Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion

PERRY THE ROYAL COCKSUCKER said:
IMA ROYAL COCKSUCKER
IMA ROYAL COCKSUCKER
IMA ROYAL COCKSUCKER
IMA ROYAL COCKSUCKER
IMA ROYAL COCKSUCKER
IMA ROYAL COCKSUCKER
IMA ROYAL COCKSUCKER
IMA ROYAL COCKSUCKER
IMA ROYAL COCKSUCKER
IMA ROYAL COCKSUCKER
IMA ROYAL COCKSUCKER
IMA ROYAL COCKSUCKER
IMA ROYAL COCKSUCKER
IMA ROYAL COCKSUCKER
IMA ROYAL COCKSUCKER
Click to expand...
Good, Perry the Royal Cocksucker
 
Doc Dutch said:
Good, Perry the Royal Cocksucker
Click to expand...

Seriously...you seem to have unraveled. I've seen you get pissed before but this seems a bit juvenile, even by YOUR standards. What gives? Why are you suddenly so off-the-charts pissed off?

Maybe if you tried being clever again and come up with something new?
 
IlaceWords said:
Still on this? It's honestly like you can't read when it has been explained to you multiple times.

This is why you did so bad at college. You need to PAY ATTENTION.

(Kudos on SO MANY instances of you responding to your own posts. Clearly in your mind you are the smartest person you know.)
Click to expand...

Since you spend 70 percent of your time here reading my threads, reading my posts, and composing poems about me, are you actually dreaming about me too?
 
Cypress said:
Since you spend 70 percent of your time here reading my threads, reading my posts, and composing poems about me, are you actually dreaming about me too?
Click to expand...
I have no doubt Perry is a pervert along with all of his other faults. Sad.
 
Doc Dutch said:
....after every asskicking. :rofl2:
Click to expand...

Give it a rest today, Chode. Not sure I'm really in the mood to spend the whole day trading stupid barbs with you today. You really are boring and when you get really pissy it just gets worse with the "cocksucker" posts that look like the work of someone in severe mental crisis.
 
There are dupes who believe the term universal only applies to physics laws

Immanuel Kant's Philosophy of a universal moral imperative
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

United Nations statement on universal values
https://unsdg.un.org/2030-agenda/universal-values

United Nations statement on universal health coverage
https://www.who.int/health-topics/universal-health-coverage#tab=tab_1

Vietnam, Laos, North Korea and South Korea, and Taiwan still require universal military service.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.st...te-of-military-conscription-around-the-world/

Carter Center's statement on universal suffrage
https://eos.cartercenter.org/summaries/294
 
Cypress said:
Immanuel Kant's Philosophy of a universal moral imperative
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

United Nations statement on universal values
https://unsdg.un.org/2030-agenda/universal-values

United Nations statement on universal health coverage
https://www.who.int/health-topics/universal-health-coverage#tab=tab_1

Vietnam, Laos, North Korea and South Korea, and Taiwan still require universal military service.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.st...te-of-military-conscription-around-the-world/

Carter Center's statement on universal suffrage
https://eos.cartercenter.org/summaries/294
Click to expand...


I am fascinated that you are still on this point. A point which I granted you in part but you didn't read what was actually written.

So it seems you are making a "strawman" argument which is, like your constant reliance on argumentum ad hominem, likewise a fallacy.

NO ONE THINKS UNIVERSAL IS ONLY related to humans OR that it is ONLY related to the UNIVERSE in toto.

It is a "set designation". Universal can apply to all members of a set. And a set can be part of a LARGER SET to which the term can ALSO apply.

Seriously this is the most stupid hill to fight over.
 
The OED, Oxford English Dictionary, is considered one of the main comprehensive dictionaries of the entire English language. The OED was initially started in the 19th century and maintains updates to this day. The OED (in physical form) is usually a VERY LARGE multi-volume (up to 10 or 15 books as I recall) dictionary. It is EXHAUSTIVE.

"The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely accepted as the most complete record of the English language ever assembled."
https://library.harvard.edu/services-tools/oxford-english-dictionary

It defines "Universal" thusly:

universal, adj., n., & adv.
Extending over or including the whole of something specified or implied, esp. the whole of a particular group or the whole world;
 
Colloquy said:
The OED, Oxford English Dictionary, is considered one of the main comprehensive dictionaries of the entire English language. The OED was initially started in the 19th century and maintains updates to this day. The OED (in physical form) is usually a VERY LARGE multi-volume (up to 10 or 15 books as I recall) dictionary. It is EXHAUSTIVE.

"The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely accepted as the most complete record of the English language ever assembled."
https://library.harvard.edu/services-tools/oxford-english-dictionary

It defines "Universal" thusly:

universal, adj., n., & adv.
Extending over or including the whole of something specified or implied, esp. the whole of a particular group or the whole world;
Click to expand...

Thanks for confessing that I have been using the term universal correctly and in it's proper context for what I was writing all along.
 
Cypress said:
Thanks for confessing that I have been using the term universal correctly and in it's proper context for what I was writing all along.
Click to expand...

You have been using ONE PART of ONE DEFINITION which is NOT EXHAUSTIVE and NOT EXCLUSIVE.

Ergo we are BOTH using the term correctly.

I actually tried to explain this to you many times now but for some reason you can't understand.
 
Colloquy said:
You have been using ONE PART of ONE DEFINITION which is NOT EXHAUSTIVE and NOT EXCLUSIVE.

Ergo we are BOTH using the term correctly.

I actually tried to explain this to you many times now but for some reason you can't understand.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the confession that the Oxford definition I gave six thousand posts ago was correct: it applies to everybody, everywhere, or a subset of people. And thanks for your confession that I used the term correctly in context because I was writing about humans, not the laws of physics
 
Cypress said:
Thanks for the confession that the Oxford definition I gave six thousand posts ago was correct: it applies to everybody, everywhere, or a subset of people. And thanks for your confession that I used the term correctly in context because I was writing about humans, not the laws of physics
Click to expand...

I hope you realized I already told you this many, many, many posts ago. My use is EXACTLY AS CORRECT.

I already explained it to you. But since you don't read my posts you missed it.

This is why reading should be done with great care.
 
Colloquy said:
I hope you realized I already told you this many, many, many posts ago. My use is EXACTLY AS CORRECT.

I already explained it to you. But since you don't read my posts you missed it.

This is why reading should be done with great care.
Click to expand...

I don't care about your use, I never questioned it. I don't even read 80 percent of what you post, and just skim the other 20 percent.


Thanks for the confession finally after six thousand posts later that my Oxford dictionary definition was correct, and I was correctly using the word properly in the context I was writing.
 
Cypress said:
I don't care about your use, I never questioned it. I don't even read 80 percent of what you post, and just skim the other 20 percent.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes, I understand. Can we drop the hate today? I honestly don't have the stomach for it.

Thanks for the confession finally after six thousand posts later that my Oxford dictionary definition was correct, and I was correctly using the word properly in the context I was writing.
Click to expand...

You missed the earlier posts where I said the exact same thing.

If only you had read them.

I also explained my position but you didn't apparently read that either.
 
Colloquy said:
Yes, yes, yes, I understand. Can we drop the hate today? I honestly don't have the stomach for it.



You missed the earlier posts where I said the exact same thing.

If only you had read them.

I also explained my position but you didn't apparently read that either.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the confession finally after six thousand posts later that my Oxford dictionary definition was correct, and I was correctly using the word properly in the context I was writing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top