[jg18]

its decided, deathfun is the male equivalent of i am zack

I don't understand the reference

I actually thought she was quite a lady to discuss things with.

I'm assuming you mean the person I referred to prior

Try this Google search and this forum profile, although this thread is probably enough to give you the idea.

EDIT: Although if the thread says that kara banned her on February 14 of last year, why does her profile list her as last active on August 1?

[Nuke]

i dont think banned blocks you from logging on, it just prevents you from doing anything. of course ive never been banned so what do i know.

[deathfun]

As the article said, there were no external indicators. People can be remarkably good at masking their feelings.

I'm not sure this is true.

I can assure you, it is

[Dilmah G]

Not to drag this into a battle of semantics, but I think Battuta was addressing the first sentence.

[jg18]

As in there might have been warning signs that everyone around him missed? Perhaps. But it's impossible to say from that one article.

[Nuke]

As the article said, there were no external indicators. People can be remarkably good at masking their feelings.

I'm not sure this is true.

I can assure you, it is

its kinda somewhere in the middle. there are indicators but many of them are usually so subtle that they go unnoticed by most people. there are some people who can pick up on them, and there are those who have it down to a science. im not sure if this is more an innate ability in some people or something that can be learned. its certainly not something i can do.

[deathfun]

As the article said, there were no external indicators. People can be remarkably good at masking their feelings.

I'm not sure this is true.

I can assure you, it is

its kinda somewhere in the middle. there are indicators but many of them are usually so subtle that they go unnoticed by most people. there are some people who can pick up on them, and there are those who have it down to a science. im not sure if this is more an innate ability in some people or something that can be learned. its certainly not something i can do.

Hmm, good point you raise there
As for innate ability or learned... it could be both. Given enough time, you could end up being like the person from "Lie to Me" noticing every slight detail

Not to drag this into a battle of semantics, but I think Battuta was addressing the first sentence.

Oh... well nevermind then

[Grizzly]

i dont think banned blocks you from logging on, it just prevents you from doing anything. of course ive never been banned so what do i know.

It does block you from actually visiting the forum, yes.
And yes, I got banned once. I might have had a bit too much sugar at some point.

[Mika]

I'm a bit late for this thread but this one and the following discussion caught the eye:

I've changed my mind from the education-related threads based on what I'm reading here - basic psychology should be a mandatory course of study for everyone.

I agree. Mine in the college did not do much, and I don't remember much from it. And I'm not even sure if it is scientifically valid anymore. Worst part of it was the person who taught it doubled with religion teaching, making the course pretty much an exercise of reading memory - and me doubting whether I ever heard anything that wasn't religiously colored there, invalidating the idea of the course.

In reality, the teaching should actually be earlier than in college (around the age of 12-13 possibly?), but what is the exact content that should be taught there? This in itself is probably worth another topic already.

I mourn the loss of a smart person

[Nuke]

its sad the number of people who blame "demonic possession" as the cause of mental illness. there are a lot of people in bible thumper circles who think that psychology is entirely bogus.

[BloodEagle]

its sad the number of people who blame "demonic possession" as the cause of mental illness. there are a lot of people in bible thumper circles who think that psychology is entirely bogus.

And, you know, these guys.  (btw, you can't find this clip via youtube search, anymore, despite there being about 200 copies of it, at one point) [/threadjack]

---

I'm seriously interested in how this guy reached his conclusion.  I think it's a travesty that we can't see 'the math' that the article mentions.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

What I wonder is how he was able to use mathematics to weigh the pros and cons of living. It's probably beyond my comprehension to begin with.

[General Battuta]

What I wonder is how he was able to use mathematics to weigh the pros and cons of living. It's probably beyond my comprehension to begin with.

No, not really; he just misapplied the tools of mathematics and failed to examine his axioms and assumptions. Insufficient rigor.

[Dragon]

What I wonder is how he was able to use mathematics to weigh the pros and cons of living. It's probably beyond my comprehension to begin with.

I think say he used statistics. You can prove a lot of different things using right statistics and careful wording. That's why there are three kinds of lie: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
I could most likely think of a fact-based, technically correct and logical proof that life is not worth living, and then come up with similarly correct proof that it's worth it. I don't feel like doing that now, but if I do, I'll post about it.
Besides, just look at American presidential campaign. If you're applying statistics to something subjective or with a blurred meaning, you can get any result you want.

[Mikes]

I could most likely think of a fact-based, technically correct and logical proof that life is not worth living, and then come up with similarly correct proof that it's worth it. I don't feel like doing that now, but if I do, I'll post about it.

The question of "worth" itself is inevitably subjective and ultimately arbitrary - rendering any calculation based on it a farce.

It's rather the other way around entirely: How you have learned to define what is "worth" experiencing and what is "worthless" will to a large extend define how much you enjoy life.


A junkie, for instance, has learned that everything but their next fix is worthless. The word junkie in this case does not necessarily refer only to substance abuse.

Personally I find that some rudimentary knowledge about sociology, biology and psychology that allows one to understand how we "tick" goes a long way to allow oneself to steer towards a balanced happy life.
What I absolutely despise is ignoramuses that blame fate, god or other people for their own inability to take care of their inner balance while they keep repeating the same mistake over and over and over on some kind of downward spiral of idiocy, lamenting the injustice of the world at every turn.

Now do not take me wrong... horrible things do happen to people and there is a lot of injustice in the world... but what I am talking about are perfectly healthy people with a job and often a loving family who are lacking only one thing: The ability to be happy. It's disgusting if you ask me. The holy grail of stupidity.

When I look at some very specific people at my workplace I feel like watching someone continually make the emotional aequivalent of a jump out of a window in order to break their leg... so they can ***** and moan how much it hurts... only to jump again right after the cast comes off... rinse and repeat.

Sorry for the rant... and I hope I did not offend anyone. My words are certainly not aimed at people with real tangible problems, stressful lifes or serious illnesses, but rather at that very specific kind of person that I appear to keep running into.. a person who really lacks for nothing but appears to have never learned how to appreciate what they have, who constantly *****es and complains about every minor issue while never appreciating the wealth of good things available to them.

Some people appear to simply be unable to enjoy even the best things that life has to offer.

/dons flame retardant suit