Beer Virus V

[indyartisan]

I think it may possibly have more to do with his name’s appearance on the Lolita Express guest list. Maybe some people have some dirt on him.

Maybe

 

[IndyDave1776]

Maybe

Depending on one's proclivities gymnastics may be a fair description.

 

[foszoe]

Depending on one's proclivities gymnastics may be a fair description.

Jeff Hardy that bed and whom ever is sleeping in it!

 

[BugI02]

You know, I set across the table from you once....why do you want to do this?

So, you admit you were on the other side!

 

[foszoe]

So, you admit you were on the other side!

Well I considered myself on the right politically until I met the INGO far right that considers me a liberal!

However I am always right once my mind is made up! Its just that my mind has not been made up on 99.9% of things. Based on posts here, that means I am stupid, liberal, anti 2A, not worth helping in any situation, ignorant (those folks are right, if ignorance means what it originally meant without malice or a pejorative sense), a troll...the list goes on.

Those are facts.

Don't interpret that to mean my feelings are hurt, I'm okay with all of it. It is what it is.

I discuss when its a discussion, I'll challenge unsupported or questionable "axioms". I will use P->Q should mean Q->P in statements similar to the one we talked about earlier.

Like I've said many times, I post like I am in a bar with friends.

And I love every person behind their INGO personality AND I am sure I could have a real life conversation with any of you.

I am thankful for each and everyone here because I do learn a lot here. Besides there ain't nothing that a beer can't fix.

But if the moderating team bans me tomorrow, I'm fine with that too.

Just had a conversation with a guy at work this week. Told him that about 15 years ago, I learned finally from a monk that regret is living in the past, anxiety or fear is living in the future. Christ is only encountered in the now for He is eternally present, not found in the past or in the future. There is a lot of anxiety in the world. If you want true peace, live in the present, learn from the past, plan for the future.

So do what I can do now, based on what I have experienced so that the future is aligned with Christ.

After all Christ conquered death and at the moment I die, if I wish to be with him I must be in the present.

 

[BugI02]

Well I considered myself on the right politically until I met the INGO far right that considers me a liberal!

However I am always right once my mind is made up! Its just that my mind has not been made up on 99.9% of things. Based on posts here, that means I am stupid, liberal, anti 2A, not worth helping in any situation, ignorant (those folks are right, if ignorance means what it originally meant without malice or a pejorative sense), a troll...the list goes on.

Those are facts.

Don't interpret that to mean my feelings are hurt, I'm okay with all of it. It is what it is.

I discuss when its a discussion, I'll challenge unsupported or questionable "axioms". I will use P->Q should mean Q->P in statements similar to the one we talked about earlier.

Like I've said many times, I post like I am in a bar with friends.

And I love every person behind their INGO personality AND I am sure I could have a real life conversation with any of you.

I am thankful for each and everyone here because I do learn a lot here. Besides there ain't nothing that a beer can't fix.

But if the moderating team bans me tomorrow, I'm fine with that too.

Just had a conversation with a guy at work this week. Told him that about 15 years ago, I learned finally from a monk that regret is living in the past, anxiety or fear is living in the future. Christ is only encountered in the now for He is eternally present, not found in the past or in the future. There is a lot of anxiety in the world. If you want true peace, live in the present, learn from the past, plan for the future.

So do what I can do now, based on what I have experienced so that the future is aligned with Christ.

After all Christ conquered death and at the moment I die, if I wish to be with him I must be in the present.

See the smiley? I just meant you admitted you were on the other side of the table. Not every joke has thorns

P.S. With respect to "Don't interpret that to mean ...", if more people just said what they mean without all the smoke and mirrors we wouldn't be left to interpret anything

Edit2: You surely know that there are statements for which P -> Q ∴ Q -> P is not true, also originally I interpreted P to signify 'premise' and now we appear to headed into the weeds

 

[jamil]

See the smiley? I just meant you admitted you were on the other side of the table. Not every joke has thorns

P.S. With respect to "Don't interpret that to mean ...", if more people just said what they mean without all the smoke and mirrors we wouldn't be left to interpret anything

Edit2: You surely know that there are statements for which P -> Q ∴ Q -> P is not true, also originally I interpreted P to signify 'premise' and now we appear to headed into the weeds

okay. I might have to dig out my logic textbook to make sure. But regarding p implies q therefore q implies p. Isn’t that the same thing as saying p if and only if q? And there would be two conditions then, if that’s the case, that could be false: both p and q are false or both p and q are true. But I could be completely full of **** here. That stuff gave me a headache in college. And I don’t trust my memory.

 

[foszoe]

See the smiley? I just meant you admitted you were on the other side of the table. Not every joke has thorns

P.S. With respect to "Don't interpret that to mean ...", if more people just said what they mean without all the smoke and mirrors we wouldn't be left to interpret anything

Edit2: You surely know that there are statements for which P -> Q ∴ Q -> P is not true, also originally I interpreted P to signify 'premise' and now we appear to headed into the weeds

I was goina say no, but then I saw Jamil post.

And I did see the smiley and took it that way....but then I channeled my inner Jamil and started meandering through a stream of consciousness

 

[foszoe]

See the smiley? I just meant you admitted you were on the other side of the table. Not every joke has thorns

P.S. With respect to "Don't interpret that to mean ...", if more people just said what they mean without all the smoke and mirrors we wouldn't be left to interpret anything

Edit2: You surely know that there are statements for which P -> Q ∴ Q -> P is not true, also originally I interpreted P to signify 'premise' and now we appear to headed into the weeds

Edit 2, correct but when the conversation evoles onto a but Biden or but Trump it should

 

[BugI02]

okay. I might have to dig out my logic textbook to make sure. But regarding p implies q therefore q implies p. Isn’t that the same thing as saying p if and only if q? And there would be two conditions then, if that’s the case, that could be false: both p and q are false or both p and q are true. But I could be completely full of **** here. That stuff gave me a headache in college. And I don’t trust my memory.

The statement p such that " P precedes Q"

and the statement q such that "Q follows P"

 

[BugI02]

I was goina say no, but then I saw Jamil post.

And I did see the smiley and took it that way....but then I channeled my inner Jamil and started meandering through a stream of consciousness

Interesting. Great minds and all. I've been awaiting a chance to channel jamil by dialing my nuanceometer up to 11

 

[BugI02]

Edit 2, correct but when the conversation evoles onto a but Biden or but Trump it should

Probably the solution would be to allow 'but Biden' or 'but Trump', but set the counters to zero, so henceforth new instances of disparate actions or standards would be fair game. Some score evening would have to be allowed, such as for me to acquiesce I would need to be entitled to question a Biden win for the next 4 years

Not my President-elect

 

[foszoe]

Probably the solution would be to allow 'but Biden' or 'but Trump', but set the counters to zero, so henceforth new instances of disparate actions or standards would be fair game. Some score evening would have to be allowed, such as for me to acquiesce I would need to be entitled to question a Biden win for the next 4 years

Not my President-elect

Wouldn't that depend on whether ethics/morals are absolute or relative?

What say you?

 

[BugI02]

Wouldn't that depend on whether ethics/morals are absolute or relative?

What say you?

Not at all. All set the zero point at some egregious (they feel) events or actions and none can agree on a timeline. Include the impeachment of Nixon or set the marker later. Only by resetting both markers to zero can we ensure the fairness of future appeals to 'but [your guy]'

Morals are absolute, by the way. Ethics are more temporal and situational

 

[foszoe]

Not at all. All set the zero point at some egregious (they feel) events or actions and none can agree on a timeline. Include the impeachment of Nixon or set the marker later. Only by resetting both markers to zero can we ensure the fairness of future appeals to 'but [your guy]'

Morals are absolute, by the way. Ethics are more temporal and situational

But Biden or but Trump isn't necessarily wrong if one is admitting both did it and approval or disapproval is equivalent.

My main objection is when one considers the action wrong but justified because the opponent did it. If A is objectively wrong than it is wrong no matter who does it.

Thats the action I have seen lacking in political discussion here on INGO. If I was sitting on the other side of the table from you and we went down the but Biden or but Trump path. One of us should ask is A wrong? If the answer is yes and we agree both did it, we should both agree party B and C where wrong to commit A.

On ingo, when one holds a minority position the guy on the other side who is on the majority changes every 10 minutes.

And when a majority opinion is contradicted by another majority member, the level of scrutiny appears to be at a different level.

 

[jamil]

The statement p such that " P precedes Q"

and the statement q such that "Q follows P"

I thought the little three dot thingy means "therefore". So you were saying p-->q ∴ q-->p. Or, if p then q, therefore, if q then p. But if you're saying that, you're also saying that there's a two way relationship. So then that becomes p<-->q, or p if and only if q. I dunno. It's bugging me, but I'm gonna resist digging out the logic textbook.

 

[foszoe]

I thought the little three dot thingy means "therefore". So you were saying p-->q ∴ q-->p. Or, if p then q, therefore, if q then p. But if you're saying that, you're also saying that there's a two way relationship. So then that becomes p<-->q, or p if and only if q. I dunno. It's bugging me, but I'm gonna resist digging out the logic textbook.

Well I just realized we're at the Covid Tabel...probably should be in the Election thread

 

[BugI02]

I thought the little three dot thingy means "therefore". So you were saying p-->q ∴ q-->p. Or, if p then q, therefore, if q then p. But if you're saying that, you're also saying that there's a two way relationship. So then that becomes p<-->q, or p if and only if q. I dunno. It's bugging me, but I'm gonna resist digging out the logic textbook.

Negative, Ghost actual. I was indicating what I concluded foszoe was saying because he was saying if one was true so was the obverse

 

[JCSR]

This thread...........

 

[BugI02]

But Biden or but Trump isn't necessarily wrong if one is admitting both did it and approval or disapproval is equivalent.

My main objection is when one considers the action wrong but justified because the opponent did it. If A is objectively wrong than it is wrong no matter who does it.

Thats the action I have seen lacking in political discussion here on INGO. If I was sitting on the other side of the table from you and we went down the but Biden or but Trump path. One of us should ask is A wrong? If the answer is yes and we agree both did it, we should both agree party B and C where wrong to commit A.

On ingo, when one holds a minority position the guy on the other side who is on the majority changes every 10 minutes.

And when a majority opinion is contradicted by another majority member, the level of scrutiny appears to be at a different level.

I see this differently. For matters not covered by scripture, for you to try to say a certain action is wrong but your guy does it, I interpret as a pass if my guy does it or even a requirement that such become the new RoE