You don’t believe in what? Who do you think is a smart aleck, me?
Im being sincere, I want to hear your argument. What is it?

Your opinion about Banno is noted. How about that argument you have yet to make? Why should I accept Panpsychism is true?

Banno is right, you aren’t making an argument. Lets hear it.

Sure, Ive also heard people say things like Trump doesnt lie, that he’s a good christian etc, or even just case by case you can tell with some people that the facts are just not as important as the teams or narrative. I was just curious if you also had a name like anti-trump hysteria (or whatever) for pro Trump side. It appears you do not. Pro-Trump hysteria I guess?
Ive been using TDS to describe it on both sides, but apparently thats a trigger word for some. To avoid confusion, im leaning towards “the trump effect. The only drawback is it ruins phrases like “look, TDS in effect”. It would be “look, the Trump effect in...effect”.

Not in particular. Shouldnt be necessary unless someone wants to claim such a thing doesn't exist. It would be a spectrum of course, with varying degrees just like with the anti-Trump crowd.

What do you call pro trump people who have a similar “derangement”, who just aren't thinking clearly on the topic?

I see lol
Something in the name perhaps.
I wouldnt classify that as TDS actually, since I would say TDS only applies to OTHERWISE rational people. In the case of Frank A, I actually will go so far as to say he suffers from a real medical condition, likely an emotional disorder. (With the caveat that I have a limited data set from which to make my judgement of course).
I actually feel regret for how I dealt with him initially. That guys got something going on.

Im not sure what you mean by that. Im going to go have a look now though :wink:

I wasn't defending anyone, I was pointing out what I consider an annoying mistake: using a term differently from how it's used and then trying to justify it with personal anecdotes. — Benkei

Thats not what I did. I used a term that certain people have a different way of using, and when it was pointed out to me I acknowledged it and explained what I meant to clarify myself. How you described it, I would call “spin”. Trying to make something sound less savoury than it actually is. Thats dishonest.
Also, after your initial one line post you followed up with direct reference to the judgement I was making. The point being, you spent more time and words on the judgement i was making than the actual use of the term. So you spent more time on something you just claimed you weren’t doing and only a single line on what you claimed you were doing. Im awfully tempted to call that dishonest as well, but Im such a swell guy I try to use the principal of charity where I can so I will chalk it up to you just being a bit confused.
Anyway, you were trying to address something that annoyed you, I was trying to address a specific phenomenon I observed in various interactions between NOS and others in response to @Wolfman. Looks to me like we’ve done that so you are welcome to the last word but Ive had enough.

Oh I understand now. You were defending others, not yourself. My mistake.

Yes, it's not interesting to hear you think people are deranged. But hey, it isn't so bad, because you mean it in a non-medical way. Meanwhile, it's not clear at all what the substantive difference is between medical derangement and non-medical derangement. I suspect the only difference is that one is established by a medical professional but in the end the judgment is the same, but we can question yours more easily when you do it. Doesn't make the judgment a light hearted thing. — Benkei

I dont think it is a lighthearted thing, its rather serious. Its part of whats causing this political divide where people are going crazy (on both sides, and no I dont mean actually, medically “crazy”.). Its part of what got Trump elected and before this Covid 19 stuff, why he was going to be re-elected.
Anyway, I have already explained what I meant by TDS, and Ive acknowledged that some people here have a very different idea about what the teem means. Im just trying to communicate, sometimes that means being open to different senses or uses of words. Its generally not helpful to...I dont know, get your hackles up.
Also, Its not like I mentioned anyone by name and I specifically said it was SOME of his critics...so ask yourself why you are operating under the assumption I was talking about you when referencing TDS.

Wow, thanks for coming out. Thats not even what Im doing in the portion you quoted. Im explaining what I meant when I used it, as is evident by the rest of the post that you apparently skipped.
Yes, I know Im not the King of Words. Thanks.

It's only use on this forum, up until now, was rather frequently by someone called Nobeernolife. He was banned last month I believe. Check that thread for any reasons. — Monitor

Ok. Ive seen the term used elsewhere to mean what I described. Ive heard it directed at the media and various personalities, in youtube videos etc.
I can understand how my use of it would seem worse if that usage (as a medical condition, ridiculous) was the only one youve been exposed to...I feel like that was a hasty assumption but Nobeernolife was a pretty big fool so I get it.
Anyway, i think there is a phenomenon around Trump, where he so divides and triggers people that they stop thinking clearly. It causes otherwise good people to lie and sling mud the way Trump does, never noticing the hypocrisy. It makes it difficult to have productive political discussions. I do not think it is a dismissive number of people doing this, I cant even think of a media outlet that hasnt bullshited or straight up lied about Trump. Its in fashion, and Trump is such a reviled person no one cares.
But its works both ways too. I have a friend who is a Trump guy. He’ll go on and on about deep state and Trumps great and yadda yadda. (Its been difficult lol). Now, Ill give any point of view a fair shot, but my instincts told me to test the waters first. I asked him if there was anything Trump did that was wrong, or a mistake. His answer was “no”. That is deranged, in the non-medical, non formal sense of the word.
So thats what I mean when I say TDS.

My question did apply to you, it was directed at you and Monitor. Doesnt matter now.

Your question was about having a singular definition of of TBS? — Monitor

Yes, I honestly didnt know that any significant number of people claimed it was some kind if medical term. Is the description I gave not what people generally mean by TDS?

I cant disagree with any of that. He likes fucking with you guys.

Well thats not a very charitable way of putting it. You’ve never observed that sometimes people have particular blind spots? I would call the phenomenon I mentioned an extreme case of that.
You didnt answer my question either.



Rather than addressing what I said, you both made decidedly unhelpful responses instead.

You don’t understand what an Ad Hom is. You can address someones argument AND mock them. An Ad Hom is when you mock (or attack) the person rather than the argument.
You didn't answer my question.

I didnt realise that It was being posited as an actual medical condition. In my experience it was a term of mockery, illustrating a phenomenon where ordinarily rational people become irrational on the topic of Trump.
So you two are telling me I have an idiosyncratic definition of the term?

I don’t know what response you could possibly expect from me, given the see through attempt to manufacture something to mock about me in your posts.

No its not. An Ad Hom is when I attack the person instead of the argument. I wasnt addressing an argument.
Identifying when someone is allowing their views of Trump to cloud or impair their normal behaviour (TDS in a nutshell) is no more an Ad Hom than observing that the sniffles and cough mean someone has a cold. In fact, what you just did is closer to an Ad Hom than what I said, since you didnt actually address what I said. You just posted to throw shade on me (the Ad Hom accusation).
Note, TDS is not exclusive to Trump haters. I would say it also applies to people who are so pro Trump that they behave in abnormal ways as well.

I understand you might feel the need to chime in, luckily I wasnt talking to either of you so you can ignore me. Win win.

The political threads are rather rough and tumble anyway. The philosophical threads, we generally keep cleaner. I think that's the way it should be. Btw, schopenhauer1 has taken an enormous amount of stick for his philosophical hobby horse and @Gnostic Christian Bishop has been heavily criticized too. @Shawn (formerly Wallows) hasn't been pushed around by the community much but has been ban-threatened several times. It is possible to go too far with this and as I said the flag function can be used. Best I can do. — Baden

I would say the shit those folk have to take over their shenanigans is lesser in scope and frequency. There isnt the same venom, nor as many people onboard the hate train. Also, Im not suggesting mod involvement or anyone needs to be warned or reported. Rather its the kind of thing we hope people will hold themselves accountable for.

TDS is not mythical. Maybe it gets tossed around too much as such terms do, but I have met and witnessed it many times.
Ive noticed the time and energy as well, and agree it is suspicious. Ive asked him about it myself. I wouldnt say that justifies how he is often treated though. If he did the same thing about not Trump, I very much doubt he would be getting the same treatment. GnosticBishop is the same way about anti-christian stuff, those two anti-natalists are the same way about their posts, Wallows (or whatever hes called now) is the same way with his therapy posts etc, there is a type of poster that just doggedly stays on point about something and none of those other people get treated like that. (Except by me maybe). Still, even after that consideration I agree its suspicious.
I realise you are often his sparring partner, but I wasnt singling you out in the post you responded to.

I agree. But despite our goodwill toward Trump on this matter, he reacts to the unfair reporting by lying, claiming he was being sarcastic.

No, he wasn't recommending people ingest bleach. He was making a naive extrapolation from what he had just heard about the effectiveness of various methods of killing the virus on surfaces. But he just can't bring himself to admitting that, so he has to lie. — Relativist

:100: (edited to add that, it didnt work the first time)
It is just as dishonest for people to claim he was suggesting people ingest bleach as it is for Trump to say he was being sarcastic.

Is there a reason why NOS4A2 is being treated like this? I searched his post history expecting to find him trolling or flaming, but his posts have actually been rather cordial and subdued. While I disagree with almost everything he says, there's enough anti-Trump people here such that we don't need to resort to bullying. Yes, Trump and many of his supporters often do it, but we're not them either. — Wolfman

His defence of Trump and his refusal to placate for the most part. Because of Trump Derangement Syndrome, he has been relegated to a category of person no longer worthy of fairness nor respect. He is an agent of evil, and so a guilt free punching bag for the weak of character.
Not to say all his critics are like that, but Trump Derangement Syndrome is real and its primary definitive feature is not being able to think clearly on matters if Trump (or in more serious cases, anything that can be even remotely tied to Trump) so even then he seldom gets the fair or charitable interactions afforded to others.

If the inductional thinking of the situation leads to the best option to kill the killer and that the killer doesn't have any justification for that killing other than malice or mental illness that is impossible to change, then yes, it is justified since you are defending lives from a morally bad choice another is taking. — Christoffer

Ok, so is that individual good translate to the group? I would argue that it doesnt, that the group consideration is different since now you also have to weigh the cost to the group, which you never have to do with the individual consideration. Thats why we have laws against vigilantism, because people can lie about their moral reasons or moral diligence in concluding that killing the murderer is correct. Hopefully the possibilities are fairly obvious.
So that would be an example of whats good for the individual not being good fir the group.
I think that this part of your argument is foundational, and it will all fall apart unless you can alter the premiss to exclude exceptions to the rule like we did above.

Sure, lets say that all moral due diligence is done in that scenario, so as you laid it out that act is justified morally, it is good for the individual. To be clear, I mean that in the sense that the person is morally justified to murder that guy first, basically morally permissible vigilantism. Are you agreeing that under a certain set of circumstances, after all due consideration of all options (there is a scenario where police are not the best option for example) etc, its good (avoiding mind/body harm) to go kill this guy?

That book is very similar to what you’ve talked about so far. You are operating around one of the “peeks” of the moral landscape, you just do mot realise it. I highly recommend the book, as it is essentially the same as what you are proposing here. Also, you are wrong about Harris’s focus on islam over moral theory. Moral theory is his primary focus, which is why he takes issue with religions.
Anyway, lets focus on one thing at a time. Its always a temptation with presenting a theory to jump around between all the explanations and arguments and supporting arguments and premisses because you are uniquely familiar with them. Im not though, so one thing ar a time.
Fir example, you've jumped into utilitarianism and some other concepts and Im not really sure how that even matters as if yet.
So as to good for the individual is good for the group...let me set up a scenario.
If there is a threat to a person, or their family maybe. I murderer has declared you or your family his next target. He has done this before with other targets, and has always followed through with his threat. I would say you are protecting yourself from mind/body harm to kill the murderer before he kills you. So that seems like it qualifies as good in your view, since the individual mind/body harm is at stake. Is that right?

Have you read “the Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris?

Ok, so your central claim seems to be that what is good for the individual is whats good for the group aa long as the good is defined as not doing harm to the body/mind. Is that correct?

What if I change to "objectively valuable"? Seems that within a context of objectively valuable for one the benefit for the many includes that one person. So to have a value objectively it needs to be of benefit for the whole? Or am I attacking this premise in the wrong direction? — Christoffer

Well Im not sure how that would change that there are exceptions to your claim that haven't been accounted for. How exactly do you mean objectively valuable?

What things are beneficial to humanity and humans that do harm to the body or mind? The sun does only damage when exposed to it too much, so that means overexposure to the sun is not beneficial to humans and humanity while normal exposure to the sun is.

So what is beneficial is valuable as too much exposure to the sun is not beneficial or valuable. The premise also specifically points to one human, so not humanity as a whole, but could be applied with expansion to it. But it's hard to see anything beneficial to a human that is at the same time harming the body and/or mind. Even euthanasia can't be harming the mind of body if the purpose is to relieve the body or mind from suffering. — Christoffer

Ya, that example doesnt hold up. Ok, so let me try another in the i interest of testing your claim further. I suspect your syllogism can be applied to these as well so im prepared to stand corrected on that last criticism but Ill give it a shot.
What about if there are two harms, smoking and stress. The smoking relieves the stress, but harms the body, but so would stress. In that case, the smoking is harmful to body but its also beneficial to the human.
On a macro scale, what about decisions that benifit more people than it harms. Wouldnt any kind if utilitarian calculation be an exception to your rule?

Morality based on value
p1 What is valuable to humans is that which is beneficial to humanity.
p2 What is beneficial to a human is that which is of no harm to mind and body.
p3 Good moral choices are those that do not harm the mind and body of self and/or others.
Conclusion: Good moral choices are those considered valuable to humans because they are beneficial to humans and humanity. — Christoffer

P1 is not true at all. Many large groups of humans value things that are not beneficial to all humanity. Its arguable humanity as a whole doesnt value what is beneficial to humanity as a whole, so I would say you need more support for p1.
P2 seems weak as well, as its quite a stretch to claim everything that does no harm to mind and body is beneficial to humanity. Don’t you think there are somethings which do no body/mind harm but do not necessarily benefit mankind? Or vice versa...the sun harms your body but is beneficial to humanity,

Belief
p1 Choices made from unsupported belief has a high probability of chaotic consequences.
p2 Supported belief with evidence has a high probability of arriving at calculated consequences.
p3 Chaotic consequences are always less valuable to humanity than those able to be calculated.
Conclusion: Unsupported belief is always less valuable to humanity than supported belief. — Christoffer

Your conclusion should be that unsupported belief has a high probability of being less valuable to humanity (where chaotic consequences are bad for humanity). The “always” doesnt follow from the rest of your equation.
Also, you can have calculated consequences which are bad for humanity so P3 doesnt follow either.

See? However we may disagree we will always have Franky to agree on. :wink:

Yes yes, :100: , but that doesnt matter to Frank Apisa, and even if it did he lacks the comprehension to accept he is wrong on this. He is a fanatically religious believer...of agnosticism. A very confused person, with an incoherent position that he doesnt even know he holds.
I suspect mental illness of some kind, like Autism and Dunning-Kruager had a baby and it was raised by a lady named Aggressively Stupid. Also the baby spent its summers with Uncle Parrot, who taught the baby to repeat the same thing over and over without listening to the responses. The end result is Frank Apisa,
So basically a complete waste of time to engage with.

Lol, being wrong that many times in a row would make me sleepy too.

Ok, but Im not going to argue with Fool with you as a proxy. I'm talking to you about what you said.

Well its a broad term that you are incorrectly using specifically. Like in my human/doctor analogy.
Anyway, you’ve jumped to the word irreligious now, and that bit at the end. What does any of that have to do with this? You lost me.

I get that, but so what? Whats the relevance of whether I agree with the first sentence in someone else's post? I actually think there are a lot off errors in that quote from Fool, but I would bring that up with him not you, right? I was disagreeing with the statement you made

But, a Polytheist or Pantheist could be an Antitheist if they disagreed with the Theistic conception of God and had some animosity towards Theism in general, right? — Pinprick

Sorry, I should have used the quote feature in that post. I assumed it would be clear since it was the very next post made on the thread.