Recent content by Futurus

Thank you for the theoretical rep. *hands Ria a cookie, in theory* :wink:

I suppose she's exploring the ranges of our vast internet. *pets Ranger*

:eyebrows: ----- I show my affection most clearly through acts of service. I absolutely detest using words, because my feelings never manifest the right way. Words just don't encompass the *love* within. I also apply my obsessive problem-solving skills to any matter in their life. If they...

Nope, but who could blame the kid for having such a charming avatar? :eyebrows:

Seems to me like she's possibly digging you. I'd agree with Barnabas in that behaving authentic during the ordeal might work best. :mhula: How are you planning on asking her?

Maybe providing a bit more background information (regarding the nature of your relationship) will garner better responses?

Oh, how I love the jokes poking fun at Zeno. They never get old, no matter how similar. As for my contribution: Why did the chicken cross the road? Epicurus: For fun. Einstein: Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed the chicken depends on your frame of reference. Zeno: To...

Ah, I understand. As long as you're aware that using inductive reasoning does not give way to a cogent claim, I'll crawl back out of this thread. In addition, I agree with Jasmine85 in that providing operational definitions might be of use, especially when communicating your ideas with others...

Still guilty of committing the fallacy. You simply reiterated the previous phrase. In order to make a cogent argument, you need evidence proving the veracity of your claim. Because there's no evidence proving the celestial teapot does not exist, it surely must be floating about the heavens as...

*pokes his punctilious head out* I would stray from ever using this phrase in a philosophical/logical debate. This is an appeal to ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam).

:heh: edit-- And to contribute to the topic at hand. . .

I believe you're making a false parallel. Abrahamic god::Celestial teacup =/= Watch::Universe. The former analogy compares the lack of empirical evidence in proving the existence of either. The latter contrasts the organized functionalism of a watch with the flawed structure of the universe.

Hello. :rapture:

I can relate well with this. I believe introverts of all eight types can as well? (Utilizing our extroverting functions for too long increases the sense of disconnect. Not sure if this is merely a hasty generalization, though.)

Perspicacious suggestion. I have considered being an ENTP, certainly, because it would properly explain my rather high use of Fe. . . although, I am very much introverted. I might just be an extrovert in need of overcoming extreme antisocial behavior. Or. . . I might just not fit properly...