jump to last post 1-41 of 41 discussions (132 posts)

A philosophical, meandering thread.

  1. paradigm search profile image81
    paradigm searchposted 14 months ago

    All theories are welcome.

    My lab rat theory is well known. Happy to discuss and hear other theories.

    1. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 14 months ago in reply to this

      Russia and USA will get in a war over in Syria.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        what about China?

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          I am more concerned about pulling our military out of the homeland and into battle.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            Russians and the Chinese are coming here, you know.  I agree keep 'em home.

            1. colorfulone profile image88
              colorfuloneposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              While that is going on Obama will allow the refugees into our cities and staged the muslims.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                Been there, doing that.

                1. colorfulone profile image88
                  colorfuloneposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  All hell hasn't broken loose yet but it will break loose.

        2. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          Russian and Chinese Navy set sails for Syria. 

          But don't worry, Obama is going to launch a drone.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            yikes

            " mad " !

            1. colorfulone profile image88
              colorfuloneposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              China reportedly sent aircraft carrier to ‪Syria to help ‪‎Russians fight ‪‎ISIS‬ and jihadists.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                "The Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning-CV-16 has *reportedly* docked at the Syrian port of Tartus, according to DEBKAfile, an Israeli military intelligence website based in Jerusalem."
                This is what Alex Jones reported on Infowars.com.
                so neutral ?
                  http://www.infowars.com/chinese-aircraf … tus-syria/

      2. paradigm search profile image81
        paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        You are a rascal.

        Edit: who knows these days...

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          Everything is in build up stage right now. Russia is building up over there, soon we will be too.

    2. Oztinato profile image84
      Oztinatoposted 13 months ago in reply to this

      So, what is the "lab rat theory"??

  2. paradigm search profile image81
    paradigm searchposted 14 months ago

    A belief is a theory.

    A faith is a theory.

    Acknowledgement of theory means one can examine one's thoughts.

    Just thinking out loud here...

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

      But there is theory and there is Theory.  One is a thought, a possibility.  The other is a scientific Theory and requires far more than being a simple possibility.

      Either way, though, one can examine the thoughts/evidence/logic/emotions that produce a theory.

    2. paradigm search profile image81
      paradigm searchposted 14 months ago

      Empirical observation works well with me.

    3. paradigm search profile image81
      paradigm searchposted 14 months ago

      As does plain, simple logic.

      Example. Logic does dictate there is a higher power.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        whoa! Through logic and observation one can deduct that we are not lab rats but something else?
        What pray tell?

        1. paradigm search profile image81
          paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          Love you. Let's back up and establish premises.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            Love you too, but I think you misspelled something.

            1. paradigm search profile image81
              paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              Nice try.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                What?!

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          He didn't answer this question either. :-(

      2. Don W profile image84
        Don Wposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        I'd like to see that line of reasoning.

        1. paradigm search profile image81
          paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          We used to think 500 years ago the earth was the center of the universe. We now know better.

          It is equally conceited to think we are the most intelligent beings in the universe.  Sooner or later we are going to get a knock at the door...

          As for the more intelligent beings, who knows? They may not even be aware of us. Or care.

          Or they do indeed know of us. They could have indeed created us;.or not. No way of knowing at present.

          Or we could have simply been discovered and are being observed. And the observers are as dispassionate as we are when observing rats in a maze or bacteria in a petri dish.

          1. Don W profile image84
            Don Wposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            So to summarize your argument:
            1) We now know there are lots of planets in the universe that may be capable of developing and sustaining life.
            2) Therefore it is conceited to believe we are the most intelligent beings in the universe.
            3) Other intelligent beings may be more intelligent than us.

            Problems:

            1) Just because we know there are other planets capable of sustaining life elsewhere in the universe, it does not necessarily follow that there is life elsewhere in the universe. That is a non-sequitur; 2) Even if there is life elsewhere in the universe, it does not necessarily follow that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. That is a non sequitur also; 3) Even if there were intelligent life in the universe, it does not necessarily follow that this life is superior in intelligence to human beings.

            Those non sequiturs make the argument logically invalid, but can be removed:

            1) There are lots of planets in the universe capable of developing and sustaining life.
            2) It is possible that life exists elsewhere in the universe (from 1).
            3) As far as we know, intelligent life on earth developed from the chemical elements found on earth.
            4) The chemical elements found on earth are present elsewhere in the universe.
            5) It is possible that intelligent life has developed elsewhere in the universe (from 1, 2, 3 and 4).

            The logical conclusion from the premises presented, is that intelligent life may exist elsewhere in the universe. The notion of superior intelligence is not logically supported (or refuted) by those premises. That is a leap of logic that invalidates the argument. To support that conclusion, you would need additional premises. In short: logic does not dictate "there is a higher power" (at least from the premises you have presented).

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              Would you also agree that logic dictates it is impossible to transform the world toward some sort of perfection?

              1. Don W profile image84
                Don Wposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                Depends on what the premises of the argument are.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  Influencing the world toward perfection is a worthwhile goal for individuals or groups of individuals.

                  No. The fact is, the earth is too gigantic to be influenced by individuals or groups.

                  Logically, only individuals can transform themselves. If ALL people transform, enlighten or become peaceful within themselves the world could become transformed. However, the world being what it is: full of delusions and human nature being what it is: full of emotions and desires, total world transformation/perfection can never become complete or it is highly unlikely. Therefore it is not a worthwhile goal to pursue, either individually or collectively.

                  However, one's own enlightenment is attainable and this is a worthwhile goal.

                  Is there a premise in there? I have no idea.

                  My own conclusion: Self transformation is possible as opposed to world transformation.

                  ( … and consequently, the more people who are in touch with God within and without, the more transformed the world will become …

                  according to my view of what is true.)

                  1. Don W profile image84
                    Don Wposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                    Ok, so your first statement is actually your conclusion. As you are arguing in the negative (saying it's not true) it needs to be changed from a positive to a negative statement. The "individuals and groups . . ." part is redundant so I've taken the liberty of removing that. Your conclusion is:

                    Influencing the world toward perfection is not a worthwhile goal.

                    Only three premises are needed from your comments to support that conclusion. I've interpreted your comments, so although the words may not be exactly the same, hopefully the meaning is:

                    1) It is unlikely that all people can become enlightened/ peaceful.
                    2) Total world enlightenment/ peace is unlikely (from 1).
                    3) Influencing the world toward enlightenment/ peace is not a worthwhile goal (from 1 and 2).

                    But this is not yet valid, as the conclusion does not necessarily follow on from the premises. An additional premise is needed to bridge the gap between 2 and 3:

                    1) It is unlikely that all people can become enlightened/ peaceful.
                    2) Total world enlightenment/ peace is unlikely (from 1).
                    3) A goal that is unlikely to be achieved is not a worthwhile goal.
                    4) Influencing the world toward enlightenment/ peace is not a worthwhile goal (from 1 , 2 and 3).

                    In terms of soundness: it's reasonable to believe that 1 is true. Therefore 2 is true, because it follows on from 1.

                    In terms of premise 3, one definition of worthwhile is: "worth the time, money, or effort spent". Is it worth spending money, time etc on something that is unlikely to be achieved? Arguably it's not. On the other hand, although paying for a lottery ticket each week is statistically unlikely to result in you winning the jackpot. Could it be argued that a tiny chance of winning a life changing amount of money is better than zero chance, so the financial outlay is worthwhile? And what about someone who performs an act of heroism. Would we describe that act as not being worthwhile because it was unlikely to ever be successful?

                    Although the above argument is logically valid, the soundness of the argument (the truth of the third premise) is debatable. It's a matter of opinion as to whether a goal that is unlikely to be achieved is worthwhile. Therefore it's only a matter of opinion as to whether trying to achieve worldwide enlightenment/ peace is worthwhile. The only way to make the argument valid and sound is:

                    1) It is unlikely that all people can become enlightened/ peaceful.
                    2) Total world enlightenment/ peace is unlikely (from 1).
                    3) A goal that is unlikely to be achieved may not be a worthwhile goal.
                    4) Influencing the world toward enlightenment/ peace may not be a worthwhile goal (from 1 , 2 and 3).

                    But again, this reduces the argument to no more than a tautology. Effectively it says: world peace/ enlightenment is either a worthwhile goal, or it isn't. This is absolutely true, but is not very meaningful. However it is exactly what I would expect to see with any argument that has at least one premise that is subjective. Because the truth of such a premise cannot be reasonably determined, such an argument can only be logically sound if qualified with the word "might".

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      So you are saying that world transformation might be possible and could be a worthwhile goal?   

                      Well, Good!

                      ( It seems like a premise is not that easy to come up with.)

            2. paradigm search profile image81
              paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              What with infinity being what it is, anything that can exist does exist.

              1. gmwilliams profile image84
                gmwilliamsposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                It certainly does.

              2. Don W profile image84
                Don Wposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                The addition of this premise removes the need for the premises stated previously, so the argument becomes:

                1) Within an infinite universe, anything that can exist, does exist.
                2) Life with superior intelligence exists (from 1).

                This is also non sequitur, but it can be fixed by adding a premise that links the first premise to the conclusion:

                1) Within an an infinite universe, anything that can exist, does exist.
                2) The universe is infinite.
                3) Life with superior intelligence exists (from 1 and 2).

                This argument is logically valid (the conclusion necessarily follows on from the premises). However, the argument is now logically unsound (the truth of the additional premise is questionable) because we do not know whether the universe actually is infinite. The most we can reasonably say is that it might be. So to remain logically sound, the argument has to change to:

                1) Within an an infinite universe, anything that can exist, does exist.
                2) The universe might be infinite.
                3) Life with superior intelligence might exist (from 1 and 2).

                This argument is now logically valid and logically sound, but it has been reduced to no more than a tautology in logical terms (a statement that is true under every possible evaluation, but does not say anything meaningful). For comparison another example of a tautology would be "I might be wearing a hat".

                In short: logic still does not dictate "there is a higher power". The most you can reasonably say (even with the additional premise) based on what we know of the universe is that life with superior intelligence might exist.

    4. paradigm search profile image81
      paradigm searchposted 14 months ago

      Where religion falls apart is the interpretation of that higher power.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        +1

    5. paradigm search profile image81
      paradigm searchposted 14 months ago

      What is your theory?

    6. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      "premises" is buildings
      "the premise" is what you meant.
      - just trying to be helpful.

      1. paradigm search profile image81
        paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        Come on. What is your theory?

    7. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      Premise
      a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion:
      verb |prɪˈmʌɪz | ( premise something on/upon )
      base an argument, theory, or undertaking on:

    8. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      My theory is

      Be Here Now.

      now what?

      1. paradigm search profile image81
        paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        I am open.

    9. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      I saw a rainbow over the valley the other day driving up from LA about six in the morning.
      Are rainbows magical or not?

      Lets say they are not.
      They are just physical phenomenon.
      refractions of light …

      light …

      the sun

      hydrogen churning into helium

      such power

      not awesome in the least

      just phenomenon …

      at least us lab rats are warm. smile

    10. paradigm search profile image81
      paradigm searchposted 14 months ago

      Meet. But me being me, not soon.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        Like ships in the dark stormy night …

        1. paradigm search profile image81
          paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          And back. What is your basic premise? We can go from there. Or never mind.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            Try again, I was busy.

            1. paradigm search profile image81
              paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              Curious, you are.

    11. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      Do you think schools will become obsolete and home schools will become the way of the future/on-line curriculums?

      1. paradigm search profile image81
        paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        Deleted

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          What if teachers refuse to teach these kids who have no ability to sit still, focus, respect or try?

    12. paradigm search profile image81
      paradigm searchposted 14 months ago

      And so much for that and other than that.

    13. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      kids are being trained to use screen technology from two on.
      Why would they want to go to school everyday when everything can be learned on line??
      and they can learn at their own pace, according to their own interests?

    14. paradigm search profile image81
      paradigm searchposted 14 months ago

      I mean seriously...

    15. paradigm search profile image81
      paradigm searchposted 14 months ago

      Seems to be some posting sequence here...

    16. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      What did you REALLY learn from school? At least kids should graduate at sixteen.  As in Europe. Choose a path early on and train for it.

      1. Phil Perez profile image83
        Phil Perezposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        If you live in Quebec, Canada you graduate at sixteen...I know I did.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          We need to do the same. We have very big students sitting in desks, ordered around treated as oh so young. No free will. And don't tell the teachers, but these students have had free (self-guided) will since they were fifteen. And so they rebel, or the opposite, at the sheer ridiculousness of it all. They have new cars. They have credit cards and cell phones. They have access to any sort of info in the whole wide world and we keep them in rows, in desks. YET every morning they get up and meander into school, always late. Students are not even expected to arrive on time at one high school I sub at in here in So Cal ...
          Why do these older students bother to even go to school, you ask… to party they'll tell you.
          Here they graduate, (maybe,) at seventeen or eighteen. (Some don't care.)
          That's way too old, if you ask me, which no one ...

    17. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      all things lead to the mountain top.

      1. paradigm search profile image81
        paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        What is your premise? You know I am agreeable.

    18. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      My premise is that we are not lab rats at all.
      My premise is that we are God individualized, but we do not know that fact.
      We are all avatars of one spirit.
      We are holding each other back. We are at least two hundred years behind where we should be.
      Thanks for asking.

      1. paradigm search profile image81
        paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        Is basic inquiry philosophy?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          such as, What is virtue? Yes.

    19. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      another question (basic inquiry)  could be this: What should guide human conduct ? strict rules or other considerations? based on what?

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        Pinochio had it right: Let your conscience be your guide.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          how is conscience developed?

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            I think it is intrinsic to life.

            As you say, we are one, so there can really only be one conscience.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              Then what about those who seemingly loose their conscience?

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                Maybe they suppress it.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  MAYBE, janesix.  How and why????
                  here is a question/basic inquiry: What is human nature?

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                    I don't know. My guess is that we are the universe(God), learning about itself. But it's basic nature is good.

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      Its basic nature is good. I agree.  Have any questions?

                    2. colorfulone profile image88
                      colorfuloneposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      It is, I am. 
                      Good.

    20. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      How do we happen to fall from intrinsic awareness of right and wrong?

      Adulthood is tricky.

    21. paradigm search profile image81
      paradigm searchposted 14 months ago

      Are you serious?

    22. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      Must be a blast being you.

    23. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      Obama is Muslim. My friend who works for fed. border patrol also tells me he is a teleprompter president.
      My, he is good at it!

    24. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      Do we have free will?
      yes we do
      do we choose to do bad?
      yes we do.
      are we good?
      not when we choose bad.
      why do we choose bad?
      we think it is good!

      sounds like a good chorus for lyrics:

      Have we free will?
      Oh, yes we do!
      Do we choose bad?
      Oh, yes we do!
      Are we so good?
      Not when we choose bad.
      Why do we choose bad?
      We think it is good!
      lol
      BFN

      1. paradigmsearch profile image92
        paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        What is your belief? Are you as me?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          We all manifest our essences VERY differently!

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            … based on free will.
            or lack there of

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        PS one more (edit) basic inquiry:
        Schools will become like ghost towns: deserted, dusty, abandoned. The "bad" kids and the lost kids will congregate there with their guns in their rags and something magical will happen. They have no teachers, but they start teaching themselves and each other. They find ragged boxes of well- preserved text books and dictionaries. They learn stuff, really interesting stuff ... thank God they know how to read ... thanks to the keyboarding and texting skills they were required to use with the vast array of technological screen devices they grew up with, since they were born! And there is no blaring light with these wonderful informative books … And these kids end up saving the world.

        (edit) HOW?

    25. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      The more interest in life and intrinsic motivation we feel and generate within ourselves, the more free (self-guided) will we have.
      Q. What kills interest and intrinsic motivation / free will / joy of life?
      A. Blind or compulsory obedience.

      Compulsory:
      obligatory, mandatory, required, enforced, demanded…"

      Blind or compulsory obedience is the biggest thing we have to fear from without in the form of:
      1. Others
      2. Religions
      3. Governments

      Thanks for asking.

    26. Oztinato profile image84
      Oztinatoposted 14 months ago

      Paradigm
      i can't see what your "lab rat theory" is. I looked at your profile and saw only one hub on "avatars".

    27. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 14 months ago

      What is truth?  How does one determine what is true?  Is truth absolute? Or is truth strongly determined and decided by the majority cultural and/or societal consensus?
      http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/8529497.jpg

      1. paradigm search profile image81
        paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        Truth and reality are one and the same. The more accurately one perceives truth/reality, the better one does in life.

    28. DasEngel profile image61
      DasEngelposted 14 months ago

      3D animated rats look wonderful on the screen. And quite experimental too.

      1. paradigm search profile image81
        paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        Every morning I wake up and wonder what is this lab rat going to have to deal with today...

        1. DasEngel profile image61
          DasEngelposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          They seem to have awareness of some sort..

          1. paradigm search profile image81
            paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            Who?

            1. DasEngel profile image61
              DasEngelposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              smile

              1. paradigm search profile image81
                paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                I really want to know. Who?

                1. DasEngel profile image61
                  DasEngelposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  Chances for palace intrigue less than 20 percent.

    29. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 14 months ago

      Rats do have some awareness of existence.  They have instncts.

    30. DasEngel profile image61
      DasEngelposted 14 months ago

      Might be something like lab rats, in the sense that their existence on this planet is destined to come to an end. Additionally, none of them consciously chose where they are going to be born, when and why (according to the theory). And hopefully, none of them participated during the architectural design process and the construction stage, of the cosmos itself. They're like tenants, frankly speaking.

      So, all in all, the lab rat theory goes well. With reality. smile

    31. paradigm search profile image81
      paradigm searchposted 14 months ago

      OK, slow on the uptake there. Yes, most of us do have low self awareness. Apparently I just demonstrated that.

      1. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        Even though most of humankind is in the security-survival mode, including many in so-called developed nations, there are a few who are evolving beyond this basic mode and into a spiritual awareness.  These few are realizing that there is more to this world then mere struggle and survival.  They refuse to adhere to the paradigm of existing.  They want to live and experience life and use their utmost potential to create a life on THEIR OWN terms.  They want a better quality of living. 

        Also, fear is the cause of many people living in the basic security-survival mode.  They are afraid of venture out and in numbers, they feel the most comfortable.  People who are highly self-actualized are not afraid of being trailblazers and going alone.  They want to make and leave their mark on society and culture.  They KNOW who THEY are and are not afraid to go against the crowd and the mass people.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          Dear G.M. Williams,
          I liked your post. (Also, I appreciate your old school way of writing … like mine. big_smile)  Additionally, I would like to say, I believe there are always some great souls around who can lead us (society as a whole) to undreamed of heights … there will always be more enlightened folks setting the others free. They have written books, lived political lives and have contributed to history in awesome ways. They have been seen in awareness changing movies, written soul freeing music and spoken to our hearts on stage, radio and TV. They were and are the ones in touch with themselves and not somehow bound up with heavy reigns and bits. They came here, are here now, and will come here with their own beliefs and inspiration. Through their forging, they unintentionally set the rest of us free.
          Some of us are earth riders. Some of us are drivers. Depends on what you fancy in life. smile
          (Personally, I like just riding, at this point. I am freeing my inward direction.)

    32. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      Its also interesting to note that "earth-driver" types are very human.
      They definitely have their flaws!

    33. DasEngel profile image61
      DasEngelposted 14 months ago

      You lost this time.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        Fine

        1. DasEngel profile image61
          DasEngelposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          Does the term "sarcasm" have any unanimously agreed upon definition?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            I used to think art could transform the world.
            but, I couldn't work out the details.

            1. DasEngel profile image61
              DasEngelposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              How do we define a loser?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                Maybe paradigm search can help.

                1. DasEngel profile image61
                  DasEngelposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  Didn't see him since the last interaction.

              2. gmwilliams profile image84
                gmwilliamsposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                Good morning, Princess of Darkness is here.  Keeping vampire hours.........yet again.  Losers are people who do not accept "defeat" and/or "failure" easily or as an integral part of life and growth.  They contend that life should be as mistake and failure free as possible.  They are the type of people who will find any excuse for their mistakes and failures, oftentimes blaming others, circumstances, and even God before they blame themselves.

                Losers are the ones when they fail and/or are defeated, they become mired in their failures, viewing everything as lost.  They even give up on their goals, rationalizing that they were not meant to succeed in the first place.  They contend that only the lucky few succeed in a given situation.  They may even assert that they are somehow cursed by fate, even by God.  They began to view life as one constant WTF.  To them, life is one big purgatorial angst at best or a neverending, abysmal, abject hell at its worst.  They are on the societal periphery, always looking in, their main motto is "Coulda, woulda, shoulda".  There are some among them who can become quite self-destructive because they feel that as losers, they are not worth anything!  Now, I am off to bed to rest.

                1. DasEngel profile image61
                  DasEngelposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  I'm watching Van Helsing. What is "defeat" by the way? Take your time.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image84
                    gmwilliamsposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                    Defeat is when you are beaten by your opponent and concede.  You know that you were on the short end of the stick.....THIS TIME.  However, the next thing is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT story.....
                    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12400224.jpg

                    1. DasEngel profile image61
                      DasEngelposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      Good afternoon I'm starting to read Dracula. Yet responding to forum comments. You're right in your definition but WordWeb is saying something else.

              3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                The looser is the one who does not acknowledge the one to be right, when the one is right. The referee is always the one who is right.

                1. DasEngel profile image61
                  DasEngelposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  The referee of cricket isn't the same as the referee of football. "Deleted"

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                    I thought so.

                    1. DasEngel profile image61
                      DasEngelposted 14 months ago in reply to this
      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        I was accused of being sarcastic, when I wasn't.
        My point: three to three.

    34. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

      Its too tedious for me to write for money.

      1. DasEngel profile image61
        DasEngelposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        I always trust when anyone tells me about their money.

    35. DasEngel profile image61
      DasEngelposted 14 months ago

      http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12651434.jpg

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        Deleted

        1. DasEngel profile image61
          DasEngelposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          The problem with rats is that they get carried away.

      2. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 14 months ago

        Now let us really get philosophically analytical here. In the United States, poverty and its resultant emotional, mental, psychological, and social ills would be drastically reduced, if not eliminated altogether, if people were mature and intelligent enough to be financially, emotionally, and psychologically prepared before electing to have children.  Furthermore, if one elects to have children, have children that one can afford in order to give them the most socioeconomic, intellectual, and cultural opportunities.

      3. Oztinato profile image84
        Oztinatoposted 14 months ago

        I still don't know what your lab rat theory is...!

      4. paradigm search profile image81
        paradigm searchposted 14 months ago

        Would you like to play?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          That's such a beautiful question. Its nice to just let it sit there.

          1. paradigm search profile image81
            paradigm searchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            Would you like to play?

      5. paradigm search profile image81
        paradigm searchposted 14 months ago
      6. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago
       
      working