Personally, I find it difficult to call crucifixion success


This is under the assumption that everyone who is virtuous will be crucified. I disagree that this is the case. Many virtuous people are praised as positive examples of morality as opposed to being crucified for doing so. Have you not commited murder? Good job. You receive the right to remain a part of society. Etc.

This is under the assumption that everyone who is virtuous will be crucified. I disagree that this is the case. — Lif3r

Yes, it is an unpleasant religion, isn't it?

23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. — Luke 9:23 King James Version (KJV)

Aren't you all just selfishly concerned with distancing, and personal assertions of righteousness?


I am concerned with unity, and humanities assertions of righteousness.

Not what separates us that we can't agree on, but what we can agree on that will guide us to our next stage of evolution, and what can further our ability to coexist without destroying one another and planet Earth.

I don't think there's anything wrong with an adversarial approach, and it doesn't negate a sort of "meta-love." Any competitive game is co-operative at a meta level.

Essentially the trick is to keep competitive discourse a game (in the course of which new things and truths can be discovered) and not let it get personal.

Sure. Unpleasant, contradictory, etcetera. This does not mean that:

A: All of it's concepts of virtue are not beneficial for society.

Or that

B: Virtue is not successful.

Or that

C: Utilizing it's concepts of virtue will leave you crucified.

It is up to the individual to deduce the concepts of any theory, concept, or religion that are beneficial for our (humanity, and the self's) current state of existence, and for our future state of existence.

For example: Thou shall not kill.
It's obvious how this concept can lend insight into coexistence and the longevity of the species.

Forgive me for referencing murder twice, as I am simultaneously in a discussion with a psychopath about the consequences of it for himself and humanity. Touchy place to be.

It is satisfying when doing it to a person that is as stupid as you point out that person to be. However, it's only satisfying emotionally, intellectually it goes nowhere.

I actually think this subject is much deeper than people seems to realize. I've been involved with a lot of discussions with populists and in lack of better terms, low educated or stupid people who doesn't seem to see logic or rationality even if you pushed it into their faces. My lack of direction within this is about how to tackle that kind of dialogue?

How do we talk to people who lack the ability to reason and think logically? Who act out stupidity on such a level that we actually only have the option to call them stupid, since all else challenge a sense of logic that they seem not capable of understanding?

It's frustrating to talk to people that doesn't seem to have the ability to understand their own level of understanding, their own level of intellect.

I understand that it seems that I'm putting myself higher intellectually than other people, but there's no question that there are people with higher intellect than others, so how do they communicate with those with lower intellect, without them feeling like they have lesser status?

The essential question is... how do we communicate across different levels of intellect without it becoming a question of status based on intellect or knowledge?

I think this question is at the basis for why we see a rise in anti-intellectualism and in lack of better terms, a new kind of stupidity.

The essential question is... how do we communicate across different levels of intellect without it becoming a question of status based on intellect or knowledge?


By replying with objective and unemotional perspective that the other person can understand.

By replying with objective and unemotional perspective that the other person can understand. — Lif3r

In theory I'm in totally agreement with you, however, after many discussions I know that objective, unemotional, fact-based and logical arguments does not matter to the ones who do not have the cognitive mind or intellectual knowledge to process that argument. I've been involved with too many discussions in which I've presented perfectly logical and pretty much fool proof deductive reasoning and the person I discussed with didn't care a bit. So what to do in that situation?

If someone isn't even able to take in an argument before presenting their opinion, then it doesn't even matter if you have a perfect argument anymore.

In that situations, what do you do? Imagine that you really need to convince the other, not just turn your back on them.

The point where I'm quoting Jesus is the point where I know I have reached the edge of reason, and it's time to be quiet.

If it is important enough to you, then you won't give up. Leaving the discussion when it becomes hostile gives each party the ability to reflect, and you can continue the discussion at another time with said reflection in mind.

If it isn't important to you, you will move on.

Lol. ✌

But what is important? I can discuss something in order to feel intellectually overpowered and try to win the argument for my own pleasure, but what is actually important?

I think it's important to oppose illogical arguments, especially the ones destructive for people and within that, when you see that a win in an argument is more than just personal gain and instead is a statement of importance beyond yourself, that's not something you can or should move on from. That's my personal ideal, since everything else is letting stupidity grow freely.

I think it's important to oppose illogical arguments, especially the ones destructive for people and within that, when you see that a win in an argument is more than just personal gain and instead is a statement of importance beyond yourself, that's not something you can or should move on from.


I whole heartedly agree. We do not have the power to control society, but we do have the powers of influence and inspiration, and it is our duty as human beings to work towards correcting what we feel is an imbalance in the equation of humanity. One of humanities best attributes is our ability to learn, and so we must.

Doesn't this than apply to you as well? Why aren't you just managing your brain? Why aren't you following this advice? — All sight

Um, how do you know I'm not?? Upon what basis are you asking this question?

I'm not sure you understand my post, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

There are two parties to the transaction, the person offering offense and the person taking offense. There is no obligation to take offense. There is no law of physics which requires it. It's a voluntary choice. So we don't have to be victims of what someone says in our direction, right? Please note that choosing not to be a victim really has nothing to do with the person offering offense.

It seems your opening post is an attempt to manage what rude people say in public. Are you aware that there is a near infinite number of rude people in the world and that you have exactly no chance of ever managing them all? Assuming you are so aware, then I'm suggesting such an operation is not really too logical. Understandable, normal, well-intentioned, but not full logical.

What I'm suggesting is that we spend less time worrying about what someone else is saying, and more time focused on how we are experiencing what they are saying.

We agree on the goal of reducing emotional disturbance. I'm just saying that moralism is not the most rational and effective way to do that.

Is this any clearer?

Being abusive is hardly a winning strategy — All sight

It could be a winning strategy IF we use the occasion to examine why we are experiencing words typed by strangers on the Internuts as abuse.

Love is the answer. — All sight

Ok, fair enough. But love does not necessarily involve an attempt to manage what other people are doing or saying. So for example, if I deliberately insult you you have the option of having compassion for my sad situation, and privately hoping that I feel better soon. You have the option of seeing that my insult is my problem, and there is no need to make it your problem.

Loving people from a distance doesn't do much. — All sight

It doesn't do much for the people at a distance, but it does a lot for the person loving. It helps that person find peace within their own mind, making it less likely they will be contributing to conflict. Physician, heal thyself.

They might love me, they might hate me, and whatever the case, that is their situation to deal with. — Jake

Jake, I am cut from the same cloth in the sense that as long as I like who I am and I am acting honestly with myself then if I have a problem with someone else, that is MY problem not theirs. Conversely, if someone has a problem with me, that is THEIR problem, not mine.

People who wear their heart on their sleeve are subject to all comers, and therefore have all sorts of problems.

Sometimes being abusive or simply condemning somebody's viewpoint might be the proper thing to do, but that correct moment emerges very seldom. A false statement can be put down without being abusive. In fact, likely people will enjoy far more when somebody is corrected in the most cordial manner. Perhaps when someone apparently doesn't understand that he or she is way off from what is defined by good manners or by the site guidelines, then it might be best to let them have it to wake them up. Unfortunately we make the judgement far too easily sometimes even without truly understanding what the other is saying. Especially when we don't know the person.

I remember in the old PF how quick and effective the administrators were to spot the occasional crank or the person who would start to make ad hominem attacks and be too abusive. Poof! And they were gone instantly. The NKVD worked so well. That instilled a little bit of fear into us and kept the discussion rather polite. Yet when the old forum crashed the first time, the first thing on my mind was had I written something bad and gotten evicted for some reason.

It is really appropriate to be abusive? Like "You believe what! How could you possibly!", and "fool, idiot, wicked person!", and all things of that nature. Not just a tone, but literal insults, and brow beating... — All sight

It's not nice to be abused or misused or used.

Sadly, being abusive verbally has shown to be a good strategy in online argumentation. The objective being not to convince the other or make them accept that they made a mistake, but rather to be the one perceived as able to "school" rather than be schooled.

Since such argumentation rely on pre-existing groupthink dynamics and humour rather than a logical analysis of the content of the arguments, a site like TPF should (and does :up: ) restrict its use as much as possible, and encourage everyone to adopt the later form.

But as a tool, abusive argumentation remains very effective, if the objective is to score points with an known auditory. — Akanthinos

How is engaging in abusive behavior indicative of being able to "school", rather than be "schooled"? If you are combating abusive behavior with abusive behavior, aren't you really no better than who it is you are attempting to "school"?

It isn't a "win", nor did you score any "points" if all you did was reinforce what you and your group already believe. Scoring points entails persuading people who don't already necessarily agree with you.

Now, I'm not in any way suggesting violence be used with the Nazis of today, just pointing out that the appropriate way to deal with those who expose extreme ideologies may sometimes be extreme, or at least more severe than with those in the mainstream. And may certainly extend beyond the bounds of polite debate which in a way legitimizes their positions (and again that's why we don't allow them here).

In any case, out of curiosity, what rational arguments do you think Nazis and their ilk would be responsive too? Because, honestly, I don't think people at that level are open to rational argumentation. If you can manage to believe the holocaust never happened, and Hitler was actually a good guy, you are very likely too far gone to be convinced of anything to the contrary (on an internet forum at least). Having said all that, do whatever works. Anyone who reduces the number of racists, Nazis etc in the world, short of using physical violence to do it, has my unconditional support and appreciation. — Baden

Combat extremism with extremism? Hypocrisy. What makes your extremism any better than another?

Logic and reason are the only effective means of combating unreasonable beliefs. When the argument becomes political and/or ethical, then it simply comes down to what individual or group has more rights to see things their way than some other individual or group - which is why I rarely get involved in political or ethical debates. Shutting people up and banning their right to free speech is no different from what a Nazi would do, making you no different than Nazis.

Fight ignorance with reason and logic. WHY are Nazis wrong? WHY are you right? Answering those questions gets at the truth without having to resort to the same tactics you say that are wrong in the first place.

WHY are Nazis wrong? WHY are you right? — Harry Hindu

If you can't figure that one out, you're really in trouble, as you are if you can't figure out why the mod team on this site are not the same as Nazis simply because we enforce certain standards, or why in general certain things like Nazism, pedophilia, rape etc. are wrong for obvious reasons that we don't need to go into here because we'd rather spend time on stuff that is actually worth debating. But, yes, feel free to go to other sites to try to figure out why Nazism is wrong. I hope you manage it some day.

Sometimes when people get under our skin it is a reflection of our own insecurities.

Particularly we see this pattern in the relationships that are closest to us where we attempt to make predictions of the other person's intent, even though we may not have the facts, but have merely projected our understandings of their intentions based on our history with them and our understandings of ourselves...

But... There are times when people do outlandish and destructive things of their own warrant, and not as a projection of anyone else's insecurities but their own.

I experienced the latter first hand a while ago.

We were at the bar waiting for the fight to start and I struck up conversation with a hoodrat. (he called himself that) At first he seemed civilized and intelligent, and I was fond of him and his wife's company, but somewhere during his third jack and coke he changed. It was clear in his mind that he was still incarcerated, and still in the slums of Houston.

He started to do things with the obvious intentions of instigation. He stole people's chairs as they got up to use the restroom (even though the people were still clearly intending on coming back to them) and gave them to his wife and my mother as if to say "It doesn't matter how these people feel, your family should be comfortable, and you should be willing to fight people in exchange for that at any cost and at any time." He also left his hat on the table in front of me and clearly gave me the responsibility of making sure it didn't fall, he moved people out of his line of sight from the television by intimidation (when he easily could have just shifted his body to account for his line of sight) and he became violent and aggressive towards people for no reason - even yelling in their faces intensely. He backed into me (obviously intentionally) and stepped on my foot, and then turned and said "Sorry bro I didn't mean to back into you" as if to say "I totally meant to do that, but you won't do anything about it because you don't want to fight me."

This man did everything he could to let everyone around him know that he would fight any of them if they disrespected him, and he did so by being disrespectful. I tried to reason with him, and I feel like I got through to him a little by explaining to him that he is a free man and no longer in prison, and that these types of actions will ultimately make his life more difficult.

I cannot relate to a person like this, and I cannot blame myself for being upset that he exists, because this was not a reflection of me. This was all him.

This is a small scale replica of our destructive nature that tells humanity that peace comes from intimidation, and I just do not agree.

+ @Harry Hindu From the guidelines:

"The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced. If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you."

The fact that we're a moderated forum with standards that are enforced, and that you don't have an absolute right to free speech is not going to change.

I think that there has always been a problem with humans and arrogance, greed, pride, ego, and simply not being able to appreciate that things that are above them will not be immediately apprehended by them.

Wisdom is foolishness to the uninitiated. And having no legitimate stick to measure their relative competence, they overwhelmingly overestimate their own.

There's no real difference between insults and compliments, it's actually just all in my head?

More than it being unpleasant, it is also counter productive.

I'm not a fan of the formalization of morality, in the form of developmental pyschology, and Piaget. I agree that that is how competition, and games work, but I don't agree that morality is identical to that.

The idea that 'niceness' must be maintained at all costs in the face of the hurt, abuse, and injustice is insane. It's an argument for coddled schoolchildren unexposed to the threats and reality of violence, poverty, and real pain that pervade all corners of the world. Or else it's the argument of those who are utterly blind to power relations and think that everyone speaks on an equal playing field as though the stakes of discussion are nothing more than parlour games in a gentlemen's club, and not, in some cases, lives. 'Niceness' is not some transcendental principle of discourse; it is a strategic tool to be employed in the right contexts - as is venom, abuse, and 'unpleasantness', each of which has its rightful and important place in all discussion. Trivial cordiality is a contributor, and not a panacea, to misery.