1356: Well Enough

[FletchLives]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Are you serious? You're just legitimately dumb. I showed you how many of the definitions of skeptic are particularly apt for describing someone that does not believe in some religious belief, and you're trying to tell me that one half of one third of the definitions of skepticism, which in total was relevant to one half of the definitions of skeptic, prove that you are more right about the word skeptic in a general sense? That's idiotic.

Furthermore, I already addressed that part of the definition. Someone is not - as a general term - a skeptic if they are only skeptical about an urban legend about frogs. They are a skeptic regarding that subject, but they are not a skeptic in general.

You're especially making yourself look dumb when you said "I don't think you know what skeptic means" and every single definition applies to what I said it applies to.

And what's more, people 1000 years ago didn't believe a lot of shit people told them, too. Skeptics are not automatically correct; you can be skeptical about something and be wrong. People 1000 years ago didn't believe stuff with the same frequency that people today don't believe stuff; only what is not believed has changed. If not believing one thing makes someone a skeptic, people long ago were just as much skeptics as people are today, which completely decimates your original point.

A skeptic is, boiled down to the simplest term, a doubter. Just like most labels, it is applied to a person when it is applicable to them more often than it is not, or is more applicable to them than to the average person. I am not a cook if I make ramen one time or make ramen all the time. I would not call someone a doubter if they only doubted one thing because it breaks down the usefulness of descriptive words.

It's pretty telling when I give you the definition of skeptic as support for my argument, as you invited me to do, and then you say I am "picking it apart". Words have meanings and you can't just arbitrarily pick them or try to erode the language just to prove a point. I hope you never have to introduce someone or describe what they do in any way, because everyone in your world is a polymath.

sorry for taking until today to check this.

like you're saying, the definition you gave fits for what we are both using it as. so, to say that you are more correct because you are using the definition that is more of a generalization. my exact point that i've been making was in your definition.
being a skeptic doesn't make you a skeptic in general. this is your argument? ok. i accept that being a skeptic in reference to a particular subject does not make you generally a skeptic. but you are still a skeptic.
sorry, i just think it's funny how you keep adding "in general," "as a general term," "in a general sense," in order to make your use of "skeptic" more validated.
yes, i used one part of the definition. you used another part. you cannot argue that your definition is more correct than mine. that's not how dictionaries work.

[Cretaceous Bob]

You seem to have forgotten what the fuck you even said. I am talking about it as a general term because that is the appropriate definition for the word in the context you used it in. You said "everyone is a skeptic" in modern times, which is a general label, not in reference to a specific area. I kept stressing this because the definition you were clinging to and the context you used the word in are not compatible.

What's more, even if we suppose you went back and completely change what you said and meant to say into a contextually appropriate use for the definition you've backed yourself into, you immediately prove wrong what you said about modernity correlating with skepticism, which is something I have already stated.

You're backing down with neutered terms and watering down the substance of what I said in order to try to pretend that there is some sort of equal ground here, which there isn't. You were wrong, quit trying. It is dumb to try to say somebody is a skeptic if they disbelieve a single thing, and it's dumb to cling to saying that simply because I cornered you.

It is also worth noting that you don't seem to understand my use of the phrase "in a general sense". What I mean by that is when you say the word without additional modifiers. If you call someone a "skeptic", you are saying they are a skeptic in a generalized manner. It is being used as a descriptor of the sum of the person, not a part. If you call someone a "skeptic about ghosts" or whatever, that is in a defined, non-generalized sense.

[Junkenstein]

Nice to see you in good shape Bobby.

[FletchLives]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

You seem to have forgotten what the fuck you even said. I am talking about it as a general term because that is the appropriate definition for the word in the context you used it in. You said "everyone is a skeptic" in modern times, which is a general label, not in reference to a specific area. I kept stressing this because the definition you were clinging to and the context you used the word in are not compatible.

What's more, even if we suppose you went back and completely change what you said and meant to say into a contextually appropriate use for the definition you've backed yourself into, you immediately prove wrong what you said about modernity correlating with skepticism, which is something I have already stated.

You're backing down with neutered terms and watering down the substance of what I said in order to try to pretend that there is some sort of equal ground here, which there isn't. You were wrong, quit trying.

i haven't backed off of anything. the point is to get you to see my way, and vice versa for you. that's why i'm having to explain further, when a rational thinking person would submit or come up with another point to argue. you're repeating your same points that i proved wrong multiple times, so what the fuck else am i supposed to say?
and thanks for reminding everyone that this all started with you bitching about my use of a popular phrase.

EDIT: you just changed your post and i'm not bothering with that right now.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by FletchLives

i haven't backed off of anything.

Before you were right, now we're both right. That is backing down.

Originally Posted by FletchLives

the point is to get you to see my way, and vice versa for you. that's why i'm having to explain further, when a rational thinking person would submit or come up with another point to argue.

I'm not going to submit when I'm right and there's no point in providing additional points when you let the existing ones lie so that you can back out.

Originally Posted by FletchLives

you're repeating your same points that i proved wrong multiple times, so what the fuck else am i supposed to say?

What? You didn't prove anything wrong. This must be the fifth time somebody said this, but in your world everyone is a skeptic. Not only does that itself disagree with what you have said earlier, but it defeats the purpose of it even being a word. If the definition of a word negates its usefulness as a word, that is not an accurate definition. How many times have I said this? And not once have you addressed it. It's pretty easy to be right if you ignore the things that make you wrong.

Originally Posted by FletchLives

and thanks for reminding everyone that this all started with you bitching about my use of a popular phrase.

I don't know why you're posturing for an audience that really doesn't care that much and has thus far disagreed with you.

Originally Posted by FletchLives

EDIT: you just changed your post and i'm not bothering with that right now.

Wording that is trying to desperately assume an offensive. "Change" implies something other than what I did, which was add to the post to provide additional clarification for you, which you seem to need frequently. Feigned dissipating interest is also a sign of somebody that knows they're wrong.

[ThePinkSuperhero]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

But seriously, please talk to someone. It sucks going through depression alone. Man, I remember spending days at a time in bed because I just couldn't deal with anything. By the time I was 25 it had started to get better and now I'm 34 and I don't even have my periods of "melancholy," as I used to call them. I want to just say "it gets better" but everyone is different.

I agree. I hope the feedback from listeners encourages you to get help, Lucas!

[Cretaceous Bob]

Is that "so depressed can't get out of bed" thing real? I always assumed that was hyperbole because I can't imagine that. Perhaps that is because I pace when I'm bothered by stuff.

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Is that "so depressed can't get out of bed" thing real? I always assumed that was hyperbole because I can't imagine that. Perhaps that is because I pace when I'm bothered by stuff.

it is very very real. has nothing to do with how you normally address stuff, though. i usually pace and have tantrums when im bothered. depression works on a different level.. basically its your brain fucking up on a chemistry level, for any reason, so it doesnt give out the juices its supposed to give. result is that you ara awake and conscious but you dont have the strength to move act or anything else. all you wanna do is sleep, cause when you're alseep, you can feel anything. cant eat, cant move, if its strong enough you piss yourself and dont care.

just to be clear, all this is said cause ive been through it all, not out of goggling. other experiences are probably different. this is what i went through. and at times still go through.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Huh. I really can't imagine that. No matter how bad things get I'm still okay so long as I have music and legs to walk somewhere random.

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Huh. I really can't imagine that. No matter how bad things get I'm still okay so long as I have music and legs to walk somewhere random.

that works for me too, but its a different thing. a thing i really cant stand today is people who mix up being bummed with depression (i dont mean you, i mean people who say they're depressed cause they had ONE bad day or two).

Actual depression is a palpable mental disease and comes up fiercely after traumas or abuses. And it does destroy a person's head as any other disease. I used to think it was a bullshit illness until i got it. so nowadays when i hear anyone calling depression for a bit of sadness, it amkes me want to castrate them with a spoon.

a seriously depressed person doesnt move, doesnt eat, has no drive to watch, listen or do anything. all your hobbies, interests, feelings, relationships or thoughts die. all you have in the head is this black tide that mutes everything and kills you and whatever you were or hoped to be.

Sorry for the dramatic tone, i am a bit sensitive on the issue.