cynicist
-
Posts
917 -
Joined
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by cynicist
-
-
I think you're right...and the troller really knows how to set the hook w/ me, I was actually about to disengage fairly early in, when the guy said something like "oh, that's right, run away when you've clearly lost the argument, just like all the other ayncraps" along with some other controversial statement...and I freakin' knew I was being manipulated, right then and there it was crystal clear, and I still swallowed that bullsh*t -- hook, line, and sinker.
What an asshole. I want to be clear that if I were in the same group when that happened I might respond as you did. You can't expect to always be above that sort of thing with histories like we have, that's why it's so toxic to be around people like that. They trigger us.
I am left pondering...I want more people to understand this stuff, I want people to want to know the truth...that's not ignoble, is it? I know before I joined that group I'd gotten great pleasure in helping people 1-on-1 that actually wanted to learn and expressed that desire, I think next time I've got the burning desire to discuss these things I should seek out more interested parties.
That is a beautiful impulse that I happen to share, I think you just need to find higher quality people who are more deserving of your energy.
-
1
-
-
I think that if I don't stick around and clear it up, people will believe I said the opposite of what I said, or whatever the misrepresentation is...
Right. You think that if you don't continue to argue and 'defend the truth' then the other person 'wins' by default. I know from experience it is pretty frustrating and often I would respond even if I didn't particularly enjoy it. It comes from a desire to control/change how the outcome is perceived by others, which is fundamentally manipulative and somewhat disrespectful to their intelligence. I get the feeling of anxiety, but if you are making solid logical arguments and the other person is simply misrepresenting you, then wouldn't logical/intelligent people be able to identify that? And if you are trying to change the minds of idiots who are moved more by who can deliver a smackdown better, or who has the better presentation, then you automatically lose anyway when you have to resort to their level of discourse.
I've met a few really awesome anarchists in the group I'm having these arguments in...I don't know if that's the "carrot", or what...it sure doesn't seem to be doing much for anxiety management in the moment, but maybe it's bringing it to the surface to deal with now so I can move on?
This clearly has more to do with how others in the group perceive you. I think if you can feel free to call people out when they are 'misunderstanding' your argument and end it when you perceive manipulation on their part, that will go a long way to relieving your frustration and showing a positive example for other anarchists.
I have to ask though, how is this a group of statists mixed with anarchists?
-
2
-
-
Sorry for not responding sooner, but I actually agree with you. I find that my beliefs come about the same way you described: I have certain values (truth being chief among them), experiences, thoughts, etc, and my beliefs are derived from them and are fluid in exactly the same way. As my thinking and experience are updated, so are my beliefs. Even when you might say something like, "He is choosing to believe in god rather than accepting the truth", what you actually mean is that he is avoiding certain knowledge and his belief in god is a consequence of that avoidance.
I could be wrong but this is how I see it currently.
-
Yeah absolutely. I think it's an interesting idea in it's own right I just don't want you to confuse it for UPB.
-
I don't think it matters now as said, I want to move on.
Well thanks for doing it anyway, it helps us understand what is going on.
At first I was going to suggest laying down standards and sticking to them, but it seems like you are having trouble doing that yourself so telling her isn't going to help. So let me ask you, who else in your life has demonstrated that they are unreliable, domineering, undermining, and that you have had trouble maintaining standards with while also being very concerned about their opinion of you. Oh and is a female.
Figuring out why you allow this to continue is the best way to solve it in my opinion.
-
I agree. I do think that my whole approach here is to figure out what is most prudent and psychologically healthy. Of course, we can do whatever we want, but there is such a thing as achieving greater states of psychological health, or having that health be damaged, based on how we treat others, and how others treat us.
Many people confuse UPB for a system of ethics but fundamentally it is a rational method for evaluating moral arguments. It is true that consistency and rationality when dealing with others will lead to better psychological health but proving that is not the aim of UPB.
-
Another chill tune.
-
Thanks for taking the time, Robert...I'm not sure if you're asking "what actually happens (including internally)" or "what crazy story are you making up that you're trying to avoid by staying engaged"...I think it's probably the first, so I'll go w/ that one, if that's not it I can try again.
You continue engaging because you imagine some negative outcome if you do not. (you've already established that you knew the outcome of the argument itself, so it can't be because you think you are convincing them) What would happen if you chose not to participate from the beginning?
-
I don't know the answer to the original question, but Stefan made a recent video where he compared people who were interested in philosophy and abused as children to rubber bands/diamonds, making the point that people in high pressure environments either break or achieve more than the average. I think people who truly live by principles are either the products of good parenting (very rare in today's society) or those who have overcome significant obstacles in their life. I'm not sure that someone who had a mildly abusive upbringing would feel the same desire to pursue truth that many here do. I know for myself it felt like finding an oasis after being lost in the desert for years.
I scored a 5 on the ACE.
-
This whole story sounds strange, I think we're missing a few key details. What is this 'letter' about? What kind of messages are you sending? Why is this important to you?
-
Anyhow, I got into this argument that I can't win...and I kept it up, and it made me quite uncomfortable, and I don't know why I didn't just "walk away" sooner...I had the argument all wrapped up, the counters weren't even legitimate, but of course I just had to point out why they weren't, and keep pushing my point home...
I have a theory, based on a similar impulse that I used to act on in these forums as well as on youtube. (I've long since dropped the group of 'friends' I used to debate with)
What happens if you walk away?
-
UPB does not tell anyone to do anything.
-
Replace the word 'mysticism' with 'believing in fantasy' and you have your answer
1) There is so much in life that cannot be fully explained with current scientific knowledge, e.g. the fact that life exists at all or what is 'dark matter'. As new discoveries are made all the time, I feel uneasy with the concept of saying 'there are certain things we as a species don't understand, however we know X for a fact.' To me if you don't understand everything how can you understand anything? For example how can I say: there may be 'parallel universes but I don't think there is an afterlife'?, how can I say that 'virtual reality is now so good that you almost cant tell the difference with reality (see the more advanced variations on the oculus rift) however I don't think that I am in a virtual reality'?
2) Do I only have this viewpoint because of my childhood? Will the above area become clear to me as I work further through my childhood issues? If that is true and my interest dwindles I still don't think that would nullify the validity of the points I make.
Doubt is good. If you aren't certain of something then there is an opportunity to learn. It could be that you have this viewpoint due to your history, but having rational arguments that disprove the ideas can help you make that determination. (if you reject the arguments based on emotion instead of a flaw, then you will know
) Since most of your questions seem to be around the nature of knowledge (How do we know what we know, aka Epistemology), I have to recommend Stefan's excellent Introduction to Philosophy Series. It's quite long but worth the watch. I'd recommend at least the first 9 videos in your situation, but the morality and politics videos are useful too if you are uncertain about the arguments there. -
If someone can't get past a label to understand the ideas, why would I spend time trying to convince them?
-
2
-
-
Now, if someone claiming to be an anacho-syndicalist claims that there is a need to have workers own the means of production and that a centralized effort must be carried out to ensure that happens using violent means, then they can call themselves whatever they want, but they sure as hell are no anarchists... by definition.
Which is why they must create new terms or redefine existing ones, such as 'structural violence', to justify the violence they are advocating as a kind of self-defense. It's not much different from statism really.
-
1) Value is subjective, subjective things can't be measured/quantified --> hence the use of money as a way to measure/quantify value is illogical
Value is subjective, but why does that make it unmeasurable? Are review sites for products or ratings for vendors illogical and meaningless? What about food preferences? Western food tops my list, with Asian and Mediterranean coming in after. Preferences themselves are ranked in our minds and the subjectivity of the results doesn't change that. Without some sort of lesser or greater value, what does preference actually mean?
2) Praxeology is built off of the notion that humans act to achieve goals (and use tools i.e. capital to help them achieve those goals). Economics should be (this is over simplified) thought of binarily as did you achieve or not achieve your goal(s), and not on a number line (i.e. how much profit/loss occurred)
How do you measure how well you are meeting your goals without price?
3) Someone not having enough money to go to a hospital is disturbing
I agree, let's allow hospitals to compete to provide cheaper care rather than artificially limiting how many hospitals can be built in a given area.
4) Without money people will be 100% internally motivated to work
Without money, how do you measure what you are getting for the work you are putting in? How do you perform long term planning like deciding how much of a good you can have or the optimal time to get it? Without being able to answer those questions, I don't think most people would be motivated to work at all.
5) The only true 'currencies' are time & attention
I can't remember the last time Amazon accepted my time and attention in exchange for their products. Maybe you could define currency first and then explain how the following fits that definition?
6) Without money copyright goes out the window (this assumes you find copyright undesirable)
Copyright exists because of laws and violence. Instead of getting rid of something that many people find extremely useful and beneficial to their lives, let's focus on how bad the laws or use of violence are.
7) Also, what is your definition of money? The definitions I've heard of so far are:
It depends on the context of the discussion, but people most commonly refer to money as a medium of exchange. (although all of those definitions can apply)
8) Also, I heard money was created to sustain military campaigns back in the old days. Is that true?
This is false. Money was created to facilitate the ease of exchange of goods and services. Fiat currency (money backed by government decree) was created and is still used as a tool for financing large scale wars through the mechanisms known as inflation and debt. Attempts to do such a thing to money before fiat currency was invented had much more immediate negative results, and therefore were not practical.
I tried to be concise but accurate, I hope my answers are useful.
-
2
-
-
But earlier in the thread you said,
"...I have no way of actually proving what you were thinking. So you can't call them facts."
which appears to contradict what you are saying above.
How?
The coin toss is something that is observable, thoughts and feelings are not. (the former is empirical, the latter can't be)
-
-
I'm in a similar situation with my own brother, (1 year apart) only he does not acknowledge anything that occurred in our family.
I was 5 years older, he had no chance, I had all the power and thats what I did with it, I have to do whatever is best because of my actions I am responsible, I cannot "make this right", I can only do the right thing now.
Yeah, the thing I realized is that it will never go away. How could it? The past is unchangeable. And despite how painful and shame-inducing it is, I think it is a good thing to live with ultimately, because it serves as a reminder that you will never do anything like that again. It's also why I'm certain that for people who have done worse, like your parents, change is impossible because coming to terms with what they've done would be horrific. I can't imagine trying to come back from abusing a baby...
Thankfully he would hear my apologies, and has has forgiven me. When he says that he forgives me I ask him for full accountability and I offer my support however he asks for it, I will never consider myself off the hook.
When I tried to talk to my brother about what happened when we were younger his response was, "It's no big deal, we were kids". I don't know your situation, but your brother may have forgiven you because to assign responsibility to you for your actions would lead to assigning responsibility to those who were in charge as well. That's the case in mine, where my brother views my mom as a hardworking saint who deserves better and has done nothing wrong. The best you can do is be relentlessly honest and help him where possible. Whether he wants to remain in the dark about your parents is his choice. (and going to therapy would be acknowledging that something was wrong and needs to be explored) You have my sympathies.
(sidenote: it's nice to see your face
)-
2
-
-
I came in with certain expectations for this thread and ended up pleasantly surprised. Thanks for the info
-
1
-
-
@Robert, this is how my debate with you seems from my perspective.
I flip a coin, look at the result, and then put the coin in my pocket, and don't show it to Robert. The outcome was heads. I then say out loud in the presence of Robert. "I just flipped heads on a coin." Robert says, "no you didn't. You can't prove it to me, and if you can't prove it to me it didn't happen." My response is that it did happen. I did verify it, and just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
I don't wish to mischaracterize you though, so I will ask "is it your position that a statement must be verifiable by you personally (at least in theory) in order to be true?"
Quoting myself here from earlier in the thread,
The coin landed on heads whether Fred sees it or not. Since he can't see it all he has is your assertion that it has, but that doesn't change what happened in reality.
In other words, you can't prove to Fred what happened if you never showed him the result of the toss, but the result happened regardless.
-
I've recommended using a media player to play the stream multiple times, both so that it doesn't lag behind and so that you can refresh the page without losing audio, but I realize that not everyone knows how to do it so I thought I would make a short visual guide to help people set this up.
The first step is to get the media player installed by going to http://www.videolan.org/vlc/. Once you have it installed...
Open VLC, right click in the playlist area and choose 'Advanced Open...'
Then click to the network tab, paste http://cast5.serverhostingcenter.com/tunein.php/freedomainradio/playlist.pls into the input box, and hit select.
And that's it. The last thing I would do is drag and drop it from the playlist to the 'Media Library' so that it doesn't disappear if you use VLC for anything else.
Now you don't have to worry about the browser getting in the way of listening to the show
-
3
-
-
“When speaking English fluently is not, in fact, required for the safe and effective performance of a job, nor for the successful operation of the employer’s business, requiring employees to be fluent in English usually constitutes employment discrimination on the basis of national origin — and thus violates federal law.”
So being able to communicate isn't required? What?
-
I would call feelings and thoughts simply facts about the state of a person’s mind. Those thoughts and feelings exist as neuronal patterns. If I say “I am having thoughts about answering your post now”, it is a true assertion about the state of the universe. There is evidence for the truth of that assertion which can be plainly seen, because I am typing a response to you which would not be possible without the thoughts about it.
How do you verify someone's thoughts or feelings? It's safe to assume that you thought about responding to me before you made the actual response, but I have no way of actually proving what you were thinking. So you can't call them facts.
Your definition is not one that a mathematician would use. http://strangebeauti...-assertions.pdf
To quote from the above paper, “An assertion is a precise, unambiguous, mathematical statement to the effect that something is true.”
And in computer programming an assertion is a true-false statement used to indicate an error, but we're not talking about mathematics or programming, are we?
If I take the words objective and subjective out of the above paragraph, does the meaning change in any way that some observer somewhere can tell? Is there any loss of explanatory or predictive statements I might not be able to make about the above scenario if I don’t use the categories subjective and objective? If not, then I don’t see any use for the words “subjective” and “objective”. On the contrary, including words that add no predictive or explanatory power only can increase the possibility of confusion.
My mistake, I thought you were uncertain about how the distinction is useful. It sounds more like you just don't prefer to use the words, is that right? In that case don't use them.
I think they remove ambiguity, and I find that helpful.I think the confusion occurs when you try to assign truth value to either of the terms. When I describe an object subjectively, I'm not making a claim about the object, but rather I am making a claim about how I experience the object, with the full recognition that another person may experience it differently. My subjective claim is not necessarily true or false--that would depend on how accurately my claim represents my true experience. If I make an objective claim, it is not necessarily true or false--that would depend on how accurately my claim describes the object... and my claim could then be validated or invalidated by someone else, independent of my mind.
They are useful when talking about truth because we know that one is verifiable and the other is not.
Reconnect with friend collegue without loosing her respect
in Self Knowledge
Posted
I'll give you a hint. It starts with an M and rhymes with 'brother'.