviewed journals? And I take it that you admit that you were in error when you stated that the subject was beyond medical science, as you are now trying to justify your claims scientifically.

Debunking it makes no sense, however, as it is entirely reasonable to assume this probably happens.
The assumption is no more reasonable than the assumption that rhino horn is a valid treatment for human erectile dysfunction.

You reject this altogether for no reason and cannot explain yourself.
I have explained myself.

1. There is no convincing scientific evidence supporting your claim. In fact there is scientific evidence refuting your claim. This has been presented to you yet you have chosen to ignore it.

2. The evidence that you have tried to present as scientific support, despite also claiming that the matter is not subject to scientific scrutiny, comes from a single highly suspect source.

3. Your claim that science will verify your claims in the future, despite claiming that the matter is not subject to scientific scrutiny, is irrelevant. It is no more valid an argument than claiming that rhino horn will one day be proved to cure erectile dysfunction and it is a tacit admission that you currently have no evidence.

4. "I think it works" does not meet any scientific standard of evidence. There are known psychological reasons why people might think something works when in fact the effect is psychosomatic. Thus there is a very real likelihood that it only "works" because you expect it to work.

Want me to correct the Wikipedia article for you?
For me? Where do you think this whole "correct the Wikipedia article" thing is supposed to go?

[SirPhilip]

Doublepost.

[Foster Zygote]

Foster thinks he's reasonably debunking or invalidating what I stated, when anyone can Google it and see why this is not unreasonable at all to accept, but inane on his part to debunk.
Anyone can Google to find the same poorly conducted study that is the only source that you have presented. And anyone can Google to find the article criticizing that study that you once accidentally included as supporting your claim. Several people have stated that they find your claims to be poorly supported, it isn't just me.

[SirPhilip]

For me? Where do you think this whole "correct the Wikipedia article" thing is supposed to go? For you, and cookies as well. We'll also take a step back for a moment and change the situation: I'll bow.

I'll also clean up the Wikipedia article. What do you want me to say when I'm countered that it is already known to contain several components which do in fact effect mood (and sharply varying levels could certainly be assumed to have a noticeable effect), what these studies suggest is understudied, but clearly valid, and removing it makes no sense. Unless of course, I'd rather that not be the case.

Well?

[joobz]

I reserve the right to treat anyone who wastes my time rudely. Other people here aren't as rude, although I hope it becomes a trend.
I again ask, What trend do you wish to create?

[Foster Zygote]

For you, and cookies as well. We'll also take a step back for a moment and change the situation: I'll bow.

I'll also clean up the Wikipedia article. What do you want me to say when I'm countered that it is already known to contain several components which do in fact effect mood (and sharply varying levels could certainly be assumed to have a noticeable effect), what these studies suggest is understudied, but clearly valid, and removing it makes no sense. Unless of course, I'd rather that not be the case.

Well?

Ah yes, I see. You are convinced that if I add a comment that the paragraph regarding the antidepressant qualities of semen is based on a single, suspect study and that it should be treated accordingly that droves of people will march on my location with torches and farm implements and validate you.

Be my guest: Mention that the single study cited has received criticism for its sloppy methodology and see what sort of "backlash" results.

BTW, what you are presently doing by citing the Wiki article and the others is an appeal to authority. You aren't saying it's correct based on the facts, you are saying it's correct because it's printed in Wikipedia.

[joobz]

BTW, what you are presently doing by citing the Wiki article and the others is an appeal to authority. You aren't saying it's correct based on the facts, you are saying it's correct because it's printed in Wikipedia.
It's curious to focus on that wiki article. The quality of some wiki articles are great, but others tend to be a less so.

From that wiki article discussion page:

OH COME ON PEOPLE!! MY FRIENDS AND I HAVE BEING JOKING ABOUT THIS PAGE FOR NEARLY A YEAR! I HONESTLY CANNOT BELIEVE THIS PICTURE STILL HASN'T BEEN DELETED!!!
and when you read through the edit history section, it becomes obvious that that page is still not quite up to a reliable standard.

[SirPhilip]

Anyone can Google to find the same poorly conducted study that is the only source that you have presented. And anyone can Google to find the article criticizing that study that you once accidentally included as supporting your claim. Several people have stated that they find your claims to be poorly supported, it isn't just me. They suggest what some of us already know, it happens all the time. Both studies certainly aren't an argument. I did declare a positive however, the justification being direct experience. Since it is simple to validate, I broke no rule, just a different situation. Perhaps that's where you misunderstood (..looking at the mess below) although I don't forgive you.

The two studies just suggest a correlation exists. Why do you find this so difficult to grasp, or so important to completely invalidate?

[joobz]

They suggest what some of us already know, it happens all the time. Both studies certainly aren't an argument. I did declare a positive however, the justification being direct experience. Since it is simple to validate, I broke no rule, just a different situation. Perhaps that's where you misunderstood (..looking at the mess below) although I don't forgive you.

The two studies just suggest a correlation exists. Why do you find this so difficult to grasp, or so important to completely invalidate?
Um, if you are refering to the fact that after ejaculation, men are tired...that's hardly proof that there's "Something in the semen".

[Foster Zygote]

They suggest what some of us already know, it happens all the time. Both studies certainly aren't an argument.
Both studies? Everything you have provided has led back to a single study.

I did declare a positive however, the justification being direct experience.
Your direct experience does not meet any scientific standard of evidence. There are other possible explanations for your experiences that you must address given the fact that medical evidence contradicts your claim. You keep ignoring the fact that millions of people think that rhino horn will give a man an erection. Many of them believe this based on personal experience. Do you agree with them?

Since it is simple to validate, I broke no rule, just a different situation.
Could you clarify? Are you claiming that your personal experience meets the scientific standard of evidence.

Perhaps that's where you misunderstood (..looking at the mess below) although I don't forgive you.
Forgive me? You really are comically arrogant.

The two studies just suggest a correlation exists.
One study. Unless you are including your personal experience, which is even less reliable than the Gallup/Burch/Platek study.

Why do you find this so difficult to grasp, or so important to completely invalidate?
I have no difficulty grasping that you have provided poor supporting evidence and that the reluctance of others to accept your claims based on such a shoddy defense has resulted in your emotional frustration. I have no difficulty grasping that you have completely ignored evidence that contradicts your claim. I have no difficulty grasping that you have a poor understanding of logic and the scientific method in general, as evidenced by your arguments regarding semen, your pop-culture misunderstanding of the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, your confusion of correlation and causation, your incorrect definition of the argument from authority etc.

This is a skeptical forum. If it bothers you to have your ideas challenged and your errors exposed then you might be in the wrong place. For me, those are among the reasons I am a member here.

This is obviously going to go around and around and around, with you re-stating the same arguments and ignoring the counter evidence. You can try to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring if you like, but I'm tired of repeating myself. If you can present any new evidence or address any of the four points I previously made (and repeated) then I will be happy to respond. Otherwise I have nothing further to say on the subject.

[Wheezebucket]

Zygote, you're wasting your time, man. He's just going to keep ignoring your arguments and then take more lame jabs. I just read this whole thread and I think there's plenty of pages here to show he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Let him have the last, sad word if it means that much to him. Who knows, maybe he'll use it to actually provide some evidence.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to devour some rhino horn and get my groove on.

[slingblade]

Or the opposite, if you actually think.

Foster remarked that your posts are often considered "word salad."

The above quote was your reply to him, and to us. You reply is in tragic error.

I do think. When reading your posts, what I most often think is "what?" This indicates the reader's confusion, which springs from the lack of clarity of expression within your posts.

In other words, you are trying far too hard to sound erudite. This effort is harming your arguments, whatever they may be. You would do well, or at least do better, if you could simply say what you want to say without the use of the $50 words, the chronic misplacement of commas, and the convoluted syntax.

Note, please, that I am not criticising your arguments. One would first have to be able to figure them out in order to do so; I am criticising your manner of expression, which is confusing at the least, and deliberately, antagonistically obfuscating at most.

Just spit it out, man! Stop with the fancy and the frilly. Plain speech is called for, most strenuously.


Do heed the call.

[SirPhilip]

Um, if you are refering to the fact that after ejaculation, men are tired...that's hardly proof that there's "Something in the semen". It contains mood altering components but the primary factor being testosterone. What do you think happens when that fluctuates? The fatigue is due to one's system being thrown out of equilibrium. It is normally negligible, but dramatic for those whose system has adjusted to training that way. If I completely threw it out of my system, I would literally be knocked on my face for the day, I wish quite often it was a placebo effect.

This is completely reasonable to assume from a medical standpoint, although the context is really different. You and Foster are welcome to go two weeks completely abstinent. It's the most obnoxious sensation known to man.

[SirPhilip]

Just spit it out, man! Stop with the fancy and the frilly. Plain speech is called for, most strenuously. Do heed the call. I see you've discovered I force you to think. Like jumping to conclusions without explanation and letting you figure it out, right? It's a noise gate, as frequently those who respond don't think at all.

[zeusbheld]

what was the topic again? just sayin'.

[joobz]

It contains mood altering components but the primary factor being testosterone. What do you think happens when that fluctuates? The fatigue is due to one's system being thrown out of equilibrium. It is normally negligible, but dramatic for those whose system has adjusted to training that way. If I completely threw it out of my system, I would literally be knocked on my face for the day, I wish quite often it was a placebo effect.

This is completely reasonable to assume from a medical standpoint, although the context is really different. You and Foster are welcome to go two weeks completely abstinent. It's the most obnoxious sensation known to man.
Actually, it isn't reasonable to assume that at all because what is ejaculated was not participating in the brain chemistry. it's like a gasoline tanker. Sure the truck is running on gas, but that gas that it is transporting in the tanker isn't used at all for the engine that is transporting it. It's in a seperate compartment entirely.

Now, Medical science is fairly convinced that the refractory period post ejactulation (The feeling of being tired after sex) isn't a result of a decrease in a blood chemical, but is in fact a result of an INCREASE in a chemical called prolactin.

http://www.nature.com/ijir/journal/v14/n2/full/3900823a.html
It was found that multi-orgasmic men do not have a serum release of prolactin. It's what prevents them from feeling that tiredness that most men feel after sex.

[SirPhilip]

Zygote, you're wasting your time, man. He's just going to keep ignoring your arguments and then take more lame jabs. I just read this whole thread and I think there's plenty of pages here to show he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Let him have the last, sad word if it means that much to him. Who knows, maybe he'll use it to actually provide some evidence. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to devour some rhino horn and get my groove on. You just read this whole thread. Well, I hold reading comprehension classes if you'd like to join Foster, Joobz, Articulett and others treated rudely for noise pollution. They aren't popular, and the cookies are smacked away in unanimous preference of me to be wrong, dishonest or something instead.

[articulett]

What isn't popular?-- your reading comprehension classes or Joobz, FZ, and I?

Preference of? Or preference for?

When you go back and read what you wrote does it make coherent sense to you? Would you be able to sum up what this conversation is about... and the general gist of each of your posts? Is Slingblade on your list of enemies too? What is main point you are trying to communicate in this thread?

[SirPhilip]

What isn't popular?-- your reading comprehension classes or Joobz, FZ, and I? Preference of? Or preference for? Clearly the reading comprehension classes.

[SirPhilip]

Actually, it isn't reasonable to assume that at all because what is ejaculated was not participating in the brain chemistry. it's like a gasoline tanker. Aptly written and concise response. Is that so much to ask? No errors in reasoning either, and could explain why fatigue is considerably less when retained. Keep in mind we have two situations here. One is which everyone is familiar, the other is very uncommon. It is very unlikely prolactin alone at least from what I can tell offhand, is responsible for the acute antagonization that occurs when this process is reversed. The 'mood lift' is more or less synonymous in character with adrenaline and testosterone fluctuations.

With that said, a study monitoring prolactin and testosterone levels would definitely be in order.

[Robin]

Just curious - but what Old Testament laws are trying to be imposed on you? And is it the laws or the laws and the punishments that are trying to being imposed on you?
The laws of each of the other cultures mentioned are mercifully and rightly consigned to the dustbin of history.

The Christian churches representing the majority of Christians in the world are insisting that these books are the word of God.

Some senior figures in Australia'a state religion wants to move us closer to these laws. A regular columnist in Australia's largest broadsheet newspaper suggested that if our new Prime Minister really was a Christian as he claimed, then he would consult the Bible before making any decisions about making laws. He specifically mentioned Leviticus.

So are western democracies in imminent danger of introducing the death penalty for gays? No.

But is it fair to target the ancient Judaic laws over the laws of surrounding cultures?

While people still insist they are the inerrant word of God then it is absolutely fair.

[Wheezebucket]

For someone who has no idea how to use a comma you sure think very highly of yourself, Sir. Maybe one day you'll stop trying to convince us all of how smart you are and just answer a question or two honestly and directly.

[arthwollipot]

what was the topic again? just sayin'.Not sure. I lost track some time ago. Want some popcorn?
:popcorn1

[joobz]

Not sure. I lost track some time ago. Want some popcorn?
:popcorn1
Do you need extra, um, butter?

[Foster Zygote]

For someone who has no idea how to use a comma you sure think very highly of yourself, Sir. Maybe one day you'll stop trying to convince us all of how smart you are and just answer a question or two honestly and directly.

I wonder if he teaches a class on quantum superposition too.

[Foster Zygote]

Do you need extra, um, butter?

You'll go straight to Hell for that. Of course, you'll be able to eat all the popcorn you want as they show Short Circuit on an infinite loop.

[Wheezebucket]

I'm pretty sure that's Heaven you're referring to. And not just because Short Circuit has the guy from Hackers in it...

...but mostly because of that.

[SirPhilip]

I wonder if he teaches a class on quantum superposition too. Now you can forget that. How am I supposed to explain quantum superposition to people who want to think I use commas incorrectly or I don't answer honestly or directly.

[SirPhilip]

For someone who has no idea how to use a comma you sure think very highly of yourself, Sir. Maybe one day you'll stop trying to convince us all of how smart you are and just answer a question or two honestly and directly. Flattery appreciated, but my actual concern is I'm never direct enough, and being interested in language it's reflected in how overly compact I write (often to the point of quirk, as others have noted). Smart people can actually tell that by the way.

[Foster Zygote]

Now you can forget that. How am I supposed to explain quantum superposition to people who want to think I use commas incorrectly or I don't answer honestly or directly.

You don't use commas correctly. And quantum superposition does not state that we are simultaneously alive and dead, as you claimed. Irwin Schrödinger himself expressed bemusement that some, like yourself, had reached that conclusion.

[billiefan2000]

purpose driven life and you best life now

= sequels to the prayer of Jabez garbage that we all see a few years back

(i.e. new-age junk and tony robbins knockoff self-help books


http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?cat=21

[SirPhilip]

You don't use commas correctly. I could, but they serve better conversational and narrative stops, so there.

And quantum superposition does not state that we are simultaneously alive and dead, as you claimed. Something which is alive is observed distinct from being dead in that it has self-arising volition, or more fundamentally, movement. If all possible matter states (perhaps as information, conceptually you could use bits) exist, no forward movement in time would occur. You would have a bounded, static omniverse. Since we are made of matter, essentially reducible to information, and an intractable quality that allows self-movement, we are in fact really neither dead or alive. Either conceptualization has it's parallels to some human experience, an excellent illustration of this contrast was depicted in the Terminator films.

Irwin Schrödinger himself expressed bemusement that some, like yourself, had reached that conclusion. Probably because his experiments simply involved finite matter interaction, and didn't actually address anything philosophical. It did however provide a valid analogy.

[Foster Zygote]

Either conceptualization has it's parallels to some human experience, an excellent illustration of this contrast was depicted in the Terminator films.

Thanks, that made my day.

[SirPhilip]

Thanks, that made my day. You're welcome.

(I'll be back..)