(September 17, 2016 at 6:12 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(September 17, 2016 at 4:21 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: My adoration of Orbital's music feels like controversial sometimes so many people hate it so much [emoji23]

That's because they're idiots. I'm more of a Chemical Brothers man, but Orbital are very good.

Most people are. It's one of the things that has made me suicidal in the past: I feel so lonely sometimes because so many ignorant cretins/cretinous ignoramuses think they know better than me and only make me more depressed as they say "I'm only trying to help you"... makes me want to vomit.

Luckily I live alone now so I'll never have to get suicidal about that kind of thing again because I can say "fuck off and leave me alone you intrusive cunt".

Well, I can think it. Out loud I'll say "Sorry I want time alone."

(September 17, 2016 at 5:53 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(September 17, 2016 at 12:31 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: Thank you for your response, Jormungandr. Would you say that our tendency to consider ourselves right and others wrong impedes our ability to make the best choice in pursuing objective truth? Could we make a better choice by being more collaborative, and would this collaborative choice increase the likelihood of discovering objective truth?

In collaborating, we gravitate towards those who are like us.  I don't see how that would help.  Many of the errors we make in our thinking happen at a subconscious level.  How is a group of people with no insight as individuals going to overcome that lack of insight?

I agree that if people only seek out those who think like themselves, then this will impede creativity and probably wouldn't be very helpful (group think comes to mind).  However, I should've clarified what I meant by 'collaborative'.  If I may, I'd like to clarify my usage of collaboration by using mediation as an example.  In mediation, the key toward breaking the 'I'm right and the other person is wrong impasse' (which impedes creative problem solving), is to keep the parties' self determination and individuality in tact while helping them gain a better understanding of each others perspective: understanding does not mean agreement, nor does it mean giving up one's individuality and conforming to a group mentality.  Hence, with an increased understanding of each others perspective, win-lose mentalities are replaced with collaborative thinking aimed at finding overlapping interests and brainstorming new, innovative solutions, which were previously obstructed by one-sided thinking.  Would this type of collaboration, one which preserves individuality and encourages teamwork, be helpful?

Bernie Sanders is overrated.

I guess one of my most controversial viewpoints is that I'd ultimately take harmless inequality over harmful equality any day. Obviously the thing is equality almost always is more harmless and less harmful.

I guess just saying at the end of the day I value complementariness over "fairness"... because I think it's more fair. Lol, equivocation, I know. Guess thing is fairness is not the same as sameness:

Steven Pinker Wrote:Another political fear of human nature is that if we are blank slates, we can perfect mankind -- the age-old dream of the perfectibility of our species through social engineering. Whereas, if we're born with certain instincts, then perhaps some of them might condemn us to selfishness, prejudice and violence. Well, in the book, I argue that these are, in fact, non sequiturs. And just to make a long story short: first of all, the concept of fairness is not the same as the concept of sameness. And so when Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," he did not mean "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are clones." Rather, that all men are equal in terms of their rights, and that every person ought to be treated as an individual, and not prejudged by the statistics of particular groups that they may belong to. Also, even if we were born with certain ignoble motives, they don't automatically lead to ignoble behavior. That is because the human mind is a complex system with many parts, and some of them can inhibit others. For example, there's excellent reason to believe that virtually all humans are born with a moral sense, and that we have cognitive abilities that allow us to profit from the lessons of history. So even if people did have impulses towards selfishness or greed, that's not the only thing in the skull, and there are other parts of the mind that can counteract them.

That basically (my italics).

(September 16, 2016 at 2:26 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 11:41 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Self sacrifice is immoral.

I would agree with this but it depends on the definition. It's very difficult to be self-sacrificing towards someone without at least getting some sort of psychological or emotional need fulfilled in return and thereby not be fully self sacrificing.

Example. If I am to give away all my non-essential possessions to someone in need and/or would appreciate them far more than myself... even if I am in the long run worse off for it it would no doubt give me gratification otherwise I wouldn't do it.

Another example: Saving someone's life and I myself dying in the process. That is a far more extreme process. Let's say hypothetically I save a young child's life. Let's say it's my hypothetical son or daughter. I couldn't do that fulfilling my own in one sense 'selfish' deep seated very very strong emotional need to protect my child at all costs.

I guess what I'm saying is... most strictly speaking is self-sacrifice even possible?


Thoughts on this Chimp3?

We could start with the position that any ideology which requires self sacrifice of its adherents is immoral.

(September 18, 2016 at 5:35 am)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: Bernie Sanders is overrated.

Actually, even as a Bernie supporter, I agree. I think he's still a bit better than the two leading candidates, but he was definitely portrayed as much larger than he actually is. This election is just full of bullshit, so I'm not surprised that it happened that way.

(September 18, 2016 at 6:09 am)chimp3 Wrote:

(September 16, 2016 at 2:26 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I would agree with this but it depends on the definition. It's very difficult to be self-sacrificing towards someone without at least getting some sort of psychological or emotional need fulfilled in return and thereby not be fully self sacrificing.

Example. If I am to give away all my non-essential possessions to someone in need and/or would appreciate them far more than myself... even if I am in the long run worse off for it it would no doubt give me gratification otherwise I wouldn't do it.

Another example: Saving someone's life and I myself dying in the process. That is a far more extreme process. Let's say hypothetically I save a young child's life. Let's say it's my hypothetical son or daughter. I couldn't do that fulfilling my own in one sense 'selfish' deep seated very very strong emotional need to protect my child at all costs.

I guess what I'm saying is... most strictly speaking is self-sacrifice even possible?


Thoughts on this Chimp3?

We could start with the position that any ideology which requires self sacrifice of its adherents is immoral.

Surely, you don't mean that. Self-sacrifice takes place all the time, society would crash without it. It takes place in parenting, in charity, in love, in friendship, in lots of good causes beneficial for one's society, and so on.

(September 18, 2016 at 6:14 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(September 18, 2016 at 6:09 am)chimp3 Wrote: We could start with the position that any ideology which requires self sacrifice of its adherents is immoral.

Surely, you don't mean that. Self-sacrifice takes place all the time, society would crash without it. It takes place in parent-child relationships, in charity, in love, in friendship, in lots of good causes beneficial for one's society, and so on.

 My definition of self sacrifice is not sharing, benevolence, etc. When a parent makes changes to their lives to raise their children that is well within their stated life's goal. Not sacrificial.

By self sacrifice I mean that your life is worth less than the cause. I don't think society would collapse if we held each persons life in esteem.

(September 18, 2016 at 6:18 am)chimp3 Wrote:

(September 18, 2016 at 6:14 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Surely, you don't mean that. Self-sacrifice takes place all the time, society would crash without it. It takes place in parent-child relationships, in charity, in love, in friendship, in lots of good causes beneficial for one's society, and so on.

 My definition of self sacrifice is not sharing, benevolence, etc. When a parent makes changes to their lives to raise their children that is well within their stated life's goal. Not sacrificial.

By self sacrifice I mean that your life is worth less than the cause. I don't think society would collapse if we held each persons life in esteem.

Would it be fair to say, rather, that you agree with some types of self-sacrifice and less so with others?

(September 18, 2016 at 6:09 am)chimp3 Wrote: We could start with the position that any ideology which requires self sacrifice of its adherents is immoral.

Oh absolutely it is no one else's business who self-sacrifices.

Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, that's completely immoral. Indeed.