Of course it doesn't. :up: But, if you consider this discussion pointless, what are you doing posting here, in this topic? — Pattern-chaser

You might find it helpful to think before posting, and take the time to read and consider the responses you get. As I just explained, I exited the discussion once I realised it wasnt a discussion of anything of substance but a circle jerk for folks who seek to put some framing on their irrational, feel good conceptions. The only reason Im here responding now is because YOU directly addressed ME.
Its ok to be simple headed, you have no control over that, but its obnoxious to be aggressively simple headed.
Now, if there is nothing else you can go back to your feel good discussion about nothing. I, unlike you, have no problem with simply ignoring people with different sensibilities.

If I choose not to “enjoy a general discussion” that doesnt mean I lack understanding about any aspect of the discussion. This is just you being condescending because I have no respect for the nebulous terminology demanded by a feel good discussion about nothing. You are perfectly welcome to your irrational, substanceless circle jerk, I stepped out and left you all to it after it became clear thats what you were all interested in.
Your desire to bring me back in has nothing to do with actual engagement, but rather a need to satisfy your offended, authoritarian sensibilities.

Not really. A new discovery has a place its found or it has something about it...a trait, a relation to something else...it will have something that differentiates it from a figment of imagination. No one discovered “spirit”, someone made it up. If it is something that isnt made up, then just tell me something about it that indicates the difference.
Anyway, besides the point. You cannot sensibly answer a question about somethings nature if it has no definition.

Why did you include me in that? Did I say something about it and forget?
Anyway, there is a simple point in amongst the run on string of thinly veiled attempts to sound intelligent, but its not very interesting. You are easily impressed.

Had to look that one up lol
“hebephrenic“. Good to know.

Lol, I see what you did there.
The reason why im asking HIM to clarify, is because its not obvious it IS rhetoric considering the exchanges Ive seen between the more prolific posters.
In other words, I cannot tell if he was joking or not because it might actually be a case someone could make.

If you want to know what people think “spirit” means, then ask that.
If you want to know if people think a “spirit” exists, define what you mean by spirit and then ask that.
I do not think Im being picky, your framing just wasnt clear, or sensical. Generally, it is the responsibility of the OP to set the terms of the discussion.

You think, with a handful of exceptions, that this board is full of people with reading and learning deficiencies?

In order to ask or answer whether or not something exists, one must first know what that something is.
How do you expect anyone to answer such a poorly framed question?

Thats a bit different than what I was saying, as you are offering a correction to someones label. You are telling them soecifically that you are not liberal. They should believe you unless they have good reason not to, such as if you cannot describe what makes you NOT a liberal (just as a general exemple).

I think granting the benifit of the doubt is preferable as well. It is better to assume a miscommunication rather than that the person is too stupid to understand you for example.
To your points about nuance and the way “isms” are misused: I think its worth looking at specific instances. In general Ive noticed a trend towards words losing their meaning, not just “isms”.

I completely agree with you that people don't pigeonhole themselves via someone else's assumption they pigeon hole themselves via identifying their standpoint with some ism or other. — Janus

The “someone elses assumption” IS the identification of the “ism”. You seem to have missed the point, perhaps I wasnt clear.
The person hears the “ism”, and pigeon holes the person according to the assumption of what that “ism” is. This is backwards, the onus is not on the person being pigeon holed.

Agreed. For me, its about intention. Whats the intent of the language? Thats what makes the difference to me. Is the person intending offense?

Its similar to the logic behind my stance on offensive language. If the onus is on the person saying things, we are at the mercy of peoples sensitivity to offense.

Well yes, that is where we disagree I think. People don’t pigeon hole themselves via someone elses assumption. That doesnt make sense to me. Rather the one with assumptions, even justified ones, bears the responsibility of any mislabeling of a persons stances. Its them who should maintain a stricter awareness. If its the other way around, we are all at the mercy of other peoples assumptions.

Ive noticed that too and share the same hope. Or at least that this can be a thread to discuss it in.

I would imagine the difference has something to do with the obviousness of the claim to others. No sane person denies the existence of cars or buildings so there is no need to insist to people that they exist. If someone did insist cars or buildings didnt exist I would be pretty tempted to insist they did, wouldnt you?
I imagine that is what its like for someone who finds a god belief obvious, hence some of them feel the need to insist.

I share your distaste for labels, but you were the one that made reference to what intelligent people do. I followed suit. Rich that you then saddled a high horse about it. Doubly rich you went ahead and resorted back to doing so when you referenced a “certain calibre” of minds.
I disagree with you about where the onus lies. If a person refers to themselves as an ism, and another person assumes that they possess any number of traits or beliefs based on their own preconceived notions of what that encompasses then I think tha’s fine, but if the first person then corrects the person about the preconceived notion then the onus is on the second person to adjust their view, not say something like “...but you said you were a so and so ism!” or somesuch.
Now, Im not talking about you specifically here, I do not know what exactly the beef with Terra is. Im making a general point for discussion here. I get the sense you may think I was calling you a half wit or a whiny bitch. You might be I do not know, but that wasnt directed at you specifically.

:up:

Indeed, I just wanted to know if what was annoying me was actually something I could report and have addressed.

Alas, I cannot.

No, it is the responsibility of the intelligent person not to be hopelessly stubborn about a “first impression” (ASSumption) or preconcieved notion about any given “ism”. The intelligent person knows that they should clarify positions of others before drawing conclusions about a range of views the other didnt state or even allude to.
It is the domain of the half wit, the weak minded and the whiny bitch to demand someone cater all interactions to their lazy and inaccurate conclusions about who someone else is or what they believe.

Not very helpful. To the former, is that not what the discourse is? To convince another person with your compelling reasons or argument? The latter is the catagory I would like to have specified. Sounds just like the bot style spamming is whats indicated.

What would be considered spamming? Is it the strictest, bot style spamming that is not acceptable, or would just repeating the same argument with a slightly different spin ad naeseum get moderator attention?
Im new to the Forum and have been put off by certain members who espouse at length the same pet theory or philosophy over and over either in their own new threads (pretending its a different topic) or by trying to muscle its relevancy in any given topic.
I would like to know if it could be reported so it is addressed.

Lol, right? Its the attempt at sounding smart or intellectual through framing I think, or to try and fit in. Its not even necassary, most philosophical discussions gain nothing from that kind of framing unless specifically referencing formal academia.
Also, I wager it often has something to do with the persons desire to be percieved (or not percieved) in a certain way, for example in the SJW thread when certain folks use that kinda framing to create an illusion of an unbiased stance or disguise themselves as a non-SJW type.

:lol:

You crack me the fuck up. Also a big fan of when you ask people if they are on the Autism spectrum. Lol
For myself, I do try and do those three things but have to admit im not usually giving it 100%. Could tighten up my posts, but im not overly concerned about being as concise as when im writing a paper or something.

Then the motive shifts from something one is being forced to do to something one wants to do. That WOULD be facist.
You would no longer be weighing the lesser of two evils (1 billion vs everyone), instead you are weighing the loss of 1 billion vs how much mileage you can get from the 1 billion lives lost towards your own vision of how the world should be. Thats facism.
I understand the temptation to want to make those 1 billion deaths mean something, but I have to disagree. Facism has always, always been a bad decision, even with the best of intentions.

Lol, oh ok. I get it. Nicely done troll. I ignored you at first but you got me in the end. Kudos, honestly. You got me good there. I was like
“How is this person able to string together complete sentences with such low comprehension levels?!”
Still having a good chuckle over it. How did I fall for that? Im usually so cautious about that kind of thing.

would tell you to go fuck yourself
— DingoJones

Gotcha — Anaxagoras

Holy shit, in your little scenario! I would tell you to go fuck yourself if you were a powerful marvel villain who told me to kill a baby or die! Holy christ, how did you not understand that!?
I was answering your thought experiment, or dilema or whatever it was supposed to be.
:lol: :lol:

Ok, ok. Ill take the swearing out cuz apparently it causes your brain to collapse.
Here we go:

If you were a super powered marvel villain, and you demanded i kill a 10 month old baby or you would kill me, I would say
“No, I am not going to kill that baby, you will just have to kill me”
Then assuming you, the fake pretend you that is a marvel super villain, follow through with your threat then I would be killed.

Clear?

I dont see my response as any more insulting than the implication I am some sort of sociopath because I offered an answer to the thought experiment.

I understand how it works. My issue is that you leave prejudice as the only remaining option once you remove all the other answers a person has for who or how they will choose. This doesnt say anything meaningful about facing ones own prejudices, as you have left no other option. Thats as simple as I care to put it, no sense in just repeating myself.
Anyway, an interesting idea. Thanks.

If I gave you a gun and told you I will kill you if you don't shoot that 1 month old baby in the head would you do it? — Anaxagoras

How are you able to offer this simplistic gem, but you go full retard about a more difficult moral equation?
...
Nevermind, I answered my own question in the asking. On to your own thought experiment...

I would tell you to go fuck yourself and await the mighty Marvel deathblast coming my way.

Not the scenario, the thought experiment. You seem to be backing off from the purpose of it being to effect self awareness of prejudice, and making the much weaker offering that the purpose is to make people think. Thats fine, its a thought experiment after all. Ultimately though, if its about prejudice I maintain it fails.

Thanks, I appreciate that. There seems so few sense makers here that ive wondered if it isnt just a matter of the medium or miscommunication of some kind but...how in the fuck can you know when most everyones not making sense!? Lol
I dont even care if some is ignorant or dumb, who isnt ignorant or dumb about something, but its not recognising ones own limitations or not having the humility to have an open mind to being wrong I find truly irksome. Plus, I don’t WANT to sound like an arrogant prick but...so many being so wrong. Whats a guy to do?

I know, I just had to let the steam out a bit or my head would explode. After reading through the responses in the “kill 1 billion” thread Ive began wondering why im here at all. Screw the “forest for the trees”, I cant see the worthwhile discussion for the philosophically brain dead. What are you guys up to in the “Morality” thread? 64 pages? Astounding fortitude sir. I do not have it in me.

Sure, I recognise the similarity of the terms, but they do have a distinction otherwise they would just be one word. However you want to put it, you have left no other option in your scenario, so I think it has failed. Its like saying “choose your favorite color, but you can only choose blue. See? Everybody likes blue the best”.

And I am NOT an atheist...although I also do not "believe" there is at least one god. — Frank Apisa

In the name of baby jesus this is getting SO tiresome.
Not believing in at least one god is what atheism means! You have just declared you are not an atheist by describing your atheism!
Help me Odin, Zeus, Thor, Oprah, Hubberd...fucking anyone take my hand and guide me to where something so simple can be understood! Fuck!
Is it just the internet?! Please oh holy god of holyness, tell me its just the internet and this isnt what passes for a critical thinking person in the world at large.
Phew. Done. Carry on, sorry you had to be the back breaking straw frank, but THINK about what you are saying!

Praxis has operated within your parameters, he is the worlds ruler in your thought experiment. He rules that everyone kill as many people as they can till the one billion is reached. He has made a choice about how they are to be selected. Where has he gone out of bounds? The people are not randomly selected, its everyone. The individuals are making their own choices on who gets killed, although under the pressure of time.
Anyway, I think that your thought experiment has failed. It doesnt show that people have secret prejudice.
As aporiap touched upon, you have designed the scenario so that decisions about who dies are only allowed to be made using prejudice. You take away all other options. This shows nothing except a failure to account for preference and individuals rather than easily identified groups.

Well the choice will become more and more uncomfortable as you remove the answers people give, but I still do not understand how it will necessarily lead to revelations about secret or hidden prejudices. If one is making practical choices about who is in the 1 billion and then as you suggest those inclusions are taken away 1 by 1, your thought is that they will then have to start making choices based on prejudices and thereby reveal that they do in fact have prejudices but I do not think that is the only possibility. It is possible that a person could have no prejudices and thus would only have arbitrary options at that point, or base the decision off of a practical albeit emotional consideration such as grouping people into categories such as “people I am likely to get along with” and “people I am not likely to get along with”. This might have some overlap with catagories that might otherwise be the focus of prejudice, such as a different racial or religious group, but it wouldnt in fact be based on prejudice against that group but rather the first two groups “people Im likely to get along with” and “people I am not likely to get along with” which as I said can be a practical consideration.
So I think that from your perspective the person might run out of practical options but in actuality they can keep going for as long as is needed.

Isnt that just a refusal to answer the question? In the scenario, every human being in world dies as you stand on a podium saying “do nothing, democratic method and reductio ad absurdum” before you yourself die.