Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

UK Census 2011


Guest MrZigster

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

Wrong. I only know I sense because I sense. I don't need to know I sense, I just sense. As I said, existence (in this case sense) is undeniable.

You keep going on about nothing. Well if there is silence then I'm listening to silence. If there is no colour, then I see darkness or blackness. And so on. I do not stop sensing phenomena.

What I keep saying and you keep overlooking is that it's due to our senses that we have definable things in which we can categorise phenomena. Let's look at sight (a phenomena). We sense darkness. Then we see a yellow thing. This is different from black and comes to define what the thing is. The thing we have created is the concept of yellow. It is marked by its difference to black. What are these things? We'll call them colours. The relationship between these colours is how we work out the order of things (laws of time, space, distance etc). This applies to all sensual categories, not just colour.

Now let's try it another way shall we. If there is a thing that is free of sensual experience, describe it without using a sensual category of difference? Tell me what yellow is without its difference to another colour. Tell me what its frequency of light is without its difference to another colour frequency. The moral of this story being: you cannot seperate a thing from phenomena without there being a sensually definable difference in experience.

Oh look, more fantasy empty headed and fraudulent bollocks. You only know of your senses because they sense things. Without things to sense you cannot know of your senses. This means that what is sensed is no less real than what they are sensed by.

Anyway, I see you've abandoned the whole idea of difference that you once said was the basis for everything we can understand - and thus you have said of yourself that you cannot understand anything. :lol::lol::lol:

Either shut the f**k up, or tell me how you can know of your senses without there being something to sense.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 304
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

Repeating your party line in the face of successful counter opposition makes a fool of you.

says the fool. :lol:

I've already told you that things derive from differences/changes in sensual experience.

And I've listened. :)

Which is precisely why I'm asking you how you're able to know of your senses if you've never sensed anything. :)

You can only become aware of your senses by first sensing something (which causes a diffe4rence from nothingness) - which makes your knowledge of those senses completely dependent on the things that are sensed.

That means that knowledge of what is sensed has an identical basis to any self as knowledge of the sensing equipment. They are fully inter-dependent - one cannot exist without the other.

You have no evidence of things free of sense, only a sense of things.

I have as much knowledge of things free of sense as I do the senses themselves. They are inter-dependent - you cannot know your senses without something to sense.

You - and I - have no evidence of senses free of things to sense. It cannot be logically different to this.

You also asked me to answer your question, which I did:

'You keep going on about nothing. Well if there is silence then I'm listening to silence. If there is no colour, then I see darkness or blackness. And so on. I do not stop sensing phenomena.'

all things which require a "first-sensing" to create a difference that can be worked from to create what you lay out there.. :rolleyes:

Which means that you cannot know of your senses without there being something to sense. :)

Proof Neil. Proof. You have zeor proof of there being things that exist free of sense.

Proof worm. Proof. You have zero proof of there being sense free of things that are sensed. :rolleyes:

Show me or tell me of a thing that is free of sensual experience.

you have to first answer my question, which you've not yet done. :rolleyes:

Tell me how you can know of your senses without there being something to sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

You cannot dispute consciousness.

I cannot. But I can dispute the idiot basis you're giving for how we know of it. :)

Because there are differences in sensation.

There are only differences in sensation if there are things which can be sensed. :rolleyes:

You still have not answered my question...

Tell me how you can know of your senses without there being something to sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I was going to have a quick read about the 2011 census. :blink:

Bit confusing for a casual reader, can't you two argue in private, how is any of this interesting to anyone but you two ?

Neither of you seriously think it is….do you ? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I'm bored of repeating myself. I'm done.

I'm bored with repeating myself too, and even more bored with you repeating empty-headed idiocy that does not stand up to analysis by your own ideas.

You cannot sustain your argument in any logical, literal or rational manner. You have been completely unable to answer a question that is at the base of your own ideas.

You're done - yep, you well and truly are. PMSL. :lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Rubbish!

There are only differences in sensation if there are differences in sensation. That's all you've got evidence of Neil. That's all that those things that you're calling 'things' are. They're just sensual data, nothing else - you cannot step outside of sensual experience to address what is outside of it.

which part of "you cannot have sensation if there is nothing to sense" are you finding so difficult to understand? PMSL. :lol::lol:

Again, where is this example of a 'thing' that exists free of sensual experience?

Well, according to what you're saying - without any evidence - the senses themselves. :lol::lol::lol:

But how do you know that? You don't. Those senses require something to sense before you can become aware that you have senses. As you've said, they require difference.

So without anything having been sensed, there is no difference, and therefore there are no senses.

Which means that your knowledge of your senses is fully dependent there being something which can be sensed. This puts what is sensed at the same logical level of existence as the senses themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which part of "you cannot have sensation if there is nothing to sense" are you finding so difficult to understand? PMSL. :lol::lol:

Well, according to what you're saying - without any evidence - the senses themselves. :lol::lol::lol:

But how do you know that? You don't. Those senses require something to sense before you can become aware that you have senses. As you've said, they require difference.

So without anything having been sensed, there is no difference, and therefore there are no senses.

Which means that your knowledge of your senses is fully dependent there being something which can be sensed. This puts what is sensed at the same logical level of existence as the senses themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

So now you're saying that things can exist without sensation

No I'm not. :rolleyes:

I'm saying that what is sensed is on the same level of existence as the senses.

You have no way of knowing of your senses without there being something that can be sensed. This makes the sensing and the sensed of an identical logical basis, both having the same degree of existence.

So if you believe yourself to be real - which you do, because you know of your existence only thru the awareness that sensing things gives - then you must also think of what is sensed as similarly real. It cannot, either logically or literally, be different to this.

And further, not only does the logic say that MUST be true, but your very actions prove it so, no matter what weasly words you invent from nothing to claim different. If you see a car driving at you, you believe its existence is real and you try and get out of its way - because your senses have told you that it IS real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Yes you are.

As blatant lies and misrepresentation is the only basis of your argument, you really are an odious little turd.

Immediately under the words you quoted was a precise statement that makes clear to anyone with better reading skills than a 6 year old that what you say here is a clear lie.

Yellow isn't a thing. It's a difference in sensual experience. Force isn't a thing, it's a difference in sensual experience. We sense differences and differences alone.

yep. but differences can only be detected from a reference point. And the reference point for the first sensual experience is nothing. :rolleyes:

So a first experience creates a difference from nothing, and with that difference an awareness of being able to sense comes about.

The sensual experience is no less dependent on there being that difference as it is the senses themselves. You cannot know of your senses without sensing something, and you cannot sense something without senses. They are logically and literally inter-dependent.

I'[ll ask again - and this time, if you have a basis to your argument, you'll be able to give a meaningful answer. If you can't give a meaningful answer then just say you can't give a meaningful answer. If you can do neither then you have no place in this discussion, because it's clearly beyond your your sensibilities and your intelligence....

Tell me how you can know of your senses without there being something to sense.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing the point. It is only due to sensory experience (difference in feel) that we realise that there is a cause. The experience comes first and from that experience we reason that x causes the experience. Therefore, x is bound to the experience.

That's what I'm on about Feral. You cannot say what x is, and x does not even exist, without the experience of y.

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

No. The reference point IS difference.

How do you know that a door is a door? Because it's different to the rest of the wall.

You're completely f**king shit at the most basic of ideas. :lol::lol:

How do you know a door is a door? because it's different to the wall.

How do you know a sensation is a sensation? Because it's different to the 'nothing' that there was before you had the first sensation.

See: your idea, and my idea, both the same. Now, read on....

That first sensation brings with it an awareness that there are sensations, that there are senses able to pass onto you those sensations. But it's only able to do that because there's something that can be sensed. Without the something that can be sensed there is only nothing - no sensation, no senses, and no sensual stimuli ('things').

And that means that both the senses and what can be sensed are inter-dependent. You cannot sense 'things' if there are no 'things', and you cannot sense 'things' if you have no senses with which to sense. Your senses and what is sensed both come into existence at the same moment.

(even beyond the first thing which is sensed - tho I'll keep things simple for your clearly simple mind by pretending this just happens with the first thing).

So your senses depend on 'things' for their existence, and the things depend on senses for their existence. You can't have one without the other.

You say that you can, yet I've asked you many times to say how and you never have done - clearly because you can't.

You just revert back to shit ideas that don't stand up to logical scrutiny. Because your head is full of unthinking shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

You have no evidence of objects existing outside of sensation.

and you have no evidence of senses existing outside of what can be sensed. :rolleyes:

There's no evidence of objects outside of sensory experience. You're merely speculating.

There's no evidence of sensory experience outside of sensory objects. You're merely speculating.

The problem is that your speculation uses sensory based language (the language of difference), so it's completely flawed.

The problem is that your speculation uses nothing useful, only stupidity, so it's completely flawed.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

That's what I'm on about Feral. You cannot say what x is, and x does not even exist, without the experience of y.

"You cannot say what x is, and x does not even exist, without the experience of y."

"You cannot say what senses are, and senses do not even exist, without the experience of 'things' that can be sensed."

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...