Forum Search
Forum Posts matching all AND Creator is "cody" In all forums :| Author | Message |
|---|
cody
| | #1 posted February 21, 2003 at 12:59am (EST) |
And what changed my mind was a talk with a girl on a bus-ride one day that went on for about an hour. Her arguments were very coherent and made a little more sense than what I'm used to hearing here... on the other hand, it may be easier IRL to accurately put an argument together. | cody
| | #2 posted February 21, 2003 at 12:57am (EST) |
One of the premises of the war is based incorrectly. The idea is that the probability of an attack on American interests would be reduced by a war, when I am prone to suspecting that it would be increased. This begs the question-- what's the point? |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
cody
| | #3 posted February 17, 2003 at 8:43pm (EST) |
Hey, I appreciate it Bill. I really am taking off. I apologize for causing generalized chaos on your site. This should be a good sign for Membership numbers :) |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
cody
| | #4 posted February 15, 2003 at 7:09pm (EST) |
Essentially you are right though, it was a pretty crude comment that I shouldn't have made. | cody
| | #5 posted February 15, 2003 at 7:08pm (EST) |
I agree. I read the post recently and felt kind of disgusted myself. The thing was that I could see what I was trying to say, but I was also seeing that I'd picked a horible way to say it.
I just now went there and deleted it.
Essentially, the method I personally use is much less aggressive than that. I think I originally had decided to tell the kid the most aggressive way possible, just in case he wanted to know, but it became an issue where I was describing a method that's much more aggressive than the one I use, and I suppose I mentioned that I'd used it. I should have re-read the post several times before posting it.
I still suspect my reasonably aggressive method would offend you, but I don't think you'd equate it with rape. Girls I've used it on have always given me positive feed-back, such as "That's the sexiest thing I've ever experienced." The method I described was a ways off from the one I use. But it is legal, it is effective, and even if you used that method it's unlikely to result in any negative feelings in the girl (other than her possibly feeling slutty). I've never had a sexual experience with a girl that the girl regretted, though I've had PLENTY that I regretted...
| cody
| | #6 posted February 15, 2003 at 5:40pm (EST) |
I taught the kid what foreplay was. The idea of getting a woman aroused enough to have sex with you when she didn't want to before.
"It'll turn into a game and she'll get into it and start playing along, willingly, as the steps progress. She knows where it's leading, but as long as you are taking this road, she doesn't mind."
|
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
cody
| | #7 posted February 15, 2003 at 3:31pm (EST) |
Biggles recently brought my attention back around to the fact that I don't want people to stalk me on the internet. In the past I was brazen and bold and didn't care, but these days I realize that I've at times said things that I no longer agree with.
It seems like you can do a "find/change" in the code on the site based on what you did with Phoebe before. I was hoping you could do a find/change from "Cody Dane xxxxx" "Cody xxxxx" and just "xxxxx" to "xxx" or "stevie wonder" or "that dirty bastard" or something along those lines.
I'm also interested in some advice-- I don't know that you are an expert on google, but is there a way to get it to update a particular page in it's server? I mean, can you "submit" a site to google? Because as I understand it you changed SC to un-crawlable a while ago and therefore google will never update it's records on the sight again, correct? |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
cody
| | #8 posted February 15, 2003 at 3:24am (EST) |
I'm leaving SC indefinitely because I no longer believe that there's anyone here with any sense.
I had held out hope for Biggles, specifically, but recently I realized that she is another case like my sister-- an excessive concern with being viewed in a socially positive manner, which has resulted in generalized misunderstandings of her place in the world. Regarding "Being at Oxford"-- It's more than just a University, and the fact that you are there and have done well in certain classes does qualify you to make statements on issues such as the difference between rats and mice. It's my opinion that you'd be well served to develop the confidence to acknowledge where your strengths are and to be comfortable accepting your level of development on an issue instead of continuously down-playing it. Down-playing like that is not a succesful life strategy... people will pretend to respect your modesty, or at the very least you won't offend anyone, but there needs to come a point where you assume the proper role of being able to say something authoritatively. Your professors do this. They will issue more authoritative statements in private conference than they will in a lecture because of the social issues I talked about. I don't want to get into another cause/effect debate, but there is some research suggesting that they were confident and self-assured prior to becoming professors, and that it is these qualities which led them to being succesful researchers. I'm relatively convinced that they didn't grow into those personality traits as they developed professionally... rather, those personality traits were the cause of their professional development, and present from the get-go. You need to accept that you are in a desirable situation and you are reasonably bright, and therefore you out-rank 90% of the population on 90% of issues, and 99% of the population on 100% of issues in your particular field. With time you'll increase that to 99.9%, on up, as you slowly specialize and continue to study, and eventually it is not an excessively ambitious expectation to plan on being the premier researcher (in the world) on a certain subject.
You are kind of like my sister (her being a little older though), in that she is never willing to accept where her strengths are (were?). By continuously down-playing herself in her own mind, she has slowly BECOME that lesser person she envisions herself as. And that's sad in a way.
For me it's been the opposite. I began my life unjustifiably cocky and slowly grew into it by developing as an individual. In some ways being self-confident was an impetus to develop (in cases where I made claims that I really couldn't live up to... (I remember adding 30 pages to one of my plays over two days once because I had once told someone I had written a 90-page play. She wanted to see it. It was only 60.)), and in other cases it allowed me to develop (I was able to begin college at 15 because, "He was so convinced he could do it that I was." (Director of Admissions at my old school.))
Moving on though;
In the past few months I've bickered endlessly about psychological subjects where I was clearly right.
It recently occured to me that, as I suppose some people had been suggesting, there's really no sense in endlessly and perhaps pathologically trying to convince people of what is known to be true by science.
The world's a horrible place. It's filled with foolish people of all sorts-- Much of the population believes in astrology, and religious diseases have infected the minds of over 90% of the American population.
A recent debate over IQ has finally filled in the last piece of the puzzle. It occured to me that what I am trying to do is raise people's IQ's... and that's doomed to fail. If they are sufficiently reasonable, I can convince someone of my point inasmuch as it is true, but this doesn't reflect any sort of fundamental change in their world-understanding or intellect. There are millions of battles that need to occur in people's minds, and I simply can't guide 5 billion people to each of the correct conclusions. People need to get there themselves.
I won't say "they need to learn to get there themselves" because one of the dreary realities I've run into is that (contrary to something I'd told MSG originally), there's really no changing IQ (not increasing it, anyways). Apparently it's more fixed than I'd realized-- you can teach people to do better on the tests with considerable effort, but those gains don't generalize to other tests.
I'm not going to suddenly turn people who are incapable of reasoning through an issue into reasonable people. I may convince them on the particular topic, but my long term goal really is to infect them with some sense, and it ain't gonna happen.
Likewise, I also doubt that I will ever convince people that science proves plenty. Several people have been suggesting, not the least of whom are kristal and dora and even biggles, that science is wrong often. I agree with this premise but encourage people to understand that science, by definition, will always provide the best explanation for something currently available. At it's fronteirs there is some error, but the more basic a scientific conclusion is, the more able you are to say that it is unchanging. Besides, it's the best we have to go off of right now, and if we are to call something "true" for any reason, let it be because science has 'proven' it.
Furthermore, I'm wasting a lot of my time here. It used to be that I felt like I would learn from what people have to say, but over a couple years this has slowly diminished. I'm realizing now that people only very rarely say anything meaningful. Flawed premises and misunderstandings are so rampant in people's minds that little of what they state has merit. This essentially goes for real life, as well, but at least in real life there are social benefits to people.
I mean, that is to say, it's good to have friends. On the internet I am more curious to discover intellectuals to talk with. I always assumed this was why everyone used the internet-- I don't see it as being a good median for friend-making. Poetry-exchanges, perhaps, but nothing more.
The point is though that if I intend to talk with intellectuals about certain issues, this isn't really the place to do it. I guess Ph.D.'s don't sit around and talk on the Net' all day... the reasons are obvious. The forum is the journals, conferences, their departments, etc. That's where it is happening. They don't have a "need" for additional community that is interested in their field-- they are exposed to it already.
At the same time, I suppose there are people on SC, countless even, who know something about something, but apparently for the same reasons that I am learning the hard way not to assert anything about psychology, they have learned the hard way not to assert anything about their chosen fields. I guess everyone learned that everyone else has huge misconceptions about what they study, and that trying to be the person to clear those misconceptions up isn't an effectual or worthwhile pursuit.
It was once said that psychology is the science of common sense. There is more truth to this than I'd ever realized. But the strange thing is, it's common sense that most people never knew. I guess once you know it it becomes common sense because it applies so often in day to day life... the thing about psychology as opposed to biology or another science is that whenever you learn something, you don't need a lab to test out if it's really true or not, you just sit in your chair and think about your life and the lives of people you've known. When I read about perceptual effects, the great thing is that you don't have to have $10,000 in lab equipment to try them... you just need a person, and by lucky coincidence, I am one!
To summarize though-- I was hoping to find somewhere where people would teach and learn, and in the past that was the case here, but anymore I find it to be more accurate that I'm doing a lot of teaching and nobody is doing any learning (rather they are resenting that I have a lot to say, which I figure is people's primary issue with me), and worse still, nobody else is bothering to try to talk about what they know for fear of being resented themselves. I also find that I either have to or decide to become a bastard because people will stonewall without any scientific basis for doing so. It may be a personal flaw but I also get the feeling it is a result of a situation that is going to lead any reasonable person to frustration. I have seen how many people on the internet who are Atheists or Evolutionists or whatever try to convince the brain-washed religious of what is obviously true and scientifically proven. They become so frustrated, so upset... I guess I'll learn from their examples.
So, what I'm saying is, I'm gone. Any ongoing discussions that people want to continue should be done so by e-mailing me at Cody.xxxxx@colorado.edu
Big thoughts require lots of words, and I guess that at the level that I'm thinking about things, it is better to be dealing in journal articles. Especially when they have been carefully reviewed and re-written countless times to make them less likely to offend someone-- which is actually kind of tough, to say something assertive in a post and craft it so it doesn't sound mean. It's an art-form. |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
cody
| | #9 posted February 14, 2003 at 7:32pm (EST) |
I've recently changed my position to anti-war, but, I do still find it necessary to note that we were afraid of Russia... that's why we didn't attack them.
That old situation has little to do with the new one. |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
cody
| | #10 posted February 14, 2003 at 1:01am (EST) |
"I understood US social security savings were all gone. That's pretty fudgeed. So is your deficit."
US Social Security Savings total enough to buy your entire country Kaleb... (I'm not kidding, they are several trillion dollars). Eventually Social Security will run out of money but that's because it's a communistic pyramid scheme. Thankfully our current president is working to allow people to opt out.
The US "deficit" is irrelevant to the state of our economy, it is rather something that has to do only with the business that our government is doing. The deficit could be low or high and it wouldn't have an impact on the economy, though it would have an impact on the governments operations, sure.
Our deficit is high because of September 11th. If you are talking about the "National Debt", I might as well note that this "National Debt" consists primarily of bonds that are in the posession of US citizens, so what it comes down to is that we all owe each other money, or, to put it in Democrat-Speak...
"The poor people who were taken advantage of and bought Bonds from the government (rich people knowing better than to accept the low interest yields), will eventually have to be payed their money. This will be accomplished by increased taxation of the rich."
The point here is just that the national debt just reflects a debt that is owed to the middle and lower class in the form of bonds by the upper class which pays the vast vast majority of US income taxes. When put in this context it's pretty clear that it isn't a major issue, and it's more of a social dilemma than anything.
The communists did infiltrate the country better than many people had thought, and as if stealing from the rich to give to the poor wasn't working well enough for them, they started borrowing from the poor to give to the poor and saying, "Don't worry, we'll get the rich to pay you back later."
|
Next page (only 10 shown here) |
|
- Twitter 
- Facebook 