The 'Things That Piss Me Off' Thread

matherto said:
Rememeber the girl that I thought was too young for me and therefore scared me off from taking a chance like a complete twat.

Well she left whoever she was with three times for me and each time I failed to take notice of this fact and do somethiing about it.

And now I've been completely in love with her for the past god knows how long without a fucking cats chance in hell of making everything alright because she won't give a fourth (undeserved chance) like a complete twat.

I talk to her every fucking day and every fucking day I'm remided of how much I adore her and how much of a fucking idiot I am for not taking the bloody chance.

Guess I'm destined to me a miserable, lonely cunt.
Click to expand...
4382113+_f031c9b80f118d68c78a8e93ea01828e.gif


Sorry, bro. :D
 
pissed off why I cant find a girl I like younger than me or of my age LOL

always im with girls bigger than me and they are cool why girls younger/my agee (22) cant be like that ?
 
If you take her on a night out take her to Pizza Hut she loves that

But take her in day for all you can eat buffet

and a trip to Gamestation afterwards.
 
Picked up that stomach bug that makes you vomit and/or gives you diarrhea.

Not good going playing football in this weather and then it suddenly hitting you half way through a run.
 
It's good it's like the sky sports football monitor thing where the line tracks and shows the players run, except your line is brown and smelly.
 
Having an extreme lack of confidence.

Me and a few mates were sat down in our favourite bar on Saturday. Between where we were and the rest was a dividing wall with a sort of blind thing. Beyond that, a girl and her mates. She turned around, spotted me and demanded to my mates that I moved closer and talked to her, she wasn't bad either but because I was so shocked a girl wanted to talk to me I just froze and sat there and pretended I had no idea what was happening.

She then tried climbing between the blinds but even Victoria Beckham wasn't gonna fit between them.

Shame, she was quite fit from what I remember, probably made the confidence thing worse. More girl issues.
 
that's an interesting conversation. to be honest i don't know if the acquisition of crictical thinking is really related to education. for instance, consider the following statements:
knowledge is freedom. knowledge leads to orthodoxy. the first statement is an obious truth. but if we look at history, the second statement (wich, in a way, disproves the first) is also correct.
in my personal experience, some of the most curious free thinkers i've met were ignorants, whereas many of my university professors (who are supposed to represent the acmè of the intellighentia of a country) were obtuse and certainly not open minded.

anyway it seems to me your opinions are not that diverging, bobby and rob. from what i see u just disagree on the concept of the word "fact". and on this point, i gotta agree with bobby. infact rob, u seem to make quite a liberal (and ironically enough, uncritical) use of the word fact. out of curiosity, i checked on the merriam webster dictionary for a definition of fact, and it actually provided meanings that seem to support your conception of the word. now i'm not arrogant enough to question the merriam webster dictionary, but i do have a fairly good knowledge of italian\latin (from wich the english word "fact" comes). the etymon of the english word "fact" is the latin word "facto". a "facto" is the perception of an event through observation and analysis.. as u can see, there's nothing objecive about a facto (the words "perception" and analysis" clearely prove it).
on the other side, what u seem to refer to, when u use the word fact, is infact an "ontological fact"..... but by definition the ontological nature of things and event cannot be appreciated by human minds as our observation is always permeated by a subjective component, no matter how "unbiased" we think we are (that that guy voltaire, who bobby mentioned in his post, would know a thing or 2 about that!).
so, if u really wanna apply a critical spirit to this concept, then the word fact can become a synonym of belief! that would be a paradox for a mathematician or a physicist, but an undenyable truth for a philosopher (i bet u're glad u didn't get to study philosophy now :P )
Rob said:
It was never a fact that the world was flat. The definition of a fact is something that is irrefutably the case. At the time the people who believed the world was flat obviously had no means to verify that claim so it was never a fact but rather a widely-held belief.

Facts are not changed based on scientific advancement, however we can establish an understanding of previously unknown facts with research.

i.e. 2+2=4 is a fact. No amount of research in the next millennia will disprove that.
Click to expand...
by that logic i exposed before, i could contraddict all theese statement.
2+2=4 is not a fact. it's a logical assertion based on a human construct. the axiom in that assertion would be that "2" and "4" have a certain specific value. but since it was a human convention to assign those values to those numbers, inevitably that axiom becomes a dogma.

and as for the second statement, that would also be uncorrect. facts are infact based on scientific advancement (and also on social conventions). what is completely indipendent from scientific advancement and social convention is the ontological nature of things and events (their inner truth). but as i said before we cannot reach the ontological nature of events, as our perception gets in the way.

and finally your first statement is not only uncorrect from a logical point of view, but also from an historical point of view.
i already explained the logical contraddiction in your argument, so i'll just point out the historical mistake. to say that "At the time the people who believed the world was flat obviously had no means to verify that claim so it was never a fact" is not correct. in the 3rd century B.C. erathostenes proved with an empyrical demonstration that the earth was spherical (he also managed to calculate is circumpherence with amazing accuracy!). so when 800 years later, bishop Isidoro da Sevilla wrote that the earth was flat, not only mankind already had the scientific means to disprove his theory, they also had the knowledge. and yet, in less than 80 years, isidoro's theory (although clearely unaccurate) became common knowledge (wich, like i said before equals to an accepted "fact" in philosophy). and that in spite of erathostene's , parmenide's, pitagora's, archimede's and zenone's studies (wich proved the earth was spherical centuries before isidoro).
long story short, perception is a bitch and "fact" can be quite a shallow concept.

on a side note, i'm not disagreeing with u. infact i agree with pretty much everything u wrote (as bobby, i believe) i agree with your ideas, i just disagree with your logic. i believe in evolution and i consider creationism as historical folklore.... but if a guy would tell me he believes in creationism, i would never reply "you are not thinking", as u suggested. first of, because, by definition, that is impossible. and second, because that would be an orthodox approach to conversation. and it's exactly this sort of (dangerous and orthodox) approach that led us to suddenly believe the earth was flat for a good chunk of centuries.
 
Maybe some people don't class such as conversations but maybe pointless arguments?

You just never know what goes on in people's minds.

Lo zio takes the easier route there, which is a good thing, when talking to someone who's obviously not interested. It's the healthier choice. So, instead of winding yourself up tying to convince or understand non-interested people, it is easier to just ignore them altogether at that point.

Humans aren't easy to deal with. They are surprising beings. Just when you thought you 'cracked' their thinking 'code', they surprise you with something you'd never even thought existed in their 'code'.

Anyway, long story short, take it easy :)
 
I completely agree with you, Rob, that the lack of philosophy throughout our school system is an absolute disgrace. Philosophy underpins everything. It is the first step towards knowledge and to think that this is not part of a system, which is supposed to encourage knowledge, makes no sense whatsoever.
Two reasons for this, I think.
1) It's not in the self interest of governments to have a free-thinking populous.
2) The scientific revolution had the unfortunate consequence of devaluing philosophy.
 
godotelli said:
The scientific revolution had the unfortunate consequence of devaluing philosophy.
Click to expand...
that's a huge contradiction mate. u see the fathers of the "scientific revolution" (kepler, descartes, newton, leibniz, bacon, galileo) were also some of the greatests philosophers of all times! and that shouldn't come as a surprise, as science is one of the many facets of philosophy (just as literature and art, psycology, rhetoric and logic).

if u grab any "history of philosophy" high scool textbook, u'll notice they all start with the same philosophers (because philosophy textbooks usually follow a cronological order): Thales of miletus, Anaximander and Anaximenes; theese 3 fellas, who lived in the 6th century b.c. are considered to be the very first philosophers in history. and they were also the very first scientists. their philosophy became famous as "naturalism" and their school (the milesian school) became known as the naturalists school. but by today's standards they would be, for all intents and purposes, scientists.
and also heraclitus, pythaghoras, parmenides, zeno, democritus, archimedes and euclides (other famous greek philosophers, who came after the naturalists) were what we would call today "scientists". philosophy and science have been "walking hand in hand" since the dawn of time, as they're nothing but 2 facets of the same gem. and if u don't care about ancient greek philosphers, let's fast forward till modern times: avicenna, averroè, roger bacon, thomas more, copernicus, cardano, galileo, kepler, newton, adam smith, descartes, pascal, john stuart mill, planck, heiseberg, bohr, shrodinger, schlick, nash, russell........all great philosphers, all men of science. u certainly studied some of them, at some point in your life (high school or university). and when u studied them, u were actually studying philosophy.

infact u all studied philosophy, for a good chunk of your life. u just didn't realize it. if u went to law school, then u certainly studied bentham and hume and hobbes... if u studied liberal arts, then u certainly studied kant and giordano bruno and voltaire... if u studied architechture or art, then u probably know more about philosophy than u would ever imagine.... and all of u probably got to study popper or dante or nietzsche or marx in high school.

perhaps u didn't get to study "history of philosophy" (as a specific school subject), wich is indeed regrettable, but u certainly studied philosophy for most of your education process... u just didn't know u were studying it, but that's irrelevant.

godotelli, in another thread, that ridiculous conversation about balotelli not being italian (btw, great post mate! ;) ) u defined nations as a "legal fiction". now, i don't know if u're actually aware of the original meaning of the latin word "fictio", as opposed to anything that is "reale" (but since u used that specific word in such an appropriate manner, i'm inclined to believe u are), but u must be aware that only your philosophic studies allowed u to express such an opinion :))
 
Last edited:
lo zio said:
that's a huge contradiction mate. u see the fathers of the "scientific revolution" (kepler, descartes, newton, leibniz, bacon, galileo) were also some of the greatests philosophers of all times! and that shouldn't come as a surprise, as science is one of the many facets of philosophy (just as literature and art, psycology, rhetoric and logic).

if u grab any "history of philosophy" high scool textbook, u'll notice they all start with the same philosophers (because philosophy textbooks usually follow a cronological order): Thales of miletus, Anaximander and Anaximenes; theese 3 fellas, who lived in the 6th century b.c. are considered to be the very first philosophers in history. and they were also the very first scientists. their philosophy became famous as "naturalism" and their school (the milesian school) became known as the naturalists school. but by today's standards they would be, for all intents and purposes, scientists.
and also heraclitus, pythaghoras, parmenides, zeno, democritus, archimedes and euclides (other famous greek philosophers, who came after the naturalists) were what we would call today "scientists". philosophy and science have been "walking hand in hand" since the dawn of time, as they're nothing but 2 facets of the same gem. and if u don't care about ancient greek philosphers, let's fast forward till modern times: avicenna, averroè, roger bacon, thomas more, copernicus, cardano, galileo, kepler, newton, adam smith, descartes, pascal, john stuart mill, planck, heiseberg, bohr, shrodinger, schlick, nash, russell........all great philosphers, all men of science. u certainly studied some of them, at some point in your life (high school or university). and when u studied them, u were actually studying philosophy.

infact u all studied philosophy, for a good chunk of your life. u just didn't realize it. if u went to law school, then u certainly studied bentham and hume and hobbes... if u studied liberal arts, then u certainly studied kant and giordano bruno and voltaire... if u studied architechture or art, then u probably know more about philosophy than u would ever imagine.... and all of u probably got to study popper or dante or nietzsche or marx in high school.

perhaps u didn't get to study "history of philosophy" (as a specific school subject), wich is indeed regrettable, but u certainly studied philosophy for most of your education process... u just didn't know u were studying it, but that's irrelevant.

godotelli, in another thread, that ridiculous conversation about balotelli not being italian (btw, great post mate! ;) ) u defined nations as a "legal fiction". now, i don't know if u're actually aware of the original meaning of the latin word "fictio", as opposed to anything that is "reale" (but since u used that specific word in such an appropriate manner, i'm inclined to believe u are), but u must be aware that only your philosophic studies allowed u to express such an opinion :))
Click to expand...

http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/19/copernicus-google-doodle/ :DD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom