As further assurance, we can chat anytime we want, now that we are clear on the desperate attempt of the trolls at the 'shoutbox' ...

Well, maybe. It's up to you of course. If I could suggest, consider the worst that could happen. If you can make peace with that, then there's nothing much to be worried about. Smile and be happy — Foghorn

Why did you even waste your energy trying to clarify yourself on account of that sissy with the hissy above (aka the troll)?

My post was very clear why i was thinking of doing it. It was on account of you and other posters like Trinidad being targeted on account of speaking to me. You saw the evidence of that at the 'shoubox' didn't you?

It's silly of you to respond on account of a troll that's in the habit of following me and other posters around. I am disappointed. I thought you had more gumption than that. :-)

Read that post again, here it is being re-posted and the parts emboldened:

Foghorn and Trinidad

I saw the recent posts where you have tagged me.

I also saw that comment oozing desperation, hate, and fear at the 'shoutbox', mirroring other similarly desperate, pathetic but funny attempts of the small ones, at other places in the forum......
.
......but the point is. it seems to me, now i have be careful who i speak with.Otherwise the above mentioned emotions which yours truly seems to trigger in the insecure, will be directed at who i speak with.

This may bring unintended consequences which i would not wish on others. So please be careful, if you wish. Good luck to both of you. — skyblack

This is a result of sexism

Men are considered effeminate for not acting macho, women are considered butch for not acting girly.

Women are not camp men and men are not butch lesbians. Gender non conformity should not lead to genital mutilation and a life time on chemicals. — Andrew4Handel

The point was, one has to reconsider their definitions on how you separate or define the sex's. Taking into account the associated psychological and conduct requirements. Case in point, some of the forum members.

Are gender qualities defined by physical attributes only, or does it require auxiliary qualities such as psychological attributes too?

Haven't you seen sissies in male bodies and a butch in female bodies? Even in this forum, don't you see
examples of people who would normally be considered as grown men (age factor), acting like sissies with their hissy fits, when they go around trolling others? These are not very 'manlike' qualities now are they?

When you take into account factors like the above, and other markers like psychological dispositions, conduct etc., you might want to re-consider how you define and separate the sex.I sure am having a hard time deciding on some of the posters/trolls here.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? — Foghorn

Humility prevented me to say this earlier, but it seems you know all about it Right. You said it.

Found it, the reply arrow. Thanks.

@Baden

Gotcha. I wasn't aware policing grammar in posts where the meaning seems to be coming across crystal clear was another one of your functions. But hey you know what they say, any excuse will do. Like i was saying to another poster yesterday not my circus not my monkeys. Carry on. Thanks.

@Trinidad

What happened to your post? Seems to be deleted now.

@Trinidad

It's the same movement within and without, right? Microcosm and Macrocosm. Just like the workings of the central committee in the psyche, and the expression of it out in the society. Does this sound right?

@Trinidad

Can you share your thoughts on some of the reasons surrounding the origins of conflict?

Again, I think conflict addiction is for real and that science can solve this by providing treatment to people who are suffering from schizophrenia, milder or not degree.

There are people who absolutely have to argue, no matter what and proof can be obtained after they have been properly treated. So I say conflict addiction is a symptom of mental illness, just an instance of human behavior on the spectrum of all that happens. — DrOlsnesLea

It's a human condition that affects all, including the "pill pushers" and the "eggheads/scientists". The resolution may lie elsewhere..

That being said, i may join you occasionally and share a view which may not require an answer, and won't put you in any kind of jeopardy. :-)

@Foghorn and @Trinidad

I saw the recent posts where you have tagged me.

I also saw that comment oozing desperation, hate, and fear at the 'shoutbox', mirroring other similarly desperate, pathetic but funny attempts of the small ones, at other places in the forum......
.
......but the point is. it seems to me, now i have be careful who i speak with. Otherwise the above mentioned emotions which yours truly seems to trigger in the insecure, will be directed at who i speak with.

This may bring unintended consequences which i would not wish on others. So please be careful, if you wish. Good luck to both of you.

@Joshs

On what page (no.) can i see that evidence?

I wonder if his friends, the ones involved in the conflict, are infuriated by his impartiality. — Joshs

Impartiality is a great quality in my books.But one needs a bit of stature for that. I only took a quick look at couple of pages so have not seen this impartiality. Perhaps when i have some time it will be good to identify it's presence on that thread.

In all humility of course. Just stating a fact.

@Joshs

And by my circus and my monkeys, i meant this thread.

It’s possible that it seems to you that a vacuous ‘addiction to conflict’ motivated the arguments precisely because you were not invested in the topic. — Joshs

That's an incorrect assumption. The truth is i already knew what to expect (human nature) so never even bothered to look at the thread. Had i been proven wrong in my estimation of human nature i would have liked to participate.

I hear what you're saying, some truth to it, but I just ain't going there. Doing so might interfere with my typoholic addiction. If this is unclear, ok, good — Foghorn

:-)

I hear you, thankfully that's not a fear i suffer from.

I agree the topic was a prop, but not because it was hiding ‘conflict addiction’( why do non-political topics on this site normally not generate the same heat?). — Joshs

Not my circus not my monkeys but just a quick view, perhaps irrelevant. If one looks at auxiliary evidence i will have to agree on the conflict addiction point. And also based on the same evidence disagree on the "non-political topics" point. Like i said in a previous post, i have visited that thread only once and from what i saw, borrowing the phrase from 'bitter crank', it appears in that case the "central committee" was fueling the conflict. And from evidence it seems the central committee or at least a part of it is doing it at other places. Just a cent, perhaps not relevant.

Thank you, and sorry. My humor is so advanced that, um, I'm the only one who understands it. Or something.... — Foghorn

Is it because of this?

No, that's wrong, TOTALLY WRONG!!! What is wrong with your brain??? Are you on drugs? Is your mother in the world's oldest business??? — Foghorn

Maybe yes maybe no. But giving you the benefit of the doubt I will attribute that to the wind you have been exposed to lately, and perhaps in the past. IMHO a better option is not get too carried away. Some things or some people can be too big, if they start coming closer. It's good to look at them from far away. :-) I meant to say this to others but i have been enjoying the fun, as they don't know where they stand. Humor doesn't have to be in bad taste.

@Foghorn

Pardon me?

Ha

@Trinidad

Activity does help in clearing some of that intellectual funk.

@Trinidad

Or mop-ping might also work, no?

@Olivier5

Not that it matters but curious, how do you know it was a "her"? Is there a disclosure on the profile page?

That may be our loss; she was a combative philosopher. — Olivier5

My post was a FYI seeing that you were replying to a non existent poster. It wasn't a character analysis.

Every society humans have ever put into action for more than 5 seconds has been profoundly sick. Only a miserable fool refuses to adjust to the inevitability of things being as they've always been. Said tortured fool will have greater odds of achieving some minor fleeting positive changes than a well-adjusted person, and well-adjusted people may cheer them on from the sidelines -- but degree of change achieved is not a measure of health. The complacent person who accepts things as they are lives a longer and more enjoyable life which is clearly healthier than the martyr of the latest revolution. — Paul

I quite agree with your labeling people as miserable tortured fools. I would have probably have said the same. I suppose these terms aptly describe those that feel impotent and thus learn to adjust and confirm to the sickness both inside and outside.

Said impotent tortured miserable fools in their deluded well-adjusted status, who take their complacency, their apathy, and their sickness as a badge of honor to defend, and who learn to take a S&M pleasure in killing the voice of reason/martyrs in various ways, whether by obvious or by subtle means, surely can’t be called healthy by the intelligent (by any measure of the word), can they.

That being said, the OP in a post above has drawn a distinction between adjustment in reality, and adjustment to psychological sickness. Which perhaps will be cleaner to a mind less conditioned by violence and more open to reason.

@Olivier5

To let you know Mystic seems to have been banned as well.

Its a depressing trait of the human condition. — DingoJones

Yes.

Not everything is as it seems, but thank you. — DingoJones

I quite agree on the deceptions of the human and his/her mind and heart.

Mr Jones seems to be a voice of reason :-)

Most folks want to confirm,they don't care about disease they just want comfort.
To folks who are not conformist and who have some cultural baggage one must just steadily rid oneself of intrusive thoughts and actions which are based on the disease of fear. — Mystic

Therefore, in order to understand the disease of conformity, to an inward and societal sickness, the inquirer has to understand this tendency/nature to seek comfort at the price of what is right/correct/integrous ( which OP has mentioned in prior threads) , and the nature of fear which goads us to confirm. Both extremely complicated subjects aren't they.

How does the inquirer approach such subjects without a subjective lens and with an innocent mind free from bias and prejudice, seems in itself quite a challenge.

We have to get a little more nuanced here.
We can still function in an ill society without being dependent or diseased. I think the disease in society is a reflection of problems in hand yes,but not all humans. I don't believe in jungs shadow or original sin or western notions of ignorance needing liberation. — Mystic

The question one has to look at, if they are interested, is not the question of "functioning" in society, but the question of individual conformity to a diseased state. The sate of the mind that likes to confirm in order to adapt to a diseased way of living. Right functioning may be clear upon the establishment of health and order, that is, upon correct understanding of the disease.

See,this is now quibbling over your rigid definitions.
Adjustment can also mean adapting to circumstances.
DO you want everyone to go mad or maladjust because society has problems? — Mystic

No quibbling....certainly not with someone i feel is a rising morning star :-) ( i am sincere).

One can adapt to living conditions, to reality, but why does one adapt to psychological disease and dependency, is a question the inquirer can ask of himself.

One has said this before, the disease in society are a reflection of the problems in the human.

I think you can be adjusted but not conform.
I think the quote would be better with conform. — Mystic

Adjustment is conformity. The desire and the motivation to adjust is part of that conformity.

But we are talking about psychological time,so it should be personalised. We are time,are we not?
Better still,time is us. — Mystic

Yes we "are" time, that's why OP said we are the past. The "person" is the past.

The word Soul carries a lot of baggage.
Personality then. Everybody should know what that is.
Past is known as a term but in this context is still too impersonal. — Mystic

Well, i don't see a reason why we should substitute the word past to something else like soul and personality, when that word accurately represents what we are talking about, that is time.

I think that in trying to see philosophy questions as stemming from fear, you are missing how curiosity and wondering are essential to human life. You make it seem as if the ideal is to be a happy robot, who doesn't ask questions. Philosophy and questioning goes back to ancient times, and is central to the evolution of human life. — Jack Cummins

I don't think OP is saying that one shouldn't question but his/her point, as far as i understand, is the approach of such questioning. I think OP is questioning the approach. Maybe he/she could have phrased the OP better.

And yes. ideally, the idea is a state where no questions or answers remain. The premise of all these questioning is to come to that, otherwise one will be considered off the hinges if they keep on questioning. And yes, a joyous life seems to be a worthwhile endeavor.

@Tom Storm

I just want to say something real quick and end. When you give rebuttals (though you call it "alternatives") , it affects the person's credibility if they switch and say "oh, i was just giving some alternatives, these aren't my rebuttals". Something to think about if you wish.