Philosophy - Revision history

Jukeboksi: #REDIRECT Consumerium:Philosophy

2004-08-13T23:58:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:58, 13 August 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~''For the un[[trolled]] tale see~~ [[Consumerium:Philosophy]] ~~- which is [[gnawlij]] of a sort as the [[trolls]] have already gnawed on it a fair bit. The following is a response to any attempt to use philosophy against trolls:''~~		#REDIRECT [[Consumerium:Philosophy]]

	Some people have tried to invent "the Consumerium school of pro-troll philosophy" out of plain old [[troll-friendly]] policy and [[New Troll point of view]]. This is silly. But to help those of you who just love big ideologies:

	[[Trolls]] have instead provided a [[Simple Trollish]] guide to those of you trying to figure us out. However: It is probably wiser to just read [[styles of capital]] instead and think about the economics of [[trolling]] and not the damn philosophy of it, who cares about philosophers? It's economists who rule the world and do it badly. Just forget you ever heard of this '''philosophy''' idea. It's wrong.

	: ''I wonder why people - like the author above - so often feel T need 2 tell other people what's right or wrong. Or: what language 2 use or not 2 use. To say "just forget" means "let me think for U" and this is, quite simple, bad style and a bad idea. -- T2R''

	::Certainly, foes of [[philosophy as usual]] have included many tyrants, but some [[GodKing]]s have also embraced [[philosophy]] as a way to turn dissent and calls for serious change into meaningless talk. It is this that is wrong more than the philosophy itself.

	: ''There is no formal way 2 solve human problems. Such as: don't use this word. Don't use ''philosophy'' or ''negro''. People will find other ways 2 express what they intend 2. Words are just symptoms. There is no way around the need 2 individually judge sentences and situations with respect 2 their meaning and their positive or negative effects. There is no formal way 2 replace individual judgements. --T2R''

	~~::Some people do believe in [[moral cognition]] though.~~

62.46.163.241 at 08:05, 13 August 2004

2004-08-13T08:05:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:05, 13 August 2004
Line 9:		Line 9:
	::Certainly, foes of [[philosophy as usual]] have included many tyrants, but some [[GodKing]]s have also embraced [[philosophy]] as a way to turn dissent and calls for serious change into meaningless talk. It is this that is wrong more than the philosophy itself.		::Certainly, foes of [[philosophy as usual]] have included many tyrants, but some [[GodKing]]s have also embraced [[philosophy]] as a way to turn dissent and calls for serious change into meaningless talk. It is this that is wrong more than the philosophy itself.

	: ''There is no formal way 2 solve human problems. Such as: don't use this word. Don't use ~~philosphy~~ or negro. People will find other ways 2 express what they intend 2. Words are ~~only~~ symptoms. There is no way around the need 2 individually judge sentences and situations with respect 2 their meaning and their positive or negative effects. There is no formal way 2 replace individual judgements. --T2R''		: ''There is no formal way 2 solve human problems. Such as: don't use this word. Don't use ''philosophy'' or ''negro''. People will find other ways 2 express what they intend 2. Words are just symptoms. There is no way around the need 2 individually judge sentences and situations with respect 2 their meaning and their positive or negative effects. There is no formal way 2 replace individual judgements. --T2R''

	::Some people do believe in [[moral cognition]] though.		::Some people do believe in [[moral cognition]] though.

62.46.163.241 at 08:01, 13 August 2004

2004-08-13T08:01:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:01, 13 August 2004
Line 9:		Line 9:
	::Certainly, foes of [[philosophy as usual]] have included many tyrants, but some [[GodKing]]s have also embraced [[philosophy]] as a way to turn dissent and calls for serious change into meaningless talk. It is this that is wrong more than the philosophy itself.		::Certainly, foes of [[philosophy as usual]] have included many tyrants, but some [[GodKing]]s have also embraced [[philosophy]] as a way to turn dissent and calls for serious change into meaningless talk. It is this that is wrong more than the philosophy itself.

	: ''There is no formal way 2 solve human ~~problem~~. Such as: don't use this word. Don't use philosphy or negro. People will find other ways 2 express what they intend 2. Words are only symptoms. There is no way around the need 2 individually judge sentences and situations with respect 2 their meaning and their positive or negative effects. There is no formal way 2 replace ~~this~~ individual ~~judgement~~. --T2R''		: ''There is no formal way 2 solve human problems. Such as: don't use this word. Don't use philosphy or negro. People will find other ways 2 express what they intend 2. Words are only symptoms. There is no way around the need 2 individually judge sentences and situations with respect 2 their meaning and their positive or negative effects. There is no formal way 2 replace individual judgements. --T2R''

	::Some people do believe in [[moral cognition]] though.		::Some people do believe in [[moral cognition]] though.

142.177.81.48 at 21:43, 12 August 2004

2004-08-12T21:43:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:43, 12 August 2004
Line 10:		Line 10:

	: ''There is no formal way 2 solve human problem. Such as: don't use this word. Don't use philosphy or negro. People will find other ways 2 express what they intend 2. Words are only symptoms. There is no way around the need 2 individually judge sentences and situations with respect 2 their meaning and their positive or negative effects. There is no formal way 2 replace this individual judgement. --T2R''		: ''There is no formal way 2 solve human problem. Such as: don't use this word. Don't use philosphy or negro. People will find other ways 2 express what they intend 2. Words are only symptoms. There is no way around the need 2 individually judge sentences and situations with respect 2 their meaning and their positive or negative effects. There is no formal way 2 replace this individual judgement. --T2R''

			::Some people do believe in [[moral cognition]] though.

62.46.178.199 at 17:06, 12 August 2004

2004-08-12T17:06:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:06, 12 August 2004
Line 8:		Line 8:

	::Certainly, foes of [[philosophy as usual]] have included many tyrants, but some [[GodKing]]s have also embraced [[philosophy]] as a way to turn dissent and calls for serious change into meaningless talk. It is this that is wrong more than the philosophy itself.		::Certainly, foes of [[philosophy as usual]] have included many tyrants, but some [[GodKing]]s have also embraced [[philosophy]] as a way to turn dissent and calls for serious change into meaningless talk. It is this that is wrong more than the philosophy itself.

			: ''There is no formal way 2 solve human problem. Such as: don't use this word. Don't use philosphy or negro. People will find other ways 2 express what they intend 2. Words are only symptoms. There is no way around the need 2 individually judge sentences and situations with respect 2 their meaning and their positive or negative effects. There is no formal way 2 replace this individual judgement. --T2R''

142.177.82.206: what this is really about

2004-08-12T00:18:35Z

what this is really about

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:18, 12 August 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	''For the un[[trolled]] tale see [[Consumerium:Philosophy] - ~~if you can buy~~ it.''		''For the un[[trolled]] tale see [[Consumerium:Philosophy]] - which is [[gnawlij]] of a sort as the [[trolls]] have already gnawed on it a fair bit. The following is a response to any attempt to use philosophy against trolls:''

	Some people have tried to invent "the Consumerium school of pro-troll philosophy" out of plain old [[troll-friendly]] policy and [[New Troll point of view]]. This is silly. But to help those of you who just love big ideologies:		Some people have tried to invent "the Consumerium school of pro-troll philosophy" out of plain old [[troll-friendly]] policy and [[New Troll point of view]]. This is silly. But to help those of you who just love big ideologies:

142.177.82.206: is it the philosophy or the purpose it is put to which is wrong?

2004-08-12T00:17:08Z

is it the philosophy or the purpose it is put to which is wrong?

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:17, 12 August 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	For ~~more serious take on this~~ [[Consumerium:Philosophy]]		''For the un[[trolled]] tale see [[Consumerium:Philosophy] - if you can buy it.''

	Some people have tried to invent "the Consumerium school of pro-troll philosophy" out of plain old [[troll-friendly]] policy and [[New Troll point of view]]. This is silly. But to help those of you who just love big ideologies:		Some people have tried to invent "the Consumerium school of pro-troll philosophy" out of plain old [[troll-friendly]] policy and [[New Troll point of view]]. This is silly. But to help those of you who just love big ideologies:
Line 6:		Line 6:

	: ''I wonder why people - like the author above - so often feel T need 2 tell other people what's right or wrong. Or: what language 2 use or not 2 use. To say "just forget" means "let me think for U" and this is, quite simple, bad style and a bad idea. -- T2R''		: ''I wonder why people - like the author above - so often feel T need 2 tell other people what's right or wrong. Or: what language 2 use or not 2 use. To say "just forget" means "let me think for U" and this is, quite simple, bad style and a bad idea. -- T2R''

			::Certainly, foes of [[philosophy as usual]] have included many tyrants, but some [[GodKing]]s have also embraced [[philosophy]] as a way to turn dissent and calls for serious change into meaningless talk. It is this that is wrong more than the philosophy itself.

62.46.163.245 at 13:22, 11 August 2004

2004-08-11T13:22:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:22, 11 August 2004
Line 5:		Line 5:
	[[Trolls]] have instead provided a [[Simple Trollish]] guide to those of you trying to figure us out. However: It is probably wiser to just read [[styles of capital]] instead and think about the economics of [[trolling]] and not the damn philosophy of it, who cares about philosophers? It's economists who rule the world and do it badly. Just forget you ever heard of this '''philosophy''' idea. It's wrong.		[[Trolls]] have instead provided a [[Simple Trollish]] guide to those of you trying to figure us out. However: It is probably wiser to just read [[styles of capital]] instead and think about the economics of [[trolling]] and not the damn philosophy of it, who cares about philosophers? It's economists who rule the world and do it badly. Just forget you ever heard of this '''philosophy''' idea. It's wrong.

	: ''I wonder why people - like the author above - ~~feel~~ so often T need 2 tell other people what's right or wrong. Or: what ~~words~~ 2 use or not 2 use. To say "just forget" means "let me think for U" and this is, quite simple, bad style. -- T2R''		: ''I wonder why people - like the author above - so often feel T need 2 tell other people what's right or wrong. Or: what language 2 use or not 2 use. To say "just forget" means "let me think for U" and this is, quite simple, bad style and a bad idea. -- T2R''

62.46.163.245 at 13:21, 11 August 2004

2004-08-11T13:21:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:21, 11 August 2004
Line 4:		Line 4:

	[[Trolls]] have instead provided a [[Simple Trollish]] guide to those of you trying to figure us out. However: It is probably wiser to just read [[styles of capital]] instead and think about the economics of [[trolling]] and not the damn philosophy of it, who cares about philosophers? It's economists who rule the world and do it badly. Just forget you ever heard of this '''philosophy''' idea. It's wrong.		[[Trolls]] have instead provided a [[Simple Trollish]] guide to those of you trying to figure us out. However: It is probably wiser to just read [[styles of capital]] instead and think about the economics of [[trolling]] and not the damn philosophy of it, who cares about philosophers? It's economists who rule the world and do it badly. Just forget you ever heard of this '''philosophy''' idea. It's wrong.

			: ''I wonder why people - like the author above - feel so often T need 2 tell other people what's right or wrong. Or: what words 2 use or not 2 use. To say "just forget" means "let me think for U" and this is, quite simple, bad style. -- T2R''

Jukeboksi: For more serious take on this Consudev:Philosophy

2004-08-10T15:31:59Z

For more serious take on this Consudev:Philosophy

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:31, 10 August 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
			For more serious take on this [[Consumerium:Philosophy]]

	Some people have tried to invent "the Consumerium school of pro-troll philosophy" out of plain old [[troll-friendly]] policy and [[New Troll point of view]]. This is silly. But to help those of you who just love big ideologies:		Some people have tried to invent "the Consumerium school of pro-troll philosophy" out of plain old [[troll-friendly]] policy and [[New Troll point of view]]. This is silly. But to help those of you who just love big ideologies:

	[[Trolls]] have instead provided a [[Simple Trollish]] guide to those of you trying to figure us out. However: It is probably wiser to just read [[styles of capital]] instead and think about the economics of [[trolling]] and not the damn philosophy of it, who cares about philosophers? It's economists who rule the world and do it badly. Just forget you ever heard of this '''philosophy''' idea. It's wrong.		[[Trolls]] have instead provided a [[Simple Trollish]] guide to those of you trying to figure us out. However: It is probably wiser to just read [[styles of capital]] instead and think about the economics of [[trolling]] and not the damn philosophy of it, who cares about philosophers? It's economists who rule the world and do it badly. Just forget you ever heard of this '''philosophy''' idea. It's wrong.