Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...
View Single Post
Old 09-22-2013, 03:54 PM   #9
Konnaha_yellow_flash
Kage
 
Konnaha_yellow_flash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 7,810
Thanks: 853
Thanked 2,439 Times in 1,577 Posts
Konnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to all
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Had to edit the post to make it fit this page...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
KYF, I'm the one who seriously doubt you actually observed child behavior to think Freud's hyper-simplistic approach to it holds any water. While children do have simpler behavior patterns than adults, they aren't devoid of behavioral complexity. And no, my nephew is just like any other kid, you simply don't know any kid to even consider they're simply selfish and don't have basic morals. They are just like adults, some more selfish, others more altruistic, it's just like AMA said, if anything they act more on their whims than adults do.
LMAO, to even compare the behavior of a small toddler to an adult proves your pure ignorance on this subject... And the fact you actually believe that MORALS are hardwired at Birth is just the dumbest thing you have came up with yet... ANd what is your evidence... A paper on children handing adults shit they ask for to try and prove altruistic behavior... Just fucking stupid to support such a paper...
An I am not arguing that without a way to prove your case, you are wrong... I am just saying without any evidence, you have no argument... Just arguing with opinion will go nowhere...

Quote:
Oh and the one link you pretend to have read but clearly only bothered to read the summary isn't enough? Don't worry, here are more links if you aren't satisfied:
That paper is an abomination and you have no defense before it beyond more random claims because you know it is shit!!!

  1. OMFG!!! These idiots showed children a puppet either being led up a hill by one puppet and down a hill by the other and labled the one going up as HELPING and the one GOING down as HINDERING then when they managed to get more babies to so called HELP the puppet up the hill, they were showing they evaluated those on their behavior towards other which is just ridiculous when a puppet leading a puppet up or down a hill is nor good or bad and ONLY the stupid study adults own IDEA of good and bad caused the IDEA of babies to somehow be able to interpret good and bad when their is no WAY for them to know the difference...

    Just another BS Experiment based on The studiers INTERPRETATION of the babies behavior, not ACTUAL motivation for their behavior based on evidence, testing, ect... So this one is complete BS like the previous...



    Hope you know that this was about there being no moral compass for babies at all, merely that the previous papers experiment was actually showing some simple and general associative mechanisms...
    WHy did you even post this as EVIDENCE when it refutes your argument???

    You clearly did not read this because you would know that all the actual evidence they have of morality is that one baby apparently took some candy from a so called BAD puppet the slapped it.... ONE BABY in a whole experiment as if the inconsistent behavior of one baby doing such a thing could show anything other then the pure idiocy of these study people...
    other then that, they jsut discussed the issue as far as I was willing to read because this paper was the worse one yet...

    CONGRATS, YOU FALIED AGAIN TO SHOW ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF SUCH A THING AS MORALITY IN BABIES..

    I stopped after these idiots claimed that a child protesting sharing blocks was not his being selfish and acting like a normal baby, but showing his morality did it for me... I mean, did you even read these papers, so far they have shown nothing beyond the pure idiocy of the study people who are experimenting and writing thee papers...

    ANother fail!!!

    God this and thus you are so fucking stupid to use this as evidence.. These people like the ones from before are ONLY INTERPRETING the motivations of the babies behavior by their own OPINION of it not the actual Motivation and REASON for the behavior at all...

    They merely having children copy them by picking things up, hand them things that are supposed to be theirs and call it sharing, ect and interpret is as altruistic behavior while actually doing absolutely NO experimenting or studies to find the motivation and reason for the behavior...

Quote:
And I'd link you to a documentary on apes' behavior that also included child behavior (namely altruism and basic morality), but I saw it on TV and I unfortunately I still haven't tracked it down on the net.
Whatever I am tired of reading your idea of altruistic and unselfish behavior in babies by ONLY personally interpreting the behavior thus drawing the conclusion from Opinion not actually experimenting and using studies to actually find the REASON or MOTIVATION for the behavior which is the ONLY way to show such a thing a Morals, not just give your personal opinion based on your own personal interpretation of the behavior...

Quote:
And you don't need credentials, only common sense. Oh my, I didn't know your delusions were common sense nor that common sense superseded scientific knowledge (I'd love you to apply common sense to quantum physics). No, you DO need credentials if you are claiming better knowledge of the subject than people who specialized in the field. So yeah, until you actually show a paper with your name on it to justify your claims, I'll stick to the position of thinking you're just an arrogant bastard bullshitting his way through to not admit defeat.
LMAO, what scientific knowledge? What credentials? All they did was give thier interpretation of the behavior, not the acutal reason for the behavior based on experimenting and study because you know, they are a Kind SCIENTIST apparently...

The FACT that you support a paper about studiers just trying to use their own interpretation and opinions of babies behavior as evidence of morals being hardwired at birth just further proves how desperate you truly are to draw at such a small straw to the point there is almost no straw with such a shit paper base on nothing more then opinion, not scientific evidence...

Quote:
Finally, I love how you accuse me of projection when you project the most. I don't know anything about conditioning but somehow I know that conditioning DOES require two stimuli because the whole point of conditioning is to evoke with the conditioned stimulus the normal response to the unconditioned stimulus, so do tell me how the fucking hell can you pull conditioning when you lack one of its core components? Oh yeah, you fucking don't, because it's not conditioning, it's just a bullshit excuse by KYF to defend Kishimoto's sloppy writing!
LMAO, keep telling yourself that to keep up the delusion that you actually know what you are talking about, thus project your little heart out because the anxiety of accepting your short coming are too much for a weak girl like you...

Forrest, the unconditioned stimulus does not matter in this case, it is the conditioned stimulus that you keep proving forrest gump about...... And I already explained that stimulus as seeing dead shinobi walking around rarely, thus the unconditioned response is pure surprise... and now you try argue there needs to be two different Conditioned stimulus which is stupid as fuck clearly showing you know nothing about conditioning at all!!!

You even argue that kishi's writing is sloppy because you cannot even understand the conditioning in the suppression of surprise by the consistent seeing of edo after edo walking around for days to the point by the time they saw Orochimaru, they did not have much surprise at all...
And then argue that Kishi conditioned everyone to think that riine tensai caused white hair even after it did not even once because it was explained as nagato pushing his chakra bast it's limits... Proving you know nothing baout conditioning...

Quote:
And, just like your fellow boob MrBig, you still haven't address the issue of the roots of morality, considering them being taught causes an infinite regress.
Oh jebus, your trying too hard... Morality of judging good and bad is based on OPINION... And is just like beauty, perfection, ect... For a child to know the difference between good and evil, they have to be taught because an opinion, idea cannot be passed on like INSTINCTS...
Pretty much, Morality can never be proven with babies because you can never actual know the motivation or reason of their behavior because they cannot convey thier emotions, ntentions without the ability to express it to you... Preyy much you are left with you idea, interpretation of what (good or bad) they were motivated by, thus unable to ever know so you are arguing something without any way to actually show anything credible for it...

I assume the rest is for MRBIG...
__________________
KNOWLEDGE TO LIVE BY...

No matter how POWERFUL/STRONG you are. If you cannot CATCH your Enemy, all you POWER/STRENGTH is no more USEFUL then a squirt gun....
And if You cannot possibly TRACK/REACT to your enemies attacks to Defend yourself, then how can you possibly stop him from DEFEATING you at WILL...


MINATO "KYF" NAMIKAZE.

People live relying on they're Knowledge and Perception, and thus are bound to them.....
Those Boundaries are what they tend to accept as "Reality".....
However..... Knowledge and Perception are both ambiguous....
so "Reality" could be nothing more....
then an illusion....


ITACHI UCHIHA
Konnaha_yellow_flash is offline   Reply With Quote