Isn't it non-profit?business — unenlightened
I personally would expect such a gender imbalance in philosophy, just as I'd expect one in war for example (although in war it would be even more imbalanced than here generally, just cause war is a lot more conflictual). Men and women are different in some regards, so it's only natural that there will be some activities which are liked, in general, more by men than by women, and the other way around too.gender imbalance of the forum — unenlightened
I agree, just like the total absence of conservative or religious staff. I voiced this concern already, and I was told we're free to have a religious staff member, but it seems we haven't got one yet.total absence of female staff — unenlightened
IF the rules state "don't pick your nose" but you continually belch, you've met the decorum required by regulation but it's not a very high standard. I suggest we should aim higher even if we won't enforce that higher standard. In this particular instance I think giving more due to how others receive your words would be better and would lead to a more effective communication. I've tried to illustrate this before with how Martin Luther King would communicate if he'd been "frank" and not take how people receive his words into account: "racism should stop." Instead he started with "I have a dream..." and painted a picture of the future that resonated with others on an emotional level. That's effective communication. — Benkei
given the gender imbalance of the forum... total absence of female staff... universal gender pay gap — unenlightened
I said in some regards, philosophy, just like war, is conflictual by nature. — Agustino
Not everyone believes that war is madness. — Agustino
Military-industrial something that doesn't care what we say? :DI don't think the war on Iraq was madness: it was stupidity and arrogance justified through subterfuge for goals which were at best half-baked. — Bitter Crank
Instead he [Martin Luther King] started with "I have a dream..." and painted a picture of the future that resonated with others on an emotional level. That's effective communication.
— Benkei
This is about content, not about emotion. ... How people respond on an emotional level is irrelevant. — TimeLine
This is about content, not about emotion. — TimeLine
Quite obviously it isn't despite your repeated attempts to try to make it so. If it was, your condescension would be absent and emotions wouldn't be rising to a boiling point when all I'm suggesting is a bit of forbearance on the one hand and compassion in the other. — Benkei
This is about content, not about emotion — TimeLine
Quite obviously it isn't — Benkei
There's also a difference between defending a person's right being a dick and having a preference that he doesn't act like one. I might have the right to call you a cunt but let's not pretend it's preferable. — Benkei
I've tried to illustrate this before with how Martin Luther King would communicate if he'd been "frank" and not take how people receive his words into account: "racism should stop." Instead he started with "I have a dream..." and painted a picture of the future that resonated with others on an emotional level. That's effective communication. — Benkei
I also don't have an issue with Sapientia on a personal level as the way we communicate tends to be similar so there is no static on the line between him and me. But as a consequence I think I recognise quite easily the areas of improvement and I've been very active in the past two years trying to improve my influence in the work environment through communication skills. It's more difficult for people who think facts and veracity are by far the most important (like me) and I (and I think Sapienta as well) need to be reminded regularly that not everybody thinks the same and reaching those people require other "stylistic" approaches. It's a bit of tact, part inspiration and a lot of shifting gears in how we talk to others.
If someone says, "wow, that's way too blunt" I can defend myself or I can say "Oh, sorry about that. what part did you take offence with?" The first tends to be our automatic reaction (Westerners tend to be argumentative) the second is probably much more conducive to a reasonable conversation. So really I just want to urge Sapientia to try different approaches because in my experience it does pay off. — Benkei
That's fair enough. — Baden
Whether or not it's effective is relative. Effective at what and in what way? — Sapientia
As I understand it, rhetoric attempts to paint a persuasive picture that resonates with a particular audience by aligning values and/or purposes. Like logic, it can be an effective tool in argumentation: not just to persuade, but also to aid in the understanding and appreciation of an argument. — praxis
Fair to an unspecified degree which may or may not be enough — Sapientia
I have a dream that one day this forum will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "This may all be pointless". — Sapientia
Quite obviously? Ok, wait, I said:
This is about content, not about emotion
— TimeLine
And you said:
Quite obviously it isn't
— Benkei
Gracious, so now philosophy is not about content, but about emotion? Whilst at this stage the only emotion I am conveying is laughter, if it is obvious, then why is stating the obvious so difficult for you? — TimeLine
Since the word philosophy didn't appear in your previous post "this" didn't seem to refer to it but to the discussion. — Benkei
Even so, the point stands, you're the one getting emotional, not me, so you're undermining your point through action. The fact that I say it is emotional doesn't preclude content, so you're attributing a position to me that isn't mine. Apparently you need an adversary but I'm not him. — Benkei
On suicidal thoughts. "Don't have them."
Fuck normal people. "Fuck you too." — Benkei
As to the standards, I've already said forbearance and compassion. If that's too vague for you I can't help you. — Benkei
Thanks. I personally think that I am as well, and I think that Benkei must have meant something else, like being a people pleaser, although that wouldn't be true either: I can be when I want to be. That's how I earn a living. — Sapientia
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.