That is probably just because the rest of the people don't know them. If they did they would probably perceive that person to be aggravating as well — Sir2u

As if "being aggravating" were an objective, inherent characteristic of a person, and have nothing to do with the way two people interact with one another?

We liked the conflict.
/.../
What I'm hoping to discuss is the phenomena of conflict addiction. — Foghorn

In DBT, there is the concept of interpersonal effectiveness skills. As the name says, they are the skills for being effective in interpersonal interactions.

It's not clear that there is such a thing as "addiction to conflict". There is certainly a conflict of interests that can sometimes be so profound that only a physical confrontation can effectively bring the conflict to an end (normally, by eliminating one party altogether). What seems like "conflict addiction" are prolonged attempts to do away with the conflict of interests without the use of brute physical force, but using less lethal means.

Except that the results are seen within countries as well as between countries: — Banno

Is this a longitudinal study of the same people over the course of their work life?

You cannot have evidence that God does not exist. — Kenosha Kid

Of course some people propose to have such evidence, it's their reason for being atheists. E.g. "If God existed, I wouldn't lose my job/my partner wouldn't get cancer/the Nazis wouldn't kill Jews."

So the question is, is stuff good because it is loved by god, or is it loved by god because it is good? — Banno

In a monotheist setting, you need to start with the premise that God sets all the terms.
As such, good is what God says is good.

Phrasings like "stuff is good because it is loved by god" or "stuff is loved by god because it is good" are not consistent with classical monotheism. They're formulations that are consistent with a demigod, ie. an inferior god who doesn't set all the terms.

Then why end in aporia? — Banno

To show that the whole issue of piety is silly.

As long as it is possible that one ends up with a stroke and paralyzed and homeless after getting vaccinated, this is all that matters to one.
— baker

What matters to one is not what matters to all. — Fooloso4

What is wrong with you??? Are you a robot???

If you get the serious negative side effects of the vaccine, how will you cope with them? How will that affect your trust in science? Do you really think you will be able to take solace in the fact that the vaccine has helped other people, but not you?

*sigh*

It's short-sighted, comparing countries that have a history of being exploited by colonialists (who, BTW, had God belief) and those that weren't.

Think of it as a form of dialectics or eristic. You were talking about a tension between system building and critical evaluation in philosophy.

Poor people tend to be ill-educated and hence susceptible to nonsense.folk — Banno

But God belief makes them ambitious and makes them strive to improve their material situation.

You mean like this?

A just God would not allow injustice in the world
There is injustice in the world
Therefore God is not just — Fooloso4

The second premise is false, so the conclusion doesn't follow.

That does not obviate the claim that God is indifferent to man's injustice. If you mean that we cannot understand God's justice then on what basis do you claim that God is just?

On the basis that God is typically defined as just.

This is about general trends in cultural history. Compare Realism and Romanticism, Classicism and Baroque, or Modernism and Postmodernism, for example.

Confidence is not luck.
With confident people it is their intrinsic nature, — Trinidad

Hence, luck.

Meditation and sports. General so you can choose your own type.

That's like saying that any type of meditation and any type of sports increase one's self-confidence.
They do not.

Vaguely.

Does, in your opinion, God belief make people poor?

What do you know of God's justice? — Fooloso4

Whatever can be done by syllogism.

How do you account for the injustice in the world? It is not enough to say that injustice is the work of man, for then God's justice seems indifferent to man's.

God's justice is above man's justice.

State your case regarding the connection between God belief and poverty.

Why should it be luck? — Trinidad

Because clearly, some people have it, and some don't, from early on in life.

It can't be taught.

Then how did those who have it, got it?

But like Buddha nature it can be nurtured back to full power.

"Buddha nature"??

Meditation and sports helps a lot.

That's awfully general. "Meditation"???

As already noted by me, several times. Unfortunately, not everyone is so lucky to be blessed with abundant life-affirming confidence, and those who are are unwilling or unable to teach it.

No, it's not simple. You are simple if you think that a no-brainer requires law enforcement. If it were a no-brainer, there would be no need for law enforcement. — James Riley

Then why are there laws against stealing and killing, for example, if those are no-brainers?

Something being a no-brainer doesn't mean it needn't be made into a law. If society wishes to enforce various types of discrimination against people, based on whether they are vaccinated or not, then there needs to be a legal basis for this.

And what of the people who instinctively strive for happy lives,and intuitively try to do good,without hand wringing or philosophy? — Trinidad

Sure, there are such people. What's your point?

Not taking the vaccine will put a strain on communities with a lot of people in close proximity. Whatever the consequences of the vaccine, it helps fight the virus. — Christoffer

No no no. If you're so eager to talk about risks and probabilities, then you need to present the above claims in terms of probabilities, so that we get the full picture.

You say, for example "Not taking the vaccine will put a strain on communities" -- as if this were 100% certain. But is it? Calculate the probability. Otherwise, all you have is ideology.


I'm guessing that the probability of getting a bad case of covid is about the same as getting bad side effects from the covid vaccine, at least in some areas.

And what do you consider consequential? — Trinidad

The usual Big Issues -- the meaning of life, right and wrong.

but he does not reflect philosophically.
— baker

And, above all, he does never doubt himself. That would seem to be a reasonable assumption. — Apollodorus

Exactly. It appears that the OP is right after all.

That people get confused about what moral rights to have when A) affecting yourself, compared to B) affecting others, is pretty mind-blowing. You affect yourself, fine, do whatever - affect others, get in line and follow the law, restrictions, and rules of society. That's what society is. Anyone who thinks they are above society and doesn't need to follow what is collectively agreed on is either fine to move somewhere else, isolate themselves, or face the consequences of breaking against these things.

It's like the most basic form of ethical logic here, and I don't understand how on a philosophy forum this logic is misunderstood or downright not getting through the skull of some. — Christoffer

Remember, the Iron Lady said there is no society.

You are comfortable rolling up your sleeve for the vaccine, good for you.
— Book273

So are millions of others. I guess they are all idiots in your eyes. — Christoffer

Actually, it must be great to feel so confident that luck is on one's side. Getting the vaccine, thinking, "Oh, surely I'm so great and so lucky that I will not get the side effects!"

but choosing to refuse a vaccine and then socialize normally during a pandemic is a reckless act. — Christoffer

Who's advocating that?

You probably wouldn't understand. Those who sign a blank check for an amount up to and including their lives don't always pretend to know better than those they are willing to follow. You can end up getting killed in a righteous war against Nazis, or you can end up getting killed in some BS war for the MIC or oil or whatever. The sacrifice and the honor is in the signing; not in the motives of those who send you. You don't get to decide policy. Once signed, you let people like Baker protest the war in the rear with the gear and say things like "war is dangerous."

I chose to follow the advice of people and institutions who I trust know more than "Baker" on the internet. After all, Baker hasn't devoted his life to the study of infectious diseases, vaccines, and this new product. Instead, he/she reads shit, tries to make him/herself informed, and ends up thinking he/she knows better.

People like Baker seem to think they are entitled to 100% safety guarantees in life. I imagine they spend a great deal of time hiding under the bed. — James Riley

Making sure to keep the discourse ever so superficial, eh?

A person is not a statistic.
— baker
The safety of the vaccine though is. — Fooloso4

I'm talking about persons.

For the person who ends up with bad side effects, it does not matter if they are in the statistical minority.
— baker
All drugs potentially have bad side effects. It is a matter of risk/benefit analysis.

In that case, for a particular person, the probabilities can only be calculated theoretically, not empirically. Which makes for a lot less optimistic numbers.

More importantly, people don't make decisions based on a risk/benefit analysis, but based on their values, ie. what they consider important.

That is not the way medicine works.
Then why talk about it this way, as if it does work that way?
— baker
You have misunderstood what it means for a drug to be safe and effective.

Always blame the person, eh?

You could say that bleach is "safe and effective" -- provided one is a flat glass surface.

Medicine is ignoring the very people it is supposed to help.

Still, medical lays are being fooled by the medical system there is such a thing as "informed consent".
— baker
Informed consent is not all or nothing. — Fooloso4

What do you mean?

then why not have them decide about medications, including experimental ones?
— baker
This is all regulated by agencies such as the FDA.
Political considerations include such things as freedom and compliance.

I'm talking about the discriminatory practices that are already taking place: such as being required to get vaccinated, or else get fired. The foundation of such discriminatory practices would need to be legalized, but it isn't.

You state this as if it is a fact. It is not. How effective it is at preventing the spread of the virus is still under review. One thing is clear, where vaccination rates are high covid rates have decreased significantly. — Fooloso4

It doesn't matter. As long as it is possible that one ends up with a stroke and paralyzed and homeless after getting vaccinated, this is all that matters to one.

I more or less gave up trying to make sense if it. — Kenosha Kid

It was never meant for you to "make sense of it".

So,would not consider it obvious that you type on your keyboard or that fire is hot? — Trinidad

Sure, but such things are inconsequential, for the most part.

I was simply illustrating cases where experience tends to contradict appearance and may cause someone to start analyzing things philosophically. In other words, the motivating factor doesn't need to be "lack of self-esteem" as the OP suggests. — Apollodorus

Trying to embody the confident non-philosopher: once the confident non-philosopher encounters an illusion, a deception, he blames, faults, criticizes, but he does not reflect philosophically.

I don't see how photography will improve my perspective. — Wittgenstein

I'm talking about your vision, your eyesight, your ability to notice details.

In the grand scheme of things, beautiful people exist.

Just not in broad daylight.

I guess this is one of those things that once seen, cannot be unseen. And until seen, unseen.

I know evidence that the conscious mind continues after bodily death is rare and iffy at best. But what type of evidence would be reasonable to convince skeptics that an afterlife probably is a real possibility?
— TiredThinker

Why do you want to convince them? — baker

Still waiting for an answer.

At this point, we have to embrace it unwillingly. — Wittgenstein

Why?

Are some things not directly obvious,intuitive and axiomatic? — Trinidad

People typically seem to have a list of things they consider obvious, intuitive, and axiomatic. What exactly is on that list can differ greatly from one person to the next. For example, to one person, it is obvious, intuitive, and axiomatic that Jesus is their lord and savior. To another person, it is obvious, intuitive, and axiomatic that Jesus is not their lord and savior.
Because of such differences, it's hard to make sense and utility of notions like "obvious, intuitive, and axiomatic".

In politics, in personal relationships, and many other areas. You may buy something made in China that appears to be great only to later find that this is not the case. You may think that a social movement is a good cause only to find that it is more like a weird cult. You may think that an email is genuine only to find that it is spam, etc., etc.... — Apollodorus

But the question is how a person will interpret and handle such "deceptive appearance".

How would our confident non-philosopher from the OP interpret it?

I don't think this is the case, I have been with truly beautiful people and they look beautiful in every setting. They tend to have a lot of collagen in their skin which makes it smooth and youthful, their pores are not visible to the naked eye. — Wittgenstein

Then you don't have very good vision. Or you're rather idealistic (to wit: infatuated) or naive.

Take up up-close photography, to train your vision.

The primary problem atheists typically have is that their faith in reason (for this particular task) is so deep, and so unexamined, that they don't realize it is faith. They take reason's qualifications for considering the very largest of questions, those most far removed from human scale, to be an obvious given. And so it doesn't occur to them to questions those qualifications. — Foghorn

The primary problem theists typically have is that their reason in faith (for this particular task) is so deep, and so unexamined, that they don't realize it is reason. They take faith's qualifications for considering the very largest of questions, those most far removed from human scale, to be an obvious given. And so it doesn't occur to them to questions those qualifications.

Most religious people were born and raised into their religion, they didn't choose (in the sense of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices"). They do have reasons for their religiosity, but those reasons amount to "I trust what my parents told me on the topic of God (religion), because it makes sense to trust the people who feed me, clothe me, clean me, keep me warm and safe." Of course, they are not likely to ever say that, as framing their religious choice in such banal, down-to-earth terms would take away its power.

The problem in the theism-atheism debate is that both sides assume about themselves and about eachother that their respective positions have been arrived at by a process of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices". But neither has done that. What is more, the cradle atheist has no comparable experience of what that is like, to be told religious claims by one's parents (or other caretakers). The cradle atheist has no sense of the cognitive impact of learning religious teachings from a trusted person at an age before one's faculties of critical thinking have developed. While the cradle theist has no sense what it is like to be without such learning.

The lens distortion caused by distance and lens curvature, lighting, background etc affect a picture. In reality, we see people with our eyes ( duh ) and they see pretty much the same person irrespective of background — Wittgenstein

I'm not talking about pictures taken with cameras.
Look at people: a beautiful person only seems beautiful when looking at them from about 5 to 2 meters, in dispersed light. Go further, and their features become too indistinguishable to matter, go closer and you see all the ugly details of their skin (or makeup).

Wittgenstein isn't talking about a picture in the literal sense. He wants to say we can refer to a person by what they look like in everyday language. What distinguishes us from other is our appearance

Provided one is a visual type of person, ie. focusing on the visual (as most people are). Auditory types focus on a person's voice and other sounds the person makes.