Just an idea for us all, if we suspect there is a troll, we should just quickly hit their name and see their name to see if they have negative votes already (troll).
Unfortunately for society, this person is not trolling...
In my opinion it's all good, as long as it's fake any thing goes, that includes stuff like Loli, Bestiality, etc. It seems like an appropriate way to get rid of otherwise dangerous feelings.
I never understood that the state calls pedophilia a "sickness" in acient greece 90% of the man had young boy as companion. Does that make them all sick?
Also I don't see harm in lolicon as it doesn't harm childeren. If you don't go ******* your 11 year old cousin I don't mind.
That's the exact thing, fantasy and drawings should be socially acceptable, it's just the real thing that should be illegal. THAT'S what scars children for life, not drawings that only like-minded people who enjoy it have to see.
I'm sorry for some reason I can't reply to your other comment. But wasn't that more of a roman thing rather that an acient greece thing. (I'm pretty sure both did things with boys none the less)
People fighting each other to death for fun in acient greece? Anyway there's still people who enjoy that but we have different ethics. Just like ******* little boys. So I don't see that as a mental illnes but a group of guys with fetishes that didn't have to contain themselves.
I have no idea. But I know that theres a huge amount of ethical, sociological, developmental, psychological and a whole lot of fancy words why people hate it.
Personally I just find it creepy.
That's actually a really funny manga, I enjoy it. But yes i see what you mean.
So then the argument would be that it may act as a trigger to either, introducing someone to something socially unacceptable or acting as a 'bridge' leading to actual cp.
I don't know if those are viable arguments though, just saying them seems weak when you take into account, as stated, the gap between fantasy and reality as well as the circumstance of cp being easily retrievable. I honestly don't know enough about behavior or psychology in any manner to be able to judge. I think that whatever people do, as long as it doesn't harm others or inhibit their rights in any way, should be their business.
I completely forgot about that. You're right, the fact that there's real stuff on the net and it's readily available kinda stifles the argument against it.
I suppose one could argue that it creates a bridge to go from the drawings to the real thing but I'm not sure that's even true because the divide between fantasy and reality is a large expanse.
I mean I'll admit I've read some ****** up hentai, never loli as I'm not inclined to it, but stuff that, like you said, people would find messed up monster girls but given the chance to engage in the activities in real life would make me cringe.
MFW realizing I've read monster girl hentai
Yeah and not to mention the fact that imagination exists.
Those lolicon drawings? Yup, they came from someone's head. Nothing prevents you, as a person to think it up yourself.
Can't reply to the other one. But I've never thought about that, it seems possible, but I dont know if thats the way it works. I'm not saying it isn't I just don't know enough about psychology to give a definitive answer.
I believe that the people who wan't to do it will do it and that they have a problem while there are some people who enjoy things like lolicon but would never actually act upon it. Perhaps I'm wrong but the question is, does allowing it create an opportunity to trigger a potential child rapist?
how the **** did you two end up from discussing a ****** pic about squares and cyrcles to a large proportion battle over the morality and legalistics of CP?
I don't know, I think the idea of actual CP on the internet is enough of a trigger. Picture of naked children isn't even that hard to find, given the fact you can actually use google.
True. It's not hurting anyone, I guess it's because people are scared that if they continually allow the desire to be fueled as opposed to stomping it out people will eventually act on it. Although I don't think many people would considering the implications. In my country its illegal as **** and here you cant claim statuatory rape if both people are over 12 (as far as i know)
Yes indeed.
You seem to have missed it the point. That is an illusion of the original figure, not how the actual figure is shaped. It is round, but appears to be square. (Even though such things as light could make it obvious that it indeed is not square and ruin the illusion).
Except it is circled shaped. You see the top and all the levels below there? Those are circles, mate.
However, it is indeed not square as that was an illusion. If you put a square around it, you'll get a box.
You keep saying a cylinder is "circle shaped." A cylinder is cylinder shaped. A cylinder is a 3D geometric object when a circle is a 2D geometric shape, they are two completely distinct shapes. If you take an infitesimilly small cross section of a cylinder you can get a circle yes, you can also get an oval if you cut at an angle, or a square if you cut vertically.
"You see the top.." Those are circles.
We still call donuts "circle-shaped", not "donut-shaped" like a complete moron. Even so, it does not affect the original point whether I say cylinder-shaped or circle-shaped.
Well, he did make cross-sections parallel to the "circular" sides. If he were to cut perpendicularly into the same faces, it would be a set of rectangles...
Notice he didn't cut INTO the circular face. If he were to cut into the circular face and stop at the other circular face, the result would be two rectangular faces. So, I guess a cylinder "contains" a rectangle even if it doesn't have a rectangular face on the outside.
Grab lots of squares of smaller and smaller widths
Stack squares on top of each other
Boom, you have a cylinder Or
Grab a single square
Rotate it around and axis
Boom, you have a cylinder
Simply because it can be made with circles doesn't mean it CAN"T be made using squares.
Actually no, If you stack 2D objects you will still end up with a 2D object, since it doesn't have any depth. Which is why if you take a 2D segment from one angle you will have a circle and from the different angle you will have a square, and both are correct 2D representations of the object. Neither is the "correct" 3D shape though, since you can't build a 3D object out of 2D segments.
A sphere is what you're looking for if you want a 3D object where the only correct 2D representation is a circle
Okay, well a cylinder can also be built by stacking rectangles of changing widths.
They would start out narrow, increase in width to probably a square in this case, then decrease again. Also, I would like to point out that a cylinder is not completely round: it has a sharp corner between its side and circular faces. A sphere, on the other hand is completely round.
Remove one square.
What do you have?
Wait, so a circle isn't completely round?
Okay. Yeah okay, totally.
Also, this does not disprove the fact that without touching the cylinder, you don't have a square what so ever. However, you still have a circle. So forget about what shapes consists of, I think that makes it easier to understand.
Unfortunately, forgetting what the shape consists of is how disputes like this arise in the first place: a cylinder consists of both circular and rectangular cross-sections, hence the shadows. Removing a square would cause a loss of "cylinderness", however, the ability to cut a cylinder and make more cylinders is more similar to how you can cut a box and create more boxes. This is not a property of the completely round sphere: no straight cut will produce another sphere.
I will give you some credit though: despite a 2D circle having sharp edges, it is indeed round. That was one of my attempts to show how a cylinder has rectangular properties, but it was a bad statement on my part.
The cylinder isn't square from any side.
The cylinder is round from one side (actually also the other, but I suppose I can't convince you since apparently, the illusion is too strong).
Which leads to my statement. "Sorry, I should have said "More correct"."
Replace the word "side" in my previous comment with "dimension" and it should make more sense. From the perspective of the x dimension it would appear round and from the y and z dimensions it would appear square (assuming the cylinder was small enough).
But, as I also said, it isn't round from all sides.
To understand this, imagine rolling a tin can down an incline. It's only going to rotate across one of its dimensions isn't it? Put it end to end on an incline with enough friction and it'll stay in place.
The cylinder depicts a circle.
There is a circle form visible to the eye.
The square, is not. It is an illusion. Especially, if as stated before, the cylinder is hollow.
No, we are talking about a cylinder, if we were talking about the two top sides of a cylinder then yes you would talk about 2 circles. But we are not talking about 2 circles, but about a cylinder, which is a square rotated around and axis. If you stack a billion circles, you would still have a circle. You can't tell anyone a 3D form is the same as a 2D shape, a cylinder consists of both a square and 2 circles. Please realize that everything that is round is not immediately a circle.
Basically, if you stack a lot of square too, you'd still have a square by that logic.
Please realize that your argument doesn't hold water for **** if we're talking about a hollow cylinder either. The cylinder is round on top and on the bottom.
It's also round on the side, all around to the top. Note that I never claimed the cylinder to be a ******* circle either.
Anything that is round is not automatically a circle. A circle is a two-dimensional shape, while a cylinder is a third dimensional shape. I was never suggesting that stacked squares made a cylinder.
"and thus why I pointed out several times that the cylinder, visually consists of the circle, not a square and the fact that the cylinder is circle-formed from one end to the other. I too, hate logic. "
"No, they still aren't equally wrong/right.
Given the fact that the cylinder actually consists of the circle. Unlike the square. "
"Except it is circled shaped. You see the top and all the levels below there? Those are circles, mate.
However, it is indeed not square as that was an illusion. If you put a square around it, you'll get a box. "
"The cylinder depicts a circle. "
I hope you're a troll.
Well then what was your point? That a cylinder is a circle? That you weren't saying that a cylinder was a circle? Next time, try to type what you actually want to say. If you are a troll, you are a damn good one.
Well, go ahead and waste your time digging through the thread to find it. I've tried to cut it into simple pieces, but it seems people are still able to misunderstand it in some way or another anyways when you do that.
Not really, after the plethora of retards who failed completely and utterly to see the point, while I'm doing my math assignment, I hardly feel like arguing with yet another idiot.
Now you are just copy-pasting your old irrelevant **** and using it as a reply to my arguments, obviously you gave up long ago and I won. If you want to object to this, please post an actual, relevant argument to the comment below.
Good job being a faggot who does not realize a circle is a 2-Dimensional object, which a cylinder is not. A cylinder might be round, but everything that is round is not automatically a circle.
And while we are at it..
Cylinder
1. A surface created by projecting a closed two-dimensional curve along an axis intersecting the plane of the curve.
Â Â When the two-dimensional curve is a circle, the cylinder is called a circular cylinder. Â Â When the axis is perpendicular to the plane of the curve, the cylinder is called a Â Â right cylinder. In non-mathematical usage, both right and circular are usually implied.
2. A solid figure bounded by a cylinder and two parallel planes intersecting the Â Â Â Â cylinder.
3. Any object in the form of a circular cylinder.
4. A cylindrical cavity or chamber in a mechanism, such as the counterpart to a piston Â Â Â Â found in a piston-driven engine.
5. A container in the form of a cylinder with rounded ends for storing pressurized gas.
6. An early form of phonograph recording, made on a wax cylinder.
7. The part of a revolver that contains chambers for the cartridges.
Good thing being retarded for not realizing the ambiguity of the word circle.
cirÂ·cle (sÃ»râ€²kÉ™l)
n.
1. A plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center.
2. A planar region bounded by a circle.
3. Something, such as a ring, shaped like such a plane curve.
4. A circular course, circuit, or orbit: a satellite's circle around the earth.
5. A traffic circle.
6. A curved section or tier of seats in a theater.
7. A series or process that finishes at its starting point or continuously repeats itself; a cycle.
8. A group of people sharing an interest, activity, or achievement: well-known in artistic circles.
9. A territorial or administrative division, especially of a province, in some European countries.
10. A sphere of influence or interest; domain.
11. Logic A vicious circle.
v. cirÂ·cled, cirÂ·cling, cirÂ·cles
v.tr.
1. To make or form a circle around; enclose. See Synonyms at surround.
2. To move in a circle around.
v.intr.
To move in a circle. See Synonyms at turn.
Good thing being retarded for not realizing the ambiguity of the word circle.
cirÂ·cle (sÃ»râ€²kÉ™l)
n.
1. A plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center.
2. A planar region bounded by a circle.
3. Something, such as a ring, shaped like such a plane curve.
4. A circular course, circuit, or orbit: a satellite's circle around the earth.
5. A traffic circle.
6. A curved section or tier of seats in a theater.
7. A series or process that finishes at its starting point or continuously repeats itself; a cycle.
8. A group of people sharing an interest, activity, or achievement: well-known in artistic circles.
9. A territorial or administrative division, especially of a province, in some European countries.
10. A sphere of influence or interest; domain.
11. Logic A vicious circle.
v. cirÂ·cled, cirÂ·cling, cirÂ·cles
v.tr.
1. To make or form a circle around; enclose. See Synonyms at surround.
2. To move in a circle around.
v.intr.
To move in a circle. See Synonyms at turn.
Yes I could. With a comment like "you're medically retarded" it's pretty much impossible to make a comeback that is relevant to the discussion, which yours was not, and because of this I didn't make another point as to why the cylinder is not a circle.
A cylinder is a square wrapped around an axis. Looking at it from either end would reveal a circle, but looking at it lengthwise you would see a square/rectangle. Both are true, but neither shows the whole truth of the cylinder.
A cylinder combines aspects of a square and a circle, just as a pyramid combines squares and triangles. If you look at a pyramid from the sides, you see the triangles. Look at it from the bottom, you see the square. Again with the cone, which combines triangles with circles.
In that case, you're looking at each individual piece of the actual construction.
A pyramid consists of a square, correct. But when paired in the pyramid, it is still a square.
Same goes for the triangles. They are still their original figures. That's not the case with the cylinder.
The point of the image is perspective, in your example yes a pyramid is a triangle, but if you were to look at it from an under perspective you would only see a square. It isn't about the cylinder being a square it's about how things can change when seen from a different point of view.
You missed my point then.
See:
The square point of view would be wrong, seeing as it's a cylinder and therefore, it makes the round figure the correct point of view.
Seeing as the "truth" we are referring to here, is what figure it is. The cylinder is circle-formed, not square. I think a lot of people missed that.
and when viewed from the top it only shows a circle. literally from any other perspective it is obviously not a circle...thus indicating that this as well is an illusion as it does not show the full truth of the shape.
No, indeed it doesn't. Given the fact that the circular form isn't a damn illusion from that point of view. It is the exact depiction of the form from that side.
Where as if you view it from the rectangular point of view. It is an illusion because the truth is, that the shape is ******* round. Grab the ******* cylinder, tell me it's square.
a cylinder isn't only circle formed shape it is also a square formed shape. If you stack a ton of circle you get a cylinder, you also get a cylinder when you take a square and rotate it around an axis. A cylinder is a 3D geometric shape that combines characteristics of a 2D circle as well as a 2D square/rectangle, you can disagree and argue all you want but this is a fact. As soon as you stack circle upon each other you create a square/rectangle characteristic. If you look at a cylinder and say its a circle your an idiot, if you look at a cylinder and call it a square your also and idiot.
It has a circular form. It doesn't have a rectangular form. It might consist of it, but that's like saying a square has a rectangular form if it consists of triangles.
Projecting a 3 dimensional object into 2 dimensions creates an illusion of that object. Therefore both the circle and square are illusions and are equally wrong/right.
but can you make a cylinder out of ******* squares?
No.
and you're still conveying the point that a box does indeed not consist of squares.
Because here's how it works, even if the SQUARES are made out of triangles.
>You have triangles.
>These triangles form a square.
>These squares form a box.
Now, let's take it into the perspective of the content. Put light to both sides.
Boom, you have two squares.
How does the figure look like on the sides? Squares. (Even if it's consisting of triangles). Therefore, it is not an illusion.
You can with Rectangles. Stack extremely thin squares of gradually decreasing height on top of each other, in both directions, until the end points are nearly infinitely small. You now have a cylinder made of rectangles.
I really can't decide if you actually have this opinion or if you're trying to make a point about FJ not being accepting of your point of view, even in the comments of a picture that displays why several POV can be "right".
I'm still confused, my brain is not working at all today.
You've gone about it in a weird way. The point of the picture is that people who see only the square or the circle only percieve part of the true object, and neither one of them is wrong or right. Both are valid 2D representations of a cylinder, but since it's a 3D object neither is the full truth, which is why this works as a metaphore of perspective. You however claim to see the true object, and then go on to say only one of the 2D representations of the cylinder is correct, which is objectively wrong.
Yeah, I see what you're getting at, but if you accept the cylinder as the true shape, claiming that the circle is the only "correct" or more correct, whatever isn't a defendable POV, which makes this entire discussion incredibly stupid and unnecessary. This picture isn't made to defend perspectivist philosophy, since either one of the 2D perspectives is obviously not the full thruth, its purpose is to give a simple demonstration of the fundamentals. Using it to discredit the entire philosophy doesn't work since in most applications of perspectivism Is that even a word? it's in fields where there isn't a simple objective answer, at least not one that we as subjects can percieve at the moment.
and thus why I pointed out several times that the cylinder, visually consists of the circle, not a square and the fact that the cylinder is circle-formed from one end to the other.
But that's where I disagree. Yes, if you take out 2D segments along one axis, they will be circle shaped, but 2D segments along a different axis are square shaped, and on yet a different axis they are ovals. They aren't as easily visible as the circle but they are most definately there. You keep saying that you can't build a cylinder out of squares, which is true, but the same can be said about circles. Circles don't have any depth so no matter how many circles you "stack", you will never have a cylinder. What I think you're thinking of is that you can build a a taller cylinder out of several shorter cylinders, but you can't build a cylinder with cubes.
I think logic has it's values in fields with objective answers. Geometry is one of them.
Okay, basically.
You're saying if you have a piece of paper, cut out completely round.
You will never ever, ever refer to it as "Hey, could you give me that circular piece of paper over there?"
When it's pretty flat, you won't refer to it as "Hey, can you give me the cylinder-shaped paper over there?"
Come on now.
I don't know what to tell you dude. You can't see my point at all it seems.
The truth is the cylinder.
The square is the wrong one, as the cylinder is not square-formed in any way, shape or form. Especially since it appears hollow.
There is more truth to the circle (on the wall, please don't misunderstand like most of the other idiots here who think I'm calling a cylinder a circle), because that is an actual visible part of the cylinder.
For it to be square, you'd have to cut it half open and sicard the other part. Then you'd have a square on one side. That ruins the other image though.
Therefore, the cylinder is the truth, the circle is more correct. You don't have to alter anything to get the gemoetric figure. Any thing at all.
No of course you wouldn't refer to the paper as a cylinder, but that's still what it factually is. As a geometrical figure a circle has no depth. Which is why "cutting" the cylinder to get a circle or a square doesn't make sense. 2d shapes isn't something you "take out" of the 3d shape, it's just how it looks in a certain plane. You are talking about how you would could cut out a 2d-segment in the real world out of a 3d object, which is impossible, so the point is moot. You're also talking visibility which doesn't really matter either. Just because you can't see the square sections doesn't mean that they're not there. It's like you don't understand the difference between 2d and 3d. Also you can clearly see that it has a square shape since that is the way it projects on the wall. You're confusing squares with cubes, circles with cylinders, 2d with 3d and surface with sections.
"Okay class, form a circle around this point".
You seem to not be able to understand what ambiguous words are.
Try referring tot he ******* circular form of a cylinder by saying cylinder to someone who doens't know what a cylinder is.
No, you're confusing square with cubes. I clearly said that if the.. Forget it, you apparently either can't read or just deliberately choose to ignore it. Let's try again.
I don't know what to tell you dude. You can't see my point at all it seems.
The truth is the cylinder.
The square is the wrong one, as the cylinder is not square-formed in any way, shape or form. Especially since it appears hollow.
There is more truth to the circle (on the wall, please don't misunderstand like most of the other idiots here who think I'm calling a cylinder a circle), because that is an actual visible part of the cylinder.
For it to be square, you'd have to cut it half open and sicard the other part. Then you'd have a square on one side. That ruins the other image though.
Therefore, the cylinder is the truth, the circle is more correct. You don't have to alter anything to get the gemoetric figure. Any thing at all.
The truth is that it's a cylinder. That is what you can see.
What you're actually telling someone to do when forming a circle is to arrange themselves evenly around a circular 2d projection on the floor, but that doesnt really roll of the tongue now does it?
Circle is not an ambiguous word, nor is square, cylinder, sphere, cube or any other geometric shape.
A cylinder is a geometric shape with clear definitions, and cylindrical sections can be square-shaped, it's just the way it ******* is. You're the one using ambiguous words to defend a point about something which is clearly defined. And you haven't clarified anything about cubes, you haven't even used the word until now. Your only attempt to explain why a square shape is wrong was bisecting a cylinder, BUT THAT'S NOT A ******* SQUARE! Try to explain the ******* cylindrical form by just saying circle to someone who doesn't know what a cylinder is.
Good job accusing someone of not being able to read when you've obviously failed to grasp simple geometry. I thought you just got misunderstood, but you obviously deserved every ******* red thumb you got you condecending brat.
Haha, okay, okay okay. You got me. **** dictionaries amirite.
You know, I've got this assignment to do rather than argue with someone who claims **** like that. Good job not being able to see the point what so ever.
How do I pound this through your obviously thick skull*:
It does apply here. Basically, your claim. We can't refer to this particular object in any way, form or shape as circular.
Because god forbid the top and bottom from being circular. Amirite. It's totally a cylinder form everywhere. No.
A cylinder is a cylinder. However, the cylinder has a circular form.
Also, by your logic. If we can refer to cylinder-formed objects as circles in real life, this should apply to this just as much.
What I claim is that this is a cylinder, and you can refer to sections of it as of circular, square and oval shape. You can't however pick and choose which one is "correct" which is what you're doing.
The word cylinder has plenty of other meanings outside of geometry, but I didn't have to specify which kind since we're discussing geometry, and therefore the geometric definition of the word is the one that is applicable. So I shouldn't have to explain why it's the geometrical definition of the circle that's applicable.
It's impossible to disprove that you can have a square section in a cylinder using real life examples, because it's a fact based on geometric definitions, not real world examples. It's a 2d shape and real life is in 3d.
Hmm, it seems that people aren't too happy with le anime.
Also, people seem to be too retarded to understand things.
Apparently it requires in-depth explanation of what I meant for people to understand, but it has been lost in the abundance of text below.
Because that's how funnyjunk works, few red thumbs because some idiots don't get it. Boom, lots of red thumbs.
When I was a kid adults said that our generation was a disgrace because of the music we listened to and the clothes we wore and the tv shows we watched. And this happens with every generation, but when you are a kid its hard to understand, you think, when im gonna be an adult there is no way im gonna think whatever the next generation is doing is dumb or a disgrace or whatever. But seeing all this MLP and anime porn **** you kids are into these days makes me truly sick to my stomach.
Actually the "Correct" point of view is the one of the camera. Basically everyone's point of view seeing this content. It's neither square nor circle, but both, and incapsulates all the data instead of just one side of it. And even then we can't see the other side of the cylinder. So there is no real "correct" point of view.
Correct point of view. Technically both the square and the circle would be wrong as both are just one half of the whole. The only "correct" (I put quotations because the point of the the content is perspective which removes the aspect of correct) point of view would be the cylinder as a whole. As the other two views, the square and circle are in the second dimension, whereas to see the whole picture they would need to take a step back and see the third dimension.
and no, it doesn't remove the aspect of correct seeing as "point of view" can pretty much always be correct/incorrect. It seems people fail to realize the meaning of my comment, like fabelousnagger thinks I don't get that there are two point of view of things. I'm just talking about this specific scenario.
I get that you see the different perspectives. What I'm taking issue with is that you are saying one is more correct than the other. They solid square and the hollow circle are two halves of the same whole that is a cylinder. Neither is better or more correct than other, it is just a different view of the same thing, without either the the whole of which would not exist.
Actually, no.
You're even assuming it's hollow. It might as well be full. Which means, if you cut it open, you won't even get your square. However, the circle is still part of the figure. Plus, you'd need to modify the figure to actually get the square, so that doesn't quite hold water. Given the above fact.
For the hollow versus not, I'm just going off of the content for that, it appears to be hollow, though the shadow suggests differently. Here's the thing though in math to calculate the area of a cylinder you need both the equations for a circle and a square. If you placed a cylinder in the correct position and took a picture it would look like a square or rectangle.
You are still missing the point. You claim the circle is a better representation, but without squares a cylinder could not exist. Yes as a whole in the third dimension cylinders are round in nature. The point of this is to take away the third dimension. In the second dimension (representing a focused view) You would see either a square or a circle depending on the angle (or a rectangle or ellipse if we are including all angles not just 90 degree increments.) Neither is more correct or less correct. Technically both are equally wrong as just a half of the whole.
I'll give you the same example I gave someone else. Christianity has many denominations. Each is a focused view that is usually taught from birth. One sees a square. Another a circle. Both think the other is horrendously wrong and don't understand how the other can even see the other shape just because from where they are standing it appears to be a different shape. Neither sees the whole picture of a cylinder. Both think their way is absolute correct.
No, I think you're missing the point. The point is not if it consists of it (also, provided the fact that if you split it up as a solid shape, it is indeed not a square).
If you put the cylinder in a square (like the picture on the right I assume), you wont' have a cylinder. It's obvious that you'll get extra space. It's not even a square there either. Bottom line being, it's an illusion that it's a square, but not an illusion that it is round, therefore making the round shape the more correct point of view.
Horrible example, as generally, christians refuse the facts provided that prove their point of view wrong or at least slightly wrong.
This post is about perspective! In a two dimensional world you wouldn't know which is "correct" Is it a square is it a circle? They wouldn't know. The two dimensional shapes represent focused views. Lets do an experiment, shall we? Take a piece of paper, it's a standard 8 and a half by 11 more than likely. So a rectangle. roll that along edges, either direction it doesn't matter, as tight of a roll as you like. Now flatten it. Keep it rolled but flatten it. Hey now! Would you look at that! we have a rectangle again! A much smaller one, but a rectangle nonetheless. My point being that when you add a circle to a rectangle. In this case rolling a piece of paper. You get a cylinder. When you subtract the circle, even in a different fashion than how it was added, it becomes a rectangle again. a cylinder is the by product of a rectangle/square and a circle/ellipse. You cannot claim one of the ones in 1+1=2 is an illusion, that would make two an illusion as well! Lastly, the circle you can see if you put your eye to the rolled up paper and the rectangle you see after flattening the paper are the focused points of view.
You did it in a confusing way, Everyone else is thinking in terms of 90 degrees, you are basically saying, forget the literal point of view, here is this from somewhere else.
Well, I'm not sure it would be done otherwise. Even if it is confusing, I can't cut it into pieces for everyone to understand. Especially when talking about FJ where most people are borderline retarded.
Same here.
My points still remain though. I can't see how people can claim that a cylinder is square. Because that's not a matter of POV, that's just wrong.
Disagree all you want. It won't change the fact that the square is an illusion and the circle is an actual depiction of one of the shapes.
What I think you're thinking of is if we completely cut off the entire cylinder, to get the middle out.
Then it would be a square.
However, that is not the case and it would pretty much make the circle depiction a line, completely ruining it all. Also, this would not be an argument if was hollow.
the point is neither got it right. Looking directly from the top you only see a perfect circle so you say "circle". Looking at it directly from the side you only see a rectangle so you say "rectangle." But neither side is 100% correct because it is in fact a cylinder.
"MORE CORRECT" thats the exact ******* point you ass-hat. If me and a friend are looking at a Tuna and by friend says its a bird and I say its an dolphin, I am technically "more correct' but we are both still completely wrong. If you have a cylinder and call it a circle you are wrong. Not kind of correct, not remotely correct, but completely flat out ******* wrong.
it is not a cylinder but a 135* circle with 2 circles
you would not see the floor if it was floor or even the wall trough circle 1. but the illusion on the wall yellow confirm it is a second circle as the light canÃ¦t pass trough
with a half circle you have...oh wait it is thcker than the circles so it don't give off light, can you now figure out why the blue square is not right?
(keep going with your " point" I have the text book where this where stolen from since it is one of the first objects with lightning you suppose to rend, maybe you get it right on your first try :3 )
That was stolen from a textbook?
You ought to return that book, because it's full of spelling errors and makes completely no sense.
You still do not see it? Why would I forget my point when that's what I'm arguing about? Are you that retarded? What are you even trying to tell me? Your broken English kind of demolished the possibility of understanding this.
"You would not see the floor if it was floor, or even the wall through circle 1".
Yeah ok.
forget it...you deluded in your own world so you limited what you can learn....it is quite simple that the light is not right for the square on the wall and not the cylinder.....you right hat the circle is the right point of view but you wrong that the reason is that is because it is a cylinder....
I did try to lead you to the answer but frankly so rude you can just forget it.
No, this is not about delusion.
This is about some idiot trying to speak English, but fails horribly. I could argue, if you didn't break every sentence.
Sorry, but I'm being rude? Do look at your own comment, I think your ignorance is well deserved with a barrage of your own medicine.
Tired of this chain post, you getting hyper-offensive and need to use boring attacks over a simple illusion trick....I feel bad for you, hope you get better one day
All these squares make a circle,
All these squares make a circle,
All these squares make a circle,
All these squares make a circle,
Kame, I need you to tell me I can leave the lookout if I want to!
The central image shown is an isometric of a cylinder with light being used to project the elevation and end elevation unto the background, hence demonstrating when on looking 90 degrees on an object, the shape may be completely different from what it would be seen as form another 90 degrees.
I wouldn't use "it's subjective" to defend my opinion though. Anybody who has to be told that an opinion varies by person is probably not worth arguing with.
Art is subjective? You should probably say "taste is subjective", then. And if you are ready to say that, I am ready to tell you that David Hume and Immanuel Kant are in stark disagreement with you.
See, we both know that I already meant "taste is subjective". Everyone experiences a piece of art - a painting, a piece of music, et cetera - differently. The amount of diversity a group of peoples' comments include when talking about a painting can sometimes be mindblowing. I think that anyone who appreciates an art form knows and understands this.
I don't know what David Hume and Immanuel Kant say specifically, but any non-subjective value that applies to art, and it is a big value, is the meaning it has to it's creator. If anything that anyone has to say can be seen as non-subjective, it's the words of it's founder.
If that's not to do with what you mean, then please expand on it. I'm interested in what you have to say.
The best way I can think to describe this is actually through religion. Christianity has many denominations. These people are raised looking at it through this point of view. One denomination is looking at it as a solid square. Another denomination is looking at as a hollow circle. Both think the other is completely wrong despite have a different close up view of the same thing.