Discussion in 'Feedback' started by Nick_A, Oct 25, 2008.
Highly illogical reasoning.
I'll ignore that.
Almost too clever for me.
If I am bored of what someone says I stop reading. If I am offended I will continue to read. It is a useful device sometimes to offend. Though few master it. And its repeated use gets boring.
Okay, here's something I don't get. Maybe someone smarter than me can explain it slooooowwwly.
If we know the people we are talking to are "programmed" or "conditioned" and that they probably will, by virtue of their hard wiring be insulted or offended if we push the right buttons, and we do so with impunity... what does that say about us?
Why look down at people as tier one or whatever? Why not expect that if people enter a discussion they have the obligation to try to understand the position of another rather then live by reaction? This isn't to say that the intent should be an empty satisfaction in pushing buttons but recognition that in order for anything to be meaningful, people will be offended.
Speaking the truth of the human condition will always push buttons:
Do we have to live like this? At one time I suggested a board based on the Christian and Buddhist recognition of the value of right speech: a board of good intent where insult would be surrendered. It was voted down. We enjoy being insulted. It justifies us.
This is fine but what value is it as it pertains to anything of substance? The question becomes if it is possible for people to agree to surrender insult for the sake of substance. Then politically correct boards would feature posts where insult is impossible and there would be one board where substance would be encouraged even if appearing controversial.
So as it is now, the correct method is to express an "appearance" rather then something true. The human condition is a reality. It cannot be discussed because it is insulting.
So back to your original point, what does it say about us who willingly sacrifice substance for the sake of appearance? Is this really any better then those who intentionally try to press buttons with empty rhetoric? Both are a lie. Is there any room in your philosophy for honest dialogue.
People can be upset with Simone but she lays it on the line:
We can either BS around the problem of the human condition or say it as it is regardless of if it is hard to take for the sake of becoming more realistic. The point is if there is any room for such honesty? Do we just cater to conditioning at the expense of recognition of the human condition? You can just pile so much mayonnaise on top of spoiling meat. At some point the truth of the condition will become evident and from this beginning, a solution may begin to appear.
Well Nick, you nicely re-framed my question in a form you could more easily deal with. But more to the point, there is no looking down on another in the models I have discussed in other threads with other points being discussed, and you might be surprised to what extent I agree with and welcome many of your points of view.
The idea of intellectual, moral, ethical and emotional honesty is quite high on my list of ideals, though as for that I claim no mastery.
"OH OH pick me, pick me, I know this one."
the answer is cos we like to push buttons. "some " of us like to get a rise out of people, cos then we are the centre of atention, both positive and netative, but still the centre.
I shall now return to the centre of my own universe, as sparkly as it is.
Could you answer your own question in light of the Obama Birth Certificate thread?
You don't seem so obligated to understand the other position there.
You reflexively refer to all dissenters as "choir members".
And you have the audacity to come in here talking about an "obligation"?
Sir, could you take your tripe elsewhere? It's beginning to stink.
The BC thread is basic so positions are obvious. The constitution has requirement for presidential qualifications. what should a potential candidate be towards them? Should they respect the constitution and what it offers enough to give as much info as possible or should they regard it now simply as a means for political manipulation and hide necessary information even if they can legally hide it.
Obama has chosen to conceal necessary info rather than value the constitution through voluntarily disclosing relevant info. You can say he has to do so because it is insulting, he is black, has a funny name, doesn't want to satisfy wingnuts, or whatever reason, The point is that he has chosen to hide necessary info that would clear everything up.
The danger of all this is that he has this attitude and it is supported by political conditioning of followers just as in that scary video where these kids have that same blank conditioned look as Hitler's youth videos, I call that blind acceptance "choir singing" because of that video, it means that respecting the impartiality of the constitution is over and now it is only a tool for political manipulation. It may be true but some feel honor bound to offer at least token resistance which is being done in this case against open, in your face, abuse.
There is nothing complex about the basic issue and all else revolves around this basic issue of attitude. The basic question isn't if he will be forced to reveal anything but rather if he respects the constitution enough to voluntarily want to.
The issue of attitude has been established through his refusal. The legal question has not. All that has been asserted is that it is none of my business since I'm just a voter. So now we are trying to determine whose business it is and if they will take on the responsibility. If they don't, what other alternatives are there? It is that basic and doesn't require emoting.
that suggests that that is an accusation that you are justified in making in respect of the general membership of this site - and that is quite simply ridiculous nonsense. it is your opinion, fair enough. however, many of us fail to see your positions as containing much in the way of substance, instead being repetitive, vaguely-worded diatribes about your various hobby-horses. we know what you think, nick, we've heard it. it isn't persuasive, it doesn't fit the evidence and it is quite frankly utterly, utterly boring. no doubt you will respond with your usual soundbite. i've said my piece about simone. like you, she does not appear to offer any particular insight.
*i* agree with brian. so do a lot of other people, even if you are not among them. that's why i said "people", not "everyone". how many data points does nick collect before making his rather less-well evidenced generalisations?
i'm not. you're not understanding the point i made.
on the contrary, ciberpy, i would be only too happy if you went off into a forum by yourself with nick and listened to him witter on incessantly without my having to be subjected to it; i'd give you about a week before you concluded the same thing as myself.
yeah, because that's obviously what has happened over the past five or six years when i've been posting here, the word "jew" used by someone aggressive makes me vomit. the only time i get really annoyed is when i come across a bigot, a bully or someone who tells me he knows me better than i know me. are you trying to get a rise out of me? because i advise you not to try.
oh, what a *huge* surprise, because he agrees with you he must be "open". have you ever heard the phrase "confirmation bias"?
not at all. you could be busy, or you could think it not worth responding to, or you could just not be able to answer it. i think it's the last one that bugs you.
so insult doesn't exist, but name-calling is still the tactic of a fool? is "fool" not a name that you've just called me? if insult doesn't exist, then i am sure you will not mind me calling you a prolix, incoherent, intellectually flatulent imbecile. normally, i wouldn't consider that behaviour becoming a moderator under the CoC (so if any of the mods want to take me to task in the mod forum, please do and i'll remove it) but you do seem to want to "open the can of worms" in the interest of "substance" and have after all previously referred to my opinions as "bullsh_t"; i'm just responding in kind. we'll see if that helps or not.
not at all. making a scene is going to someone else's forum, making a public arse of yourself, being told you are not acting in a manner that is consistent with the culture and rules of the forum and then throwing your toys out of the pram because nobody is kissing the aforementioned publicly-displayed arse but kicking it instead.
not at all. i haven't even got involved in that argument. however, i simply do not accept that your opinions on these, or other matters (other than the armenian genocide) are a) authoritative b) persuasive c) rational or d) evidentially-based. in this i suspect i am not alone. nor, i suspect, am i alone in holding that a quote from simone weil provides the authority, persuasion, rationality or evidence that your own arguments lack.
so i'm now being accused of actions tantamount to murder? this is beyond parody.
you already have done - and it's long past that time already, you wretched, self-regarding, attention-seeking buffoon.
so will acting like a feckin' feathered eejit.
in that case i'm more than happy to indulge you, so why don't you feck off to somewhere where they like flame wars?
i think this so-called grievance has been aired long enough - rather like the 76 pages of the obama birth certificate thread.
Someone named bananabrain has taken it upon himself to determine right and wrong and the value of opinions associated with these basic banana truths once and for all with as they say: "no ifs, ands, or buts about it."
Empty predjudice and all its frightening implications is indeed alive and well.
They probably said the same to Dr. King because he didn't belong and was making an arse out of himself since he was speaking basic ethics. It is a tactic of predjudice. Scary stuff.
Handbags at dawn.....
oh, for feck's sake, now you're martin luther king? spare me. what next, the spanish inquisition? because nobody expects them.
No I am not Dr. King but predjudice is predjudice and its dynamics and implications are color blind as you've demonstrated.
it is not "predjudice" [sic] to point out that your arguments are rubbish and that your evidence is non-existent, or for other people to do the same. you cannot be compared to dr king not because of anything to do with race, but rather because you're not actually fighting on behalf of anyone but yourself against anything real. you're not actually experiencing oppression and if i were african-american, i think i'd be rather insulted by your bathetic assumption of his mantle. rather, you appear to be fighting for your right to impose your rather unimpressive philosophical worldview on every single thread on this board. by the same token, if dr king showed up in my kitchen to lecture me on my choice of ingredients, i'd tell him to feck off and stop wasting my time.
any reasonable individual would have stopped trying to dig ages ago; instead, your hole now looks so deep it's starting to look like a cave. ironic, that.
Since I quote those like Plato, Simone, Prof. Needleman, Meister Eckhart, and other exponents of esoteric Christianty, it means because you are right, they are by definition wrong. Their arguments with which I agree are rubbish for you and should be discarded as such.
Predjudice is simply prejudging and condemning ideas through pre-judgement rather than reason; a technique which you are quite skilled at.
Sorry, this isn't to detract from the seriousness of this discussion, but LOL I guess life's situations are full or ironies and humour.
One of the funniest things you can do is mention a situation totally foreign to the one at hand.
It's "prejudice" not "predjudice."
For the record, Nick_A, you may have a good point on a lot of things, that people can react somewhat irrationally to the kind of criticism you offer. I felt a sense of discomfort when you expressed agreement to a poster with an opposing view to mine a few days ago (with the implication that my views had less favour). I think I now realise why people object to some of the things you say.
I think you may be asking too much of people, more than the average human member here can stand. Your standard of "rationality" seems to be a bit too high for most of us here.
So I'm not perfect and can stick a "d" in where it doesn't belong. I tend to write fast and make these typos often because I'm rushed. No one here is perfect. The question is if it is neceesary to justify insult?
Perhaps we disagreed. Why not ask for clarification? Our need for self justification and what is lost by it should be discussed. It is an essential observation in all the major religious traditions. Does this caution against self justification have an objective basis or just an expression of some meaningless morality invented by someones grandmother? If it has an objective basis for detracting from understanding, perhaps it is worth struggling against.
This isn't being more rational but rather less emotionally defensive. But for some reason, self justification is supported and furthered for the sake of an artificial commonality. Is it really the better way? These are just questions IMO worth discussing but practically impossible to do unless the need is felt to do so. Without that need it seems clear, especially if you consider the ridicule and violence of modern media, that we prefer self justification through striking out. IMO we are collectively unaware of what we in society as a whole lose by it.
Did you interpret that as an insult? Would you interpret this question and the one before in this paragraph as an insult? Am I being aggressive? Am I being sarcastic? Do you think I am poking and prodding you, experimenting with you, studying you to obtain a reaction? Am I serious?
I'm a bit behind in replying to some of the posts in that thread, and instead chose to post here first, choosing a less time-consuming topic. It's a time management issue. I tend to defer some replies to the next day, but when it comes, I postpone it again. Sometimes I end up not replying at all.
I must thus ask you to pardon me for stating my reactions prematurely without a full and proper explanation.
It's just that it seems people are saying that it's the only thing you ever discuss: people's rationality in their beliefs and behaviour. It seems like you're relentless at doing it or it's the only thing you ever do.
Maybe that's your religion. If so, then it's a question of whether the people here can accept a person who only ever discusses the rationality of beliefs and behaviour, rather than the beliefs themselves. Can they get used to a person who comments on the rationality of people's beliefs and behaviour?
I recall a rather comical skit where there is this woman taking a lone voyage of some sort on ship/boat. But she isn't alone, even though, in theory, she's supposed to be. There's a cameraman/commentator following her around doing some kind of "documentary" on her experiences. As it is with documentaries, the person supplying the commentary is supposed to be just an observer. He isn't supposed to be part of the subject being documented.
The woman complains of seasickness and depression and complains about how horrible the experience is, in a way that makes it look like she's all alone. Out of the blue, the commentator/cameraman appears and starts supplying commentary on her situation. Apparently, he isn't suffering from seasickness or depression and is largely unaffected by the events of the journey. We see a few more scenes where the woman complains about the troubles she is having. The commentator/cameraman, whom we thought wasn't there, again appears out of nowhere, supplies more commentary and she starts getting annoyed.
In one scene, she's in a toilet, the most private place you could ever be and he's squeezed in somewhere behind her like he's commenting on absolutely everything. She gets really annoyed and starts yelling "Shut up! I don't want any more of this commentary!"
That must be one of your peculiarities.
Am I behaving irrationally? It was just an observation.
Separate names with a comma.