Here we go. A thread where everything YOU is the topic.

So lets hear it, what is your plan for a stable society? Maybe answer some of the questions you have been plagued with in other threads?

Anyone! Questions for cool skill?

Be careful Fafnir! Asking cool skill questions about the ideal way for society to function is a direct attack on his character and is therefore an Ad Hominem! Your questions are irrelevant so I suggest you get lost! :D

Long time no see, Fanny.

Screw the Coolio, riddle me this:
The difference between bullshit and lies is what to you?
People are having the hardest time answering that one and screw them all if its all becuase of my writing style- no one on earth has yet equalled the liquid might of my penmanship!

Well missgendaken, a lie is something you make up to absolve yourself from some sort of responsibility. Bullshitting is the ability to weave halftruths and nontruths together in a way that seems plausible and makes you look more intelligent.

Is this going to be another semantics thread?

"Is this going to be another semantics thread?"

Nope.

Now riddle me this.
Between both the lie and the bullshit, from which one are you likelier to find truth in?

(One can both bullshit or lie one's way out of anything- I can lie about how big your thing is, absolving myself from the responsibilty of knowing I just hurt your wittle feelings.
I can also bullshit my way out of it by claiming that you're my best lover compared to fabricated other ones which I'd claim are pathetic in comparison.
I am absolving myself from a responsiblity in both.


Therefore, your rationale is poorly thought out, monsiuer)

Another??!!!

The audicities, I'm insulted.
I've never put up a semantics thread.

Oh you dont remember our first argument that went on for 200 posts?

Whats with all the talk about my friend? Its not like you've ever seen it... Well you do know where I live, I suppose you could be watching me change.

Your second example isnt bullshitting. Bullshitting is more of a way of selling things, like selling a lie ;) Talking someone into something, or proving a point about something. Its not about about talking your way out of something, as in your example.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=24215

Hmm, My bad, 70 posts.

Me verse you and your boyfriend :P

Alfalfa:
Whats with all the talk about my friend? Its not like you've ever seen it... Well you do know where I live, I suppose you could be watching me change.

The assumption is that the size of the male penis is inversely proportional to the time he spends on a forum-
Oh you dont remember our first argument that went on for 200 posts?

See?

You and I go waaaaay back. *funeral grin*

Your second example isnt bullshitting. Bullshitting is more of a way of selling things, like selling a lie Talking someone into something, or proving a point about something. Its not about about talking your way out of something, as in your example.
Allright.

I'm more concerned with the kind of bullshit that has no structure- i.e. religion.

Selling bullshit is basic lying.
You can dig your way through it towards the truth- a salesman is paid to lie and bullshit his way towards your signature, but depending on your strategy you can find the truth about the price or hidden clauses that he's lying about.

The religious mind is just slop. You can't dig your way anywhere towards anything as everywhere you look is slop. In other words, no structure.
It hiding absolutely nothing so that there is nothing there to find and is therefore pure bullshit.

Therefore, liars at least make truth possible.

Ergo, the difference between a lie and mere bullshit.

Edit:
You found it?

That's insane.

I have a good memory ;)

Bullshitting isnt 100% ficticious 100% of the time. You could bullshit about a product you have in development, then go and develope it.

So youre saying bullshitting is more of a way of life and thinking, while lying is just a way of diverting from the truth? While lying is plausible, bullshitting isnt, and is just circular thinking?

Hmm, I'm not very religous, and I dont bullshit, so I dont have much experience with either side of that argument ;)

The assumption is that the size of the male penis is indirectly proportional to the time he spends on a forum-

Do you mean inversely, rather than indirectly? Cause that would make me huge :P

Between both the lie and the bullshit, from which one are you likelier to find truth in?

But isn't this obvious?

The trick is only is recognizing something as bullshit. To find out whether someone speaks of matters that exceed his knowledge or competence, your knowledge and competence have to exceed his.

[16:50:43] <Storkme> anyone used rainbowcrack before and is willing to help me? please :\
[16:51:10] <fafnir> that program is lame
[16:51:15] <fafnir> us ubercrack instead
[16:51:25] <Storkme> does it work with sha-1?
[16:51:35] <fafnir> oh yeah
[16:51:37] <fafnir> its sick
[16:51:41] <fafnir> multithreading
[16:51:47] <fafnir> has extensions for clusters
[16:51:52] <Storkme> :O
[16:52:00] * Storkme 's mouth waters
[16:52:06] <Storkme> do you have a link?
[16:52:17] <fafnir> no, actually i was making it up

Is that bullshitting, or lying?

More or less.

You say bullshitting about a product you have in development, now twist that to say bullshitting about a product that's not yours or don't even know it exists.

That's bullshit. I can ask you a hundred questions about that which you know (your own product) and get something, but asking you about which you don't even know gets me what?
The same black hole you call your so called 'opinion' or thougth that knows squat.

You don't even know that you're lying, that's bullshit.

While lying is plausible, bullshitting isnt, and is just circular thinking?

Bingo.
Do you mean inversely, rather than indirectly? Cause that would make me huge :P
I wrote no such thing.

Water:
But isn't this obvious?
Apparently not.

To find out whether someone speaks of matters that exceed his knowledge or competence, your knowledge and competence have to exceed his.
At 5 or 6 years old I could have found that my 35 year old 'betters' were lying.

My knowledge and competence clearly did not exceed theirs at the time.
The reason why this was impossible lies in the nature of bulllshit which makes discovery impossible no matter what.

My point is this person can explain away anything regardless of fact and you'll never see the look on his face of being 'discovered' as he's cut the discussion short with a quick "You...just don't understand. I can't explain it to you".

Liars are easy.
Bullshitters not.

Sweet.

16:50:43] <Storkme> anyone used rainbowcrack before and is willing to help me? please :\
[16:51:10] <fafnir> that program is lame
[16:51:15] <fafnir> us ubercrack instead
[16:51:25] <Storkme> does it work with sha-1?
[16:51:35] <fafnir> oh yeah
[16:51:37] <fafnir> its sick
[16:51:41] <fafnir> multithreading
[16:51:47] <fafnir> has extensions for clusters
[16:51:52] <Storkme> :O
[16:52:00] * Storkme 's mouth waters
[16:52:06] <Storkme> do you have a link?
[16:52:17] <fafnir> no, actually i was making it up

Is that bullshitting, or lying?

Lying.
You know that you know you know shit about rainbowcrack.

Can we stay on topic and laugh at how miserable it must be to be cool skill ? :D

Hahahahahaha

Better?

[16:50:43] <Storkme> anyone used rainbowcrack before and is willing to help me? please :\
[16:51:10] <fafnir> that program is lame
[16:51:15] <fafnir> us ubercrack instead
[16:51:25] <Storkme> does it work with sha-1?
[16:51:35] <fafnir> oh yeah
[16:51:37] <fafnir> its sick
[16:51:41] <fafnir> multithreading
[16:51:47] <fafnir> has extensions for clusters
[16:51:52] <Storkme> :O
[16:52:00] * Storkme 's mouth waters
[16:52:06] <Storkme> do you have a link?
[16:52:17] <fafnir> no, actually i was making it up

Is that bullshitting, or lying?

I couldn't tell, because I don't know what sha-1, multithreading and extensions for clusters are.

Can we stay on topic and laugh at how miserable it must be to be cool skill ?

Why don't you direct him to your thread, Gendanken?
I killed it, didn't I?
Sorry.

Lying.
You know that you know you know shit about rainbowcrack.

And that's the thing.
In your thread, you whittled it down to two options.
The virtuous liar (one who feels guilt over his lie).
And the bullshitter (being one who isn't even aware of his lying or bullshitting. Who does it in pure innocence.)

There is no such thing as this pure bullshitter.

The issues you have is with those who believe. You use religion as an example, but the followers of religion aren't this 'pure bullshitter'. They believe. Or if they don't believe then they're liars.

As to the foundations of religion, we can say that they are started by liars or possibly those who are delusional.

The delusional might fit your category of pure bullshitter, but the fact of the matter is that it's not so much the bullshit that is the problem in discerning truth from lie. It's the fact that they believe it.

Or they're really good bullshitters (and I mentioned in thread that many good liars believe their own lies. They lie to themselves and therefore don't have to lie to you.)

Your definition of bullshitter is far too stringent.


Water,

I couldn't tell, because I don't know what sha-1, multithreading and extensions for clusters are.

The classic art of the con.
Throw in just enough objective-sounding facts to confuse, dazzle, impress.
But, the objective facts are just the icing on the cake of a whole subjective lie. The con-man sells himself. The facts are unimportant.

I couldn't tell, because I don't know what sha-1, multithreading and extensions for clusters are.


At the end I admit it was all false.

Can we stay on topic and laugh at how miserable it must be to be cool skill
No.

Contribute or die.

Vert:
Why don't you direct him to your thread, Gendanken?
I killed it, didn't I?


No.

I'm scavenging feedback here. Ever the capitalist.

I'm scavenging feedback here. Ever the capitalist.

Gotcha.

So.
I guess I'll contribute some on-topic commentary...

Cool Skill is an exemplary anus.
Hands-down the supreme anus of sciforums and beyond.
If there should ever be a competition as to who's the bigger anus, any challenger will have an extremely difficult challenge even to show himself as being in the same category as Cool Skill.
Because he's a real anus.

At 5 or 6 years old I could have found that my 35 year old 'betters' were lying.

My knowledge and competence clearly did not exceed theirs at the time.
The reason why this was impossible lies in the nature of bulllshit which makes discovery impossible no matter what.

My point is this person can explain away anything regardless of fact and you'll never see the look on his face of being 'discovered' as he's cut the discussion short with a quick "You...just don't understand. I can't explain it to you".

Liars are easy.
Bullshitters not.

You had what is called communication competence. Children are actually quite good at this, until they learn to pretend they don't have it, and even lose it with time.

With sufficient communication competence, one can enter discussions where one doesn't have a clue of the topic, yet participate meaningfully, and also recognize who is a faker.

It usually holds true that people who are experts in their field also have the appropriate communication competence, both generally and specifically for their field.
An expert would try to explain to a child how a computer works, for example, in terms the child would understand. An expert would make an effort to be understood. But an expert will also retreat from explaining if no appropriate explanation can be found, whereby the child will not be blamed for its lack of understanding.

Actually, this is a good criteria: If someone blames you for not understanding what they are trying to say, they are likely a bullshitter.


* * *


At the end I admit it was all false.

Yes, of course. But until that, the other person doesn't know what is going on, neither do ignorant observers.


* * *


The classic art of the con.
Throw in just enough objective-sounding facts to confuse, dazzle, impress.
But, the objective facts are just the icing on the cake of a whole subjective lie. The con-man sells himself. The facts are unimportant.

Meaning that a con focuses on the other person's communication INcompetence.
Namely, a person with good communication competence will not form any kind of evaluational attachment, positive or negative, towards statements they don't understand.

Which leads me to conclude that it takes a bullshitter to fall for a bullshitter.

Meaning that a con focuses on the other person's communication INcompetence.
Namely, a person with good communication competence will not form any kind of evaluational attachment, positive or negative, towards statements they don't understand.

Yeah. But, people often fool themselves into thinking that they do know about things which they don't...

Ah. And here, perhaps, we at last begin to see Gendanken's bullshitter...

People are arrogant and obnoxious. It's a well-defined human trait to think that one knows what one needs to know. That one knows more than others. This is seen in all stages of human development. Young to old.

So. People hear snatches of this and garbles of that and they interpret it in a fashion which assures them that they know whereof they speak. They speak with confidence on behalf of a subject which they, in truth, know nothing about except for garbled mistranslations...


But, this is a tangent to what I was originally going to say about being conned.
People not only fool themselves about what they know, but they like their lie being confirmed externally.
It is this that is played upon by the con-man. (One method, anyhow.)
He plays upon the predisposition of humans to pretend knowledge which they don't have, and then he throws jargon and 'facts' at them. The person who is pretending to know can't very well disavow knowledge that he was previously claiming to have and therefore nods his head. Tacitly accepting the con because he has to in order to maintain his own lie.

What a tangled web of lies and bullshit.
Can they ever be fully extricated?

Think of the Emperor's New Clothes. This would be a form of this particular con.

What a tangled web of lies and bullshit.
Can they ever be fully extricated?

Katrina is a good start.

Nothing sobers the man better than a good hunger and pain. And fear.
It may take a while for the lesson to take root though.

Eh?
The hell you talking about?

You realize that the need to appropriate food, shelter, comfort, these things might actually encourage people to bullshit more? To lie more?

People lie for gain.
The opportunities for gain in such a disaster are stupendous.
Especially with a good story.

^^ agreed

Jesus christ, can't you even fucking read your own slop??


There is no such thing as this pure bullshitter.
then


The issues you have is with those who believe. You use religion as an example, but the followers of religion aren't this 'pure bullshitter'. They believe. Or if they don't believe then they're liars.
and then


The delusional might fit your category of pure bullshitter, but the fact of the matter is that it's not so much the bullshit that is the problem in discerning truth from lie. It's the fact that they believe it.



I've said it time and time again, that's what makes it pure bullshit.

I've said it time and time again, that's what makes it pure bullshit.

You've said what?
That they believe it?
Yes. But your focus is on the bullshitting rather than the believing.
My focus is on the belief rather than the bullshitting.
Hence your focus is on the bullshitter.
My focus is on the believer.

If you think that the fact that they believe their own bullshit to be so important, then why don't you call them believer rather than bullshitter?


Edit:
Especially considering that you're speaking of the followers of religion. These followers don't spew their own bullshit. They reiterate others' bullshit.
Thus the verb to be applied to these people is not bullshiter, but believer.

As I've said, it's not the associative principle you should find fault with, but rather the dogmatic one.

Eh?
The hell you talking about?

You realize that the need to appropriate food, shelter, comfort, these things might actually encourage people to bullshit more? To lie more?

Of course, for starters. But when it gets really bad, really bad, they might cross the treshold to start telling the truth.


People lie for gain.
The opportunities for gain in such a disaster are stupendous.
Especially with a good story.

Of course.

Of course, for starters. But when it gets really bad, really bad, they might cross the treshold to start telling the truth.

Why should they?

Now we begin to slide into the evolutionary motivations for lying. For cheating in general.
The fact that liars are so prevalent in this world... does this indicate that lying is evolutionarily unfound? Or the opposite?

A flood victim might get food and water. But with a tasty story he can get money too. And maybe an xbox.
Which is more advantageous? Honesty? Or bullshit?

Think also of the role of bullshit in abstraction. I've more than touched on this in my long ass post in the other thread.
In our long climb to our present levels of cognition, man has gained something that almost all other animals lack.
Abstraction.
Language.
Rationalization.
Symbology. Not in only in language but in our very selves. We, man, are a symbol unto ourselves. Everything in our world is symbolic. It is this symbolic nature which lends itself to analogy and metaphor and is perhaps one of the greatest achievements of mankind.

We don't understand something. So we bullshit about it. We take an unknown and make it a known.
Yes. 9 times out of 10 this first case bullshit is wrong. The ancients had a large number of erroneous assumptions. Many of which carry through to this very day.
But, they were doing something as opposed to nothing.
They were working it out.
Rather than just sitting around licking their balls.
(Although, it's quite possible that the fact that we can't lick our balls might have something to do with it. Rather than the other way around...)

Anyway.
Even if the bullshit was wrong, at least it was something.
The next greatest invention or milestone in human history is science. When, at last, we could put our bullshit to the test and put the reins on the instinct.
The instinct isn't wrong, necessarily. But, it should be seen for what it is and should be controlled enough to stay functional.
Functional.
We can all tell stories about gods and demons and blah blah blah. But they do nothing for our objective reality. They don't exist objectively...

Now we're back to objective vs. subjective truths.

The former kind lends itself to science and is verifiable.
The latter has, as of yet, no reins upon it other than logic and reason. And we all know how wrong these two things can go. Especially seeing as how they too are subjective....
Circles within circles.
Subjectivity. What a treat and delight.

And, we must also admit that all reins are purely voluntary. Self-imposed.


Shit.
I've got to dry off a dog.
Better stop here.

Why should they?

They don't have to.
It is essentially the question "Why be moral?"


Now we begin to slide into the evolutionary motivations for lying. For cheating in general.
The fact that liars are so prevalent in this world... does this indicate that lying is evolutionarily unfound? Or the opposite?

Not at all.


We can all tell stories about gods and demons and blah blah blah.

Not at all. *That* would be bullshitting.


But they do nothing for our objective reality. They don't exist objectively...

They do everything for our objective reality.
They guide us in how we approach objective reality. How we approach objective reality is crucial to our survival and who we are.


And, we must also admit that all reins are purely voluntary. Self-imposed.

Hardly. Nobody fell from the moon. We are all conditioned by the social and biological environment we are living in.

It is essentially the question "Why be moral?"

Somewhat.
The question is, more properly, "What is moral?"

Not at all. *That* would be bullshitting.

What if Moses did the same thing?
Or Jesus?
Or Peter, Paul, or Mary?

And what of those who take the bullshit of others to pass on as fact?
I still say the issue is one of belief rather than bullshit.

They do everything for our objective reality.
They guide us in how we approach objective reality. How we approach objective reality is crucial to our survival and who we are.

Wouldn't you say that the question of how we approach objective reality is subjective?
Isn't that exactly why these are subjective rather than objective?

Hardly. Nobody fell from the moon. We are all conditioned by the social and biological environment we are living in.

I had to cut it short because of the damn dog...

The thing is that anyone can bullshit. Whenever they feel like.
They can confabulate. Lie. Bullshit. Equivocate. Flamboozle.
They can do this in both subjective and objective matters.

In objective matters, this would be called pseudoscience as there is no control imposed upon the construction of objective facts. No experimentation. No confirmation. Etc.

In subjective matters, this would be called... what?
There is no means of verifying subjective 'facts'. None.
St. Thomas Aquinas believed in a thing called 'synderesis'. Synderesis is a god-given ability to detect right from wrong. Good and evil.

You hear of such things often from crackpots and religious freaks. That they have the 'ear for truth'. That things 'ring true'.

This is a common conception in the human species and is at the heart of much of the entrenched bullshit which has been passed down to us.


Anyway. What I was trying to say is that scientists submit to the peer review process. To the scientific method. They do this voluntarily.

The subjective thinker has only reason and logic or possibly some other methods to discern truth from falsity in subjective matters. And this too is voluntary.

Neither have to submit to their control processes.
The scientist can be a pseudoscientist (at the risk of loss of respect in the scientific community, of course. And also at the risk of the loss of functionality in the results of his studies.)
The subjective thinker can be a whacko and illogical. He can just spout bullshit willy nilly with no recourse to logic or to reason.

It is this that I was trying to say by the control being a voluntary process.
I will admit that there is a societal function to the control. But, in subjective matters, it's far more difficult to discern when one is following the control procedures.
It's far more difficult to discern truth from falsity.

People fall on the age-old belief of synderesis.
Their 'ear for truth'.

And that's how bullshit becomes entrenched.

HEY, what does any of this have to do with cool skill being a deadbeat loser?

Because Cool Skill is not only a premier anus.
But also a masterful bullshitter.
And also goes to show just how easy it is to see through a bullshitter.
But, also goes to show that one doesn't try to find truth behind a bullshitter's lies. As it's not truth that hides behind the bullshit.
But inferiority...

Hmm.
Is that what you're saying, Gendanken?

Invert,


The question is, more properly, "What is moral?"

Yes, and phrasing the question thus allows one to escape to take responsibility for one's own morals.
"If I knew what is moral, I could consistently act so. But since morality is relative, I am released of any responsibility for my morals."
Try as you might, say you are taking responsibility for your morals; but as long as you focus on the what, you are neatly removed from actual responsibility, it is in suspense.


What if Moses did the same thing?
Or Jesus?
Or Peter, Paul, or Mary?

So what?
Whose problem is that?

If you focus on the what-is, on the truth about something, your quest will be endless. Agnosticism.


And what of those who take the bullshit of others to pass on as fact?
I still say the issue is one of belief rather than bullshit.

All we have are beliefs. What is called "knowledge" are merely beliefs that we deem to have high probability.


Wouldn't you say that the question of how we approach objective reality is subjective?

It is subjective but it is not nonsense.

Living your life is *your* doing.


The thing is that anyone can bullshit. Whenever they feel like.
They can confabulate. Lie. Bullshit. Equivocate. Flamboozle.
They can do this in both subjective and objective matters.

So? Whose problem is this?


In subjective matters, this would be called... what?
There is no means of verifying subjective 'facts'. None.

??
Daily, each one of us is subjectively veryfying their subjective facts.


St. Thomas Aquinas believed in a thing called 'synderesis'. Synderesis is a god-given ability to detect right from wrong. Good and evil.

You hear of such things often from crackpots and religious freaks. That they have the 'ear for truth'. That things 'ring true'.

This is a common conception in the human species and is at the heart of much of the entrenched bullshit which has been passed down to us.

Poor you. And you, like, have to believe everything you hear?


Anyway. What I was trying to say is that scientists submit to the peer review process. To the scientific method. They do this voluntarily.

Religionists also constantly submit themselves to peer review. They do this voluntarily, or they have to admit they value their own mind above everything else.
Which many religions condemn as an act of betrayal to God.


Neither have to submit to their control processes.

Justify why such a submission to "control processes" is necessary.


The subjective thinker can be a whacko and illogical. He can just spout bullshit willy nilly with no recourse to logic or to reason.

Whose problem is this?
Why are we talking about this?


It's far more difficult to discern truth from falsity.

To discern the two, ONE MUST KNOW BOTH.


But, also goes to show that one doesn't try to find truth behind a bullshitter's lies. As it's not truth that hides behind the bullshit.
But inferiority...

Why I said it is a matter of character.