Talk:190: IPoD - Revision history

162.158.33.148 at 10:01, 19 December 2023

2023-12-19T10:01:36Z

172.70.90.246 at 18:10, 18 August 2023

2023-08-18T18:10:23Z

172.70.90.246 at 18:09, 18 August 2023

2023-08-18T18:09:09Z

Beanie at 13:46, 9 July 2021

2021-07-09T13:46:17Z

Beanie at 13:45, 9 July 2021

2021-07-09T13:45:53Z

Lupo: Undo deletion of comment. Usually no content of other users is deleted or edited from talk pages. If you think Kazvorpals comment was offensive, (and if it was refering to you (IP-user)?) maybe leave a comment on his talk page, asking him to edit/remove.

2019-10-23T06:28:51Z

Undo deletion of comment. Usually no content of other users is deleted or edited from talk pages. If you think Kazvorpals comment was offensive, (and if it was refering to you (IP-user)?) maybe leave a comment on his talk page, asking him to edit/remove.

162.158.158.213 at 20:56, 22 October 2019

2019-10-22T20:56:54Z

Kazvorpal at 16:04, 7 October 2019

2019-10-07T16:04:44Z

Kazvorpal at 16:02, 7 October 2019

2019-10-07T16:02:59Z

108.162.219.223 at 19:07, 6 January 2014

2014-01-06T19:07:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:01, 19 December 2023
Line 6:		Line 6:
	:::Harsh, but true. <span style="text-shadow:0 0 6px black">[[User:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 3px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 13:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)		:::Harsh, but true. <span style="text-shadow:0 0 6px black">[[User:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 3px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 13:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
	The description describes altering the birthrate channel as 'encouraging or discouraging women from having children'. I always interpreted it as either conceiving children himself, or causing abortions or miscarriages, respectively. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.246\|172.70.90.246]] 18:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)		The description describes altering the birthrate channel as 'encouraging or discouraging women from having children'. I always interpreted it as either conceiving children himself, or causing abortions or miscarriages, respectively. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.246\|172.70.90.246]] 18:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
		+	: You're welcome. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.148\|162.158.33.148]] 10:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ::I find it boggling how many people are so weak-minded as to feel certain about something based on evidence instead of proof. It is absolutely impossible to rationally state "of course it is" if you lack proof. You are going by the circumstantial evidence of the letters coinciding, and nothing more. It cannot be better than "probably is". Not only is this a logical problem a-la {{w|Karl Popper}}, but this failing also seems to involve a weakly developed theory of mind. The belief that one can know with certainty the thoughts of another in a case like this shows that while they may understand the basic premise of "that person can't always see what I'm seeing", they don't fully grok "I don't necessarily know his thoughts, based on my external observations and speculation".  —[[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 :::Harsh, but true. <span style="text-shadow:0 0 6px black">[[User:Beanie|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 3px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 13:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
-The description describes altering the birth rate channel as 'encouraging or discouraging women from having children'. I always interpreted it as either conceiving children himself or causing abortions or miscarriages, respectively. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.246|172.70.90.246]] 18:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
+The description describes altering the birthrate channel as 'encouraging or discouraging women from having children'. I always interpreted it as either conceiving children himself, or causing abortions or miscarriages, respectively. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.246|172.70.90.246]] 18:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:09, 18 August 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	::I find it boggling how many people are so weak-minded as to feel certain about something based on evidence instead of proof. It is absolutely impossible to rationally state "of course it is" if you lack proof. You are going by the circumstantial evidence of the letters coinciding, and nothing more. It cannot be better than "probably is". Not only is this a logical problem a-la {{w\|Karl Popper}}, but this failing also seems to involve a weakly developed theory of mind. The belief that one can know with certainty the thoughts of another in a case like this shows that while they may understand the basic premise of "that person can't always see what I'm seeing", they don't fully grok "I don't necessarily know his thoughts, based on my external observations and speculation". —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)		::I find it boggling how many people are so weak-minded as to feel certain about something based on evidence instead of proof. It is absolutely impossible to rationally state "of course it is" if you lack proof. You are going by the circumstantial evidence of the letters coinciding, and nothing more. It cannot be better than "probably is". Not only is this a logical problem a-la {{w\|Karl Popper}}, but this failing also seems to involve a weakly developed theory of mind. The belief that one can know with certainty the thoughts of another in a case like this shows that while they may understand the basic premise of "that person can't always see what I'm seeing", they don't fully grok "I don't necessarily know his thoughts, based on my external observations and speculation". —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::Harsh, but true. <span style="text-shadow:0 0 6px black">[[User:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 3px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 13:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)		:::Harsh, but true. <span style="text-shadow:0 0 6px black">[[User:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 3px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 13:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
		+	The description describes altering the birth rate channel as 'encouraging or discouraging women from having children'. I always interpreted it as either conceiving children himself or causing abortions or miscarriages, respectively. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.246\|172.70.90.246]] 18:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 : Of course it is, but as just a secondary joke.  It doesn't relate to the main point of the comic.  But it should be mentioned anyway.  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 19:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 ::I find it boggling how many people are so weak-minded as to feel certain about something based on evidence instead of proof. It is absolutely impossible to rationally state "of course it is" if you lack proof. You are going by the circumstantial evidence of the letters coinciding, and nothing more. It cannot be better than "probably is". Not only is this a logical problem a-la {{w|Karl Popper}}, but this failing also seems to involve a weakly developed theory of mind. The belief that one can know with certainty the thoughts of another in a case like this shows that while they may understand the basic premise of "that person can't always see what I'm seeing", they don't fully grok "I don't necessarily know his thoughts, based on my external observations and speculation".  —[[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
-::Harsh, but true. <span style="text-shadow:0 0 6px black">[[User:Beanie|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 3px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 13:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
+:::Harsh, but true. <span style="text-shadow:0 0 6px black">[[User:Beanie|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 3px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 13:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:45, 9 July 2021
Line 4:		Line 4:
	: Of course it is, but as just a secondary joke. It doesn't relate to the main point of the comic. But it should be mentioned anyway. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223\|108.162.219.223]] 19:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)		: Of course it is, but as just a secondary joke. It doesn't relate to the main point of the comic. But it should be mentioned anyway. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223\|108.162.219.223]] 19:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
	::I find it boggling how many people are so weak-minded as to feel certain about something based on evidence instead of proof. It is absolutely impossible to rationally state "of course it is" if you lack proof. You are going by the circumstantial evidence of the letters coinciding, and nothing more. It cannot be better than "probably is". Not only is this a logical problem a-la {{w\|Karl Popper}}, but this failing also seems to involve a weakly developed theory of mind. The belief that one can know with certainty the thoughts of another in a case like this shows that while they may understand the basic premise of "that person can't always see what I'm seeing", they don't fully grok "I don't necessarily know his thoughts, based on my external observations and speculation". —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)		::I find it boggling how many people are so weak-minded as to feel certain about something based on evidence instead of proof. It is absolutely impossible to rationally state "of course it is" if you lack proof. You are going by the circumstantial evidence of the letters coinciding, and nothing more. It cannot be better than "probably is". Not only is this a logical problem a-la {{w\|Karl Popper}}, but this failing also seems to involve a weakly developed theory of mind. The belief that one can know with certainty the thoughts of another in a case like this shows that while they may understand the basic premise of "that person can't always see what I'm seeing", they don't fully grok "I don't necessarily know his thoughts, based on my external observations and speculation". —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
		+	::Harsh, but true. <span style="text-shadow:0 0 6px black">[[User:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 3px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 13:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:28, 23 October 2019
Line 3:		Line 3:
	: Perhaps, but I doubt it. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91\|184.66.160.91]] 02:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)		: Perhaps, but I doubt it. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91\|184.66.160.91]] 02:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
	: Of course it is, but as just a secondary joke. It doesn't relate to the main point of the comic. But it should be mentioned anyway. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223\|108.162.219.223]] 19:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)		: Of course it is, but as just a secondary joke. It doesn't relate to the main point of the comic. But it should be mentioned anyway. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223\|108.162.219.223]] 19:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
		+	::I find it boggling how many people are so weak-minded as to feel certain about something based on evidence instead of proof. It is absolutely impossible to rationally state "of course it is" if you lack proof. You are going by the circumstantial evidence of the letters coinciding, and nothing more. It cannot be better than "probably is". Not only is this a logical problem a-la {{w\|Karl Popper}}, but this failing also seems to involve a weakly developed theory of mind. The belief that one can know with certainty the thoughts of another in a case like this shows that while they may understand the basic premise of "that person can't always see what I'm seeing", they don't fully grok "I don't necessarily know his thoughts, based on my external observations and speculation". —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:56, 22 October 2019
Line 3:		Line 3:
	: Perhaps, but I doubt it. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91\|184.66.160.91]] 02:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)		: Perhaps, but I doubt it. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91\|184.66.160.91]] 02:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
	: Of course it is, but as just a secondary joke. It doesn't relate to the main point of the comic. But it should be mentioned anyway. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223\|108.162.219.223]] 19:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)		: Of course it is, but as just a secondary joke. It doesn't relate to the main point of the comic. But it should be mentioned anyway. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223\|108.162.219.223]] 19:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
−	::I find it boggling how many people are so weak-minded as to feel certain about something based on evidence instead of proof. It is absolutely impossible to rationally state "of course it is" if you lack proof. You are going by the circumstantial evidence of the letters coinciding, and nothing more. It cannot be better than "probably is". Not only is this a logical problem a-la {{w\|Karl Popper}}, but this failing also seems to involve a weakly developed theory of mind. The belief that one can know with certainty the thoughts of another in a case like this shows that while they may understand the basic premise of "that person can't always see what I'm seeing", they don't fully grok "I don't necessarily know his thoughts, based on my external observations and speculation". —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 : Perhaps, but I doubt it. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 02:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 : Of course it is, but as just a secondary joke.  It doesn't relate to the main point of the comic.  But it should be mentioned anyway.  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 19:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
-::I find it boggling how many people are so weak-minded as to feel certain about something based on evidence instead of proof. It is absolutely impossible to rationally state "of course it is" if you lack proof. You are going by the circumstantial evidence of the letters coinciding, and nothing more. It cannot be better than "probably is". Not only is this a logical problem a-la [[W:Karl Popper|Popper]], but this failing also seems to involve a weakly developed theory of mind. The belief that one can know with certainty the thoughts of another in a case like this shows that while they may understand the basic premise of "that person can't always see what I'm seeing", they don't fully grok "I don't necessarily know his thoughts, based on my external observations and speculation".  —[[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
+::I find it boggling how many people are so weak-minded as to feel certain about something based on evidence instead of proof. It is absolutely impossible to rationally state "of course it is" if you lack proof. You are going by the circumstantial evidence of the letters coinciding, and nothing more. It cannot be better than "probably is". Not only is this a logical problem a-la {{w|Karl Popper}}, but this failing also seems to involve a weakly developed theory of mind. The belief that one can know with certainty the thoughts of another in a case like this shows that while they may understand the basic premise of "that person can't always see what I'm seeing", they don't fully grok "I don't necessarily know his thoughts, based on my external observations and speculation".  —[[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:02, 7 October 2019
Line 3:		Line 3:
	: Perhaps, but I doubt it. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91\|184.66.160.91]] 02:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)		: Perhaps, but I doubt it. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91\|184.66.160.91]] 02:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
	: Of course it is, but as just a secondary joke. It doesn't relate to the main point of the comic. But it should be mentioned anyway. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223\|108.162.219.223]] 19:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)		: Of course it is, but as just a secondary joke. It doesn't relate to the main point of the comic. But it should be mentioned anyway. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223\|108.162.219.223]] 19:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
		+	::I find it boggling how many people are so weak-minded as to feel certain about something based on evidence instead of proof. It is absolutely impossible to rationally state "of course it is" if you lack proof. You are going by the circumstantial evidence of the letters coinciding, and nothing more. It cannot be better than "probably is". Not only is this a logical problem a-la [[W:Karl Popper\|Popper]], but this failing also seems to involve a weakly developed theory of mind. The belief that one can know with certainty the thoughts of another in a case like this shows that while they may understand the basic premise of "that person can't always see what I'm seeing", they don't fully grok "I don't necessarily know his thoughts, based on my external observations and speculation". —[[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:07, 6 January 2014
Line 2:		Line 2:

	: Perhaps, but I doubt it. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91\|184.66.160.91]] 02:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)		: Perhaps, but I doubt it. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91\|184.66.160.91]] 02:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
		+	: Of course it is, but as just a secondary joke. It doesn't relate to the main point of the comic. But it should be mentioned anyway. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223\|108.162.219.223]] 19:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)