|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Ethical question: [Re: deCypher]
#10364220 - 05/19/09 01:00 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said: If I'm shy by nature, my beliefs and ideas about all of the above will not change my introversion/extroversion. If I'm naturally curious, my beliefs and ideas will similarly not change this.
Those aspects of your personality most certainly can be altered over time, and I know this from personal experience. There is a lot of plasticity in the brain.
Quote:
deCypher said: Besides, self-image is not personality (which was the original topic of discussion).
Well, it is only your self-image that can take damage from psychological attacks, and your self-image most certainly can change, just like your beliefs.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Ethical question: [Re: Zanthius]
#10364225 - 05/19/09 01:02 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
deCypher said: If I'm shy by nature, my beliefs and ideas about all of the above will not change my introversion/extroversion. If I'm naturally curious, my beliefs and ideas will similarly not change this.
Those aspects of your personality most certainly can be altered over time, and I know this from personal experience. There is a lot of plasticity in the brain.
Certainly your behavior can be altered; drugs, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and a host of other psychological techniques can help you move against your genetic predispositions. This does not imply that your personality will be changed by simply holding a different belief, however.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Ethical question: [Re: deCypher]
#10364253 - 05/19/09 01:08 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said: Certainly your behavior can be altered; drugs, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and a host of other psychological techniques can help you move against your genetic predispositions. This does not imply that your personality will be changed by simply holding a different belief, however.
Well, this discussion was originally about why personal attacks shouldn't be allowed when it is allowed to attack ideas. If we agree that both my self-image, and my ideas can change. If we agree that both my self-image, and my ideas, are artificial constructs given to me by my cultural conditioning. Why should we then differentiate between attacking self-images and attacking ideas?
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Ethical question: [Re: Zanthius]
#10364259 - 05/19/09 01:10 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said: Why should we differentiate between attacking self-images and attacking ideas?
Because the point of this forum is for ideological debate; let the best idea win. Attacking people's self-images (even if this might sometimes overlap with attacking people's ideas) does nothing to determine which ideas are correct or the most persuasive and only drags the forum down with needless ad hominems.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Ethical question: [Re: deCypher]
#10364298 - 05/19/09 01:18 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said: Because the point of this forum is for ideological debate; let the best idea win. Attacking people's self-images (even if this might sometimes overlap with attacking people's ideas) does nothing to determine which ideas are correct or the most persuasive and only drags the forum down with needless ad hominems.
While attacking ideas with hostility does something to determine which ideas are correct, and does not drag the forum down? I certainly have much more fruitful conversations with individuals that don't attack my ideas with hostility, but rather tries to help me to see the world from their perspectives with logical and scientific reasoning.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Ethical question: [Re: Zanthius]
#10364327 - 05/19/09 01:23 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Again, granted, but if we're determining what rules we should moderate the forum by then it is clear that we cannot permit attacks upon self-image for interests of a civil discussion. And good luck trying to prevent hostility from entering into heated philosophical debate.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
Re: Ethical question: [Re: Zanthius]
#10364444 - 05/19/09 01:48 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said: The source is inside of yourself, but due to lack of self-insight, you might be incapable of seeing that your self-image / personality is an artificial construct created by the ideas given to you by your cultural conditioning.
So, your claims are: - you don't have an ego without cultural context - (apparently) you also don't have ideas without the cultural context - you're not identifying yourself with your ideas without it - you also don't get butt-hurt when someone is attacking your ideas
Then, when asked for evidence, instead of providing it, you're answering me that I can't see it because of my ignorance. I just wanted to point all these out just to re-emphasize how silly your claims are and easily you're able to break down when unable to sustain your claims.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said: I just wanted to point all these out just to re-emphasize how silly your claims are and easily you're able to break down when unable to sustain your claims.
I always break down in front of girls like you. Never in front of my professors however. I wonder why.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
Re: Ethical question: [Re: Zanthius]
#10364489 - 05/19/09 01:57 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Now now Zanthius, you just keep making personalisms after personalisms.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said: Now now Zanthius, you just keep making personalisms after personalisms.
Isn't this also personalism?
Quote:
MushroomTrip said: and easily you're able to break down when unable to sustain your claims
After all, "I" am the one breaking down. Not my beliefs.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
Re: Ethical question: [Re: Zanthius]
#10364541 - 05/19/09 02:13 PM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The personal remark that I made served the purpose of showing that you're completely unable to susatin your point, hence your contributions to the discussion are disastrous. Your personal attacks helped with nothing in the debate, and they were just a pathetic way of getting put of a situation where you couldn't bring a reliable evidence.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said: The personal remark that I made served the purpose of showing that you're completely unable to susatin your point
Oh, really? I must have missed that....
Quote:
MushroomTrip said: Your personal attacks helped with nothing in the debate, and they were just a pathetic way of getting put of a situation where you couldn't bring a reliable evidence.
Oh, really? I thought mine served a purpose, while your personal attack helped with nothing and was just a pathetic way of showing off.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
BlueCoyote said: People who can't take care of their possesions already own too much. They are those immoral people who don't share by themselves...
(for the sake of the discussion)
What are you talking about? Why should they share?
Because they didn't own it before anyways
|
C.M. Mann
subconscious explorer
Registered: 05/01/08
Posts: 899
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
|
You don't seem to be able to understand any other views but your own. You call me names, and then you accuse me of calling you names! You ask for proof, but refuse to offer your own! You have some concocted debate rules that you claim I'm breaking, and I've given you very good reasons why stealing is bad. If you feel comfortable justifying bad behaviour, that is your decision. No matter how much you claim that my opinion is of no consequence, I will not change them. You made the claim that I was wrong, tell me how I am wrong!
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
Re: Ethical question: [Re: C.M. Mann]
#10368652 - 05/20/09 08:33 AM (14 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Are you reading and replying t the same thread as I am? I don't know, maybe there are some hidden posts that I made and I can't remember either. Listen, obviously we've discussed everything that could been discussed and now the conversation is stagnating. I've already said what I had to say, and explained my views on stealing, and why I don't think it is necessary wrong. When asked, you didn't care to get into details as to why you thought stealing was wrong, choosing to over-use exclamation points when simply repeating that stealing was bad regardless of the circumstance, and that all thieves couldn't be trusted. If you call this "explaining your views on the matter", then so be it, I'm not interested in this kind of debate. Furthermore, I've never claimed you were wrong to think this way, since I never got to find out WHY you think the way you do. All I have said was that it's non-constructive and, IMO, foolish, to make a claims without being able to sustain it. That's all.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
|
Quote:
BlueCoyote said: Because they didn't own it before anyways
How is this a reason to have a limit of wealth? We shouldn't live either, I suppose, just because we weren't alive before we were born?
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
BlueCoyote said: Because they didn't own it before anyways
How is this a reason to have a limit of wealth? We shouldn't live either, I suppose, just because we weren't alive before we were born?
No, only because 'possession' is a man-mad concept. If an animal 'looses' their 'possessions' or lets it go out of their eyes, the other animals feel free to take it anyways. We were born nude and without possessions and all one possesses is due to some strange human concepts, formerly called 'strength' hehe. So that's why when the 'strong' one suppresses the weak one, that's kind of immoral. It will lead to war anyways. So, as you said too, sometimes the weak one is forced to steal, because the strong one keeps all the stuff to themselves, even it belonged not to them before... I could assume and call the strong one 'thieves' by that way too, because first, they stole it from everyone... I'm native indian thinking in this way...
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
|
Quote:
No, only because 'possession' is a man-mad concept.
So is everything else, including life. How can the fact that possession is a man made concept make it be in such a way that there should be limit for one's belongings?
Quote:
If an animal 'looses' their 'possessions' or lets it go out of their eyes, the other animals feel free to take it anyways.
What animal, exactly? ALL the animals? Obviously not, and obviously this thing doesn't apply to the animal called human.
Quote:
We were born nude and without possessions and all one possesses is due to some strange human concepts, formerly called 'strength' hehe.
Strange? Compared to what? On which criteria did you determine that these concepts are strange, and what's the correlation you're trying to draw with "strength hehe"?
Quote:
So that's why when the 'strong' one suppresses the weak one, that's kind of immoral. It will lead to war anyways.
No, it won't lead to war "anyways", and really I don't see how you can claim that people having possessions are suppressing the weak. People have possessions and money because of their works, skills and abilities. Can you explain me why is this wrong, and why should the people that earn more money share them with the ones that make less or no money at all? That's a really communistic idea, and it fucks up with the deepest liberties of any being. Nobody should give their earnings and belongings to anyone, for any other reason than them wanting to.
Quote:
So, as you said too, sometimes the weak one is forced to steal, because the strong one keeps all the stuff to themselves, even it belonged not to them before...
Please don't distort my claims, because I know exactly what I said. I've never said that a thief is the weak one, I never said that a thief is suppressed by someone, and I never said that a thief HAS to be a thief, because a thief is a only thing a thief can be, because of the circumstances others are creating for him/her. What I did say was that I didn't consider stealing to be necessarily bad, especially because I don't think of anything to be entirely bad, since I am deeply aware of the fact that it is completely inaccurate and unhealthy to see things as being only black or only white. I've also said that, even though I prefer not to steal, I could think of more than a handful of situations in which I could steal, and that I wouldn't feel any remorse if I would. If I were ever to steal, I would never blame my situation on others, and I would never consider that I ended up stealing because of the situation others have got me into.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
I'm not a big friend of this sentence picking reply stuff.
so: 1. life is not a man made concept. Humans made concepts about life. While posession is a concept. What else makes you (concept-less) own something, else than having it in your hand or sitting on it or using it at the moment ? So, there's the difference. 2. maybe the concept of possessions is what makes us different to animals then. Maybe any thought out concept is, which has no real representation in reality/nature... 3. Strange, compared to natures ways of organizing things. Strength, as a former physical concept, we brought from the animal kingdom, transformed now into the virtual 'strength' of the power of money. 4. when people accumulate stuff for living more than they actually need, they prevent others to take share of the resources the earth holds ready for all of us. That provokes the notion of 'unjustness' which inevitably leads to war in some kind or another. We are visitors here anyways... 5. In most cases, it will be a human made situation which will force you to steal...so why don't blame them ?
Edited by BlueCoyote (05/20/09 08:11 PM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
|
Quote:
1. life is not a man made concept. Humans made concepts about life.
Humans made concepts about everything, I really can't see how the concept of possession is an actual concept, while there's no concept of life because people made concepts about life.
Quote:
What else makes you (concept-less) own something, else than having it in your hand or sitting on it or using it at the moment ? So, there's the difference.
Where is the difference? Similarly, it can be said that you're alive only because you were born, and if you weren't born you wouldn't be having it. What does this actually mean? Does this show that, since one was not alive before they were born, their life in not real?
Quote:
2. maybe the concept of possessions is what makes us different to animals then. Maybe any thought out concept is, which has no real representation in reality/nature...
Humans aren't the only animals that have the sense of property, I've already stated that and you chose to simply ignore it. Aren't you aware of the territorial fight that happens between lions, or wolves? Just because other animals don't have laws to protect their belongings, it doesn't mean that they don't have other ways of doing so, or that they wouldn't create a legislative system if it was brought to their awareness.
I really think you must be joking when you're saying that other animals don't have the concept of possession.
Quote:
3. Strange, compared to natures ways of organizing things. Strength, as a former physical concept, we brought from the animal kingdom, transformed now into the virtual 'strength' of the power of money.
This is maybe because you refuse to acknowledge that power is everything this term encompasses, even though some situations of power are newer than the others, and this doesn't make them "virtual". The concepts and theories humans have continuously adapt to all the changes that happen, and arbitrarily calling some of these concepts fake doesn't really make much sense.
Quote:
4. when people accumulate stuff for living more than they actually need, they prevent others to take share of the resources the earth holds ready for all of us. That provokes the notion of 'unjustness' which inevitably leads to war in some kind or another. We are visitors here anyways...
No, this would mean that we have gathered all the necessary data to show us the limit of the resources of this planet, and also the fact that all of them are presently used. This isn't true, and there's still so much space in which people can expand and build homes, societies, cities, etc. There's still so much free land this planet has to offer, land that can be used for plant cultivation or raising animals. Moreover, with the help of technology, we are now able to use smaller areas for growing and producing all our food in a much healthier way. I could go on with this, but I don't see much sense in doing so since I've already made my point.
The bottom line is that a person owning more stuff doesn't necessarily have to translate into someone else's misfortune, and even it is so, it isn't because the resources are limited, but rather of a poor organization. Also, it doesn't mean that the people who own more HAVE to give to the others.
Unless you can first define what "just" is, we can't talk about what's being "unjust".
Quote:
5. In most cases, it will be a human made situation which will force you to steal...so why don't blame them ?
Because I play a role in it too, and I am the only one who's responsible for myself.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
|