is morality subjective?

[Kevin Beal]

I'm guessing by this lash out that you do care to not be corrected. I'm guessing this is why in a recent thread, when I challenged your position that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, you just sort of gave up, but not as a form of accepting your own capacity for error.

Framing it as lashing out, if it's not lashing out, is misrepresenting me, while accusing me of misrepresenting you. People can read it and see if I've really misrepresented you. I do find it irritating and that comes through in my writing. Expressing irritation is not lashing out, obviously. The determining factor seems to be whether or not misrepresentation was occurring. I'll let people come to that conclusion themselves.

 

I gave up in that other thread for the same reason I'm giving up now. I keep thinking that I've answered your questions, and then you just say that I haven't or you aren't satisfied with the elaboration. I've repeatedly started thinking about how I could explain it better, and then when I reread what I wrote, it answers your question already, to my mind. That's why I was insistent that you tell me as specifically as possible what part you didn't understand. I just don't know how to help you understand, really. Seriously, I feel helpless to help you. So, now I don't want to.

 

I don't know how you go about demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that someone is being obtuse, but if it were possible, I would really want to run that test, because I really do feel very confused repeatedly going back and forth between wanting to clarify and being certain that I have already answered your question. Like, if you're aren't being obtuse, then I'm just crazy, seeing a distorted version of reality and thinking it's real. And whenever I've gone about trying to see whether or not I was crazy in the past, getting feedback from trusted 3rd parties, walking through each logical step, etc, I've almost always confirmed my original position was true, enough. But still, I keep checking...

 

How do you remain so confident that I've not answered your question? Really. It baffles me. I'm very insistent, obviously, and a pretty decent thinker and writer, but you are unphased. You do not budge from "you've not answered my question". Your writing seems (at least to me) to be very stoic, unemotional and calculated, which if sincere, only further confuses me. I feel a range of emotions writing this, from irritation to confusion to helplessness. And concern that little things I say might be turned into something to use to frame me as some kind of bad guy. It's difficult for me to interact with you. Getting questions from you recently has made me want to put my guard up, like I'm walking into a trap or something.

 

And please, please, I'm begging you, please stop telling me things about how you would give me the benefit of the doubt, or you used to think more highly of me in the past, or that you think I'm very smart and this sort of stuff. I can't handle it. Maybe it's just my own hang up, I'm perfectly willing to go there, I'm just asking as a favor. I've had more than my fair share of people trying to tear me down and softening the blows with flattery. It makes me want to punch a hole in the wall.

 

My interactions with you are always very very abstract, and imo, it's too easy to either make honest mistakes or to manipulate through language. I thought I would try and talk like an emotional being, which is what I am. Change it up, and see what happens.

[cynicist]

I didn't realize that holding somebody accountable for their own attempts at being understood was being a dick. I didn't realize that asking questions in order to understand was not taking the time to understand. I do realize that this lack of rationality is an attempt to erase another person in order to manage your own anxiety as the result of irrationally regarding somebody as if infallible. The good news is that my pointing this out gives you another opportunity to use downvoting as an ideological WEAPON against me

I'm used to reading the passive-aggressive, wide-eyed, "I didn't realize" crap from you dsayers, but you seriously think that I regard Kevin as infallible? Lol. Like the pope you mean? Is he the high priest of philosophy?

 

I'm basing what I said on how I approach trying to understand things that I'm legitimately interested in, which means looking up terms that I'm unfamiliar with before asking how they could possibly be relevant to a conversation. You are a smart guy and the definitions of those terms would easily make clear why Kevin brought them up, so I'm led to the conclusion that whatever the reason for your question, it has nothing to do with that...

 

You can stop with the self-pity, by the way. Downvotes are not always attempts to attack and silence you. Sometimes they are messengers carrying parcels of great value should you choose to stop and give them heed.

[dsayers]

Framing it as lashing out, if it's not lashing out, is misrepresenting me, while accusing me of misrepresenting you. People can read it and see if I've really misrepresented you. I do find it irritating and that comes through in my writing. Expressing irritation is not lashing out, obviously. The determining factor seems to be whether or not misrepresentation was occurring. I'll let people come to that conclusion themselves.

 

This is intellectual sloth. "2+2=5." "Actually, 2+2=4." "Well people can see for themselves."

 

When you make an objective claim, you're demonstrating that you accept that there is such a thing as truth and truth is preferable to falsehood. It is false to claim that I've ever said that you, James, or Mike are terrible people. You made this claim without any frame of reference, which comes across as using your esteem to shame me. When I provided a link to what YOU were referring to, this is letting people decide for themselves. I did this while I was talking to you about it. As opposed to just saying "people can decide for themselves," which is refusing to discuss it even though you were the one that made the claim.

 

It is not true that I've ever said that you, James, or Mike are terrible people. In fact, when I share that I feel the occurrences you were referring to were uncharacteristic, I'm explicitly saying that I think you're NOT terrible people. I mean, aren't you twice now sharing that such praise makes you uncomfortable? Do you experience any dissonance when you manage your anxiety in receiving praise regarding your reputation by claiming your reputation is being tarnished? They cannot be true simultaneously. And if reputation is as important as you're behaving as if it is (which I agree it is also), then you cannot be so irresponsible as to claim that somebody has said you're a terrible person, then when challenged as to the accuracy of that claim, back out, stating that people can see for themselves.

 

Your writing seems (at least to me) to be very stoic, unemotional and calculated, which if sincere, only further confuses me.

 

This may be the guardedness/lack of vulnerability I was referencing before. How do you feel knowing that FDR--a site about studying philosophy, pursuing self-knowledge, getting in touch with your emotions--is a place I do not feel I can be open and honest about myself at because 3 of the 4 people whom I felt would never attack me while I was vulnerable would rather attack me than face the discomfort they experience when somebody has the audacity to observe that "gender" encompasses male and female?

 

If I never said that you were a terrible person and you claim that I've said you're a terrible person, you have a responsibility to either produce evidence to support that or revise your claim to more accurately describe the real world. You've spoken with me in private before about a concern you had with things I've written. I know what doing it publicly instead is meant for. The problem here is that your claim was challenged, with evidence provided that your claim is not accurate. You can choose not to respond, but I won't be letting you making a response that ducks that responsibility go unidentified as such. Please do the right thing for your sake, for my sake, for the sake of those reading who'd rather see great minds working together.

 

I'm used to reading the passive-aggressive, wide-eyed, "I didn't realize" crap from you dsayers, but you seriously think that I regard Kevin as infallible?

 

My understanding of being a dick is intentionally being unnecessarily mean to somebody. I don't think this accurately describes the act of holding somebody accountable for trying to be understood. Just as I don't think "you didn't even take the time to understand" accurately describes taking the time to understand. That's not passive-aggressive and I think you classifying it as "wide-eyed" reveals the bias from which you would make such a claim.

 

Furthermore, I reject the premise that you regard passive-aggressive as an unfavorable standard. "stop the posturing (when I wasn't)," "stop being a dick (when I wasn't)," and "I'm used to [your] crap (when it's not)" may not be passive-aggressive--may not even be aggressive--but it is provocative language meant to incite. Not the behaviors of somebody who holds passive-aggressiveness as unfavorable and lives their values.

 

Since you asked, no, I suppose I do not think that you find Kevin to be infallible. However, this is the second time you've defended the indefensible and added in a downvote to "teach me a lesson to dare cross Mr. Beal (my interpretation)." This rings of a "proximity=virtue" mentality. One of the pitfalls of regarding people in terms of "my team/their team" is that you risk missing out on the bad things in your team or the good things in the other team. As I recall our private exchanges from the past, we were "on the same team." This changed as a direct result of my disagreeing with Mr. Beal, while you had made no effort to reconcile with me the concerns you have with me despite being our favorable foundation. This doesn't seem like the behavior of somebody seeking the truth, but rather the behavior of somebody trying to stay on the good side of who they anticipate will be the "victor." I accept that characterizing that as regarding somebody as infallible wasn't accurate. For that, I apologize.

 

You can stop with the self-pity, by the way. Downvotes are not always attempts to attack and silence you. Sometimes they are messengers carrying parcels of great value should you choose to stop and give them heed.

 

It's not self-pity. If anything, it's pity for the people that do such things. If somebody uses the downvote system as an ideological weapon, I know that it's not a reflection of me. It's a reflection of the person's inability or unwillingness to work together for mutual benefit. It's indicative of managing one's anxiety in a way that won't actually address what's causing them that anxiety. It's right there in the name: ideological weapon. "Somebody doesn't agree with me, which bothers me, and since I cannot convince them, I'm going to hurt them." I much prefer this; This discussing things. This attempt at working together. THIS is how people who enjoy philosophy and self-knowledge should be able to interact. My apologies if my projecting this expectation onto you also is irrational or unrealistic.

 

No, the purpose of revealing the activity is a form of ostracism; social pressure to reform. You can do it all you like, but I want you to know that I know that it's happening and why. And for others to know, both for the sake of being able to call things by their proper name and to understand that the results are noticed and undesired. A way of personifying the recipient of that action; To demonstrate that this post is not being made by an avatar, but by an actual person of reason who could be talked to.

 

By all means check out my reputation history in my profile. You will see times that I get marked off for taking up a controversial position, which is understandable. There are other times when I get them seemingly out of the blue. It IS something that I keep track of, so I could even point out for you who issued them and why. So while yes, it can sometimes be a useful tool for feedback (though inferior to the feedback of speech, which can articulate the exact nature of discomfort/disagreement and why), it can also be used as an ideological weapon. I've seen it many times and indulged in it myself I'm embarrassed to say.

[Kevin Beal]

when challenged as to the accuracy of that claim, [you, Kevin] back out, stating that people can see for themselves.

Which is consistent with the whole giving up thing. That was sort of the whole point of what I was writing.

[powder]

@ dsayers.  I read this thread, and also the one you referenced regarding gender issues and I could see that esp in that thread, you asked some straight forward questions that were not addressed.  That happens to me too, certainly more often in my day to day life because I tend to ask questions that people don't want to address, or that make them feel uncomfortable, but here too sometimes.  I agree with what you are saying here, I also think what Robert wrote in that other thread is valid and you did not address it (see below).  Calling you a dick and your statements 'crap', not so much. 

 

 

Accusing someone of being manipulative and saying that their words "struck you" as if they were manipulative (aka you "felt" they were manipulative) is the same thing. Expressing feelings of discomfort would be saying something like "I felt hurt when you said that". You actually never once mentioned your feelings in this entire thread, instead you chose to mention what you thought was occurring to you or what you thought others were doing in the thread. (ex. 'marginalized', 'alienated', 'manipulated', 'shame me', etc)

[Peaceful Parent]

It's not self-pity. If anything, it's pity for the people that do such things. If somebody uses the downvote system as an ideological weapon, I know that it's not a reflection of me. It's a reflection of the person's inability or unwillingness to work together for mutual benefit. It's indicative of managing one's anxiety in a way that won't actually address what's causing them that anxiety. It's right there in the name: ideological weapon. "Somebody doesn't agree with me, which bothers me, and since I cannot convince them, I'm going to hurt them."

 

You've just summed up my mixed feelings on the down vote system. I don't respect it when it's being used as a stress reliever for someone on the opposing side of an argument.

[cynicist]

I much prefer this; This discussing things. This attempt at working together. THIS is how people who enjoy philosophy and self-knowledge should be able to interact. My apologies if my projecting this expectation onto you also is irrational or unrealistic.

 

You are 'sorry' if resolving disputes through discussion and working together is not a rational/realistic standard for me as well as you? You just can't help yourself can you? This is exactly the snarky, dickish, passive-aggressive behavior that I downvote you for. (and no, none of those votes are from me this time)

 

Furthermore, I reject the premise that you regard passive-aggressive as an unfavorable standard. "stop the posturing (when I wasn't)," "stop being a dick (when I wasn't)," and "I'm used to [your] crap (when it's not)" may not be passive-aggressive--may not even be aggressive--but it is provocative language meant to incite. Not the behaviors of somebody who holds passive-aggressiveness as unfavorable and lives their values.

 

This verbal shield you call 'logic' is impenetrable. I'm not at all being sarcastic. You mentioned earlier that I made no effort to reconcile my concerns with you; If I had thought you to be at all amenable then I would have. (No, this did not change because you disagreed with Kevin. I do that all the time and I'm still on good terms with myself)

 

As a side note, I want you to know that several times I did consider writing you something out of concern; Each time though, I thought about how the conversation would play out and decided against it. Until you give up this victimhood mentality I don't see how we could have a productive discussion since every criticism levied would be perceived as an attack and vigorously defended against as you've done time and time again in this and other threads.

 

I also think what Robert wrote in that other thread is valid and you did not address it (see below).  Calling you a dick and your statements 'crap', not so much. 

 

His sarcastic statements are crap, and he was being a dick to Kevin. I'm not going to sugarcoat it. 

[dsayers]

I also think what Robert wrote in that other thread is valid and you did not address it (see below).

 

In that thread, I had expressed feeling helpless, I had expressed confusion, pride, and feeling ostracized. I didn't respond to Mr. Rak's 8 June post because I hadn't seen it in a timely fashion. That thread motivated me to take my leave of this place. My post history shows a gap from 6 June to 15 September (during which I hadn't even lurked). Looking at my PMs, I didn't again come across the topic until 3 November when I was explaining to somebody why I don't allow myself to be vulnerable here often anymore. It was at that time that I saw Mr. Rak's post and felt it would not be productive or timely to respond to since his claim was demonstrably false.

 

For what it's worth, I did initially give him the benefit of the doubt, knowing that I'm not very good at expressing feelings in ways that are easily identifiable as the sharing of feelings. However, after a quick skim of the thread, it is clear to me that the claim that I had not shared any feelings was not accurate.

 

You just can't help yourself can you? This is exactly the snarky, dickish, passive-aggressive behavior that I downvote you for. 

 

Because I accept that since I have a preference, that doesn't mean others must have the same preference? Most would call that humility (the healthy kind). I was giving you the benefit of the doubt since your presence here and the quality of your posts that led to me contacting you in the first place when I was new here gave me the impression that you were somebody that would sooner try to talk to somebody than to just mark them down for asserting themselves in a way you disagreed with. Again, that would be projection, meaning that if it's not an realistic expectation of you, that I would owe you an apology.

 

Could it be that observing healthy, positive things and concluding that they are anti-social, negative things would indicate a bias? An expectation for such things?

[prolix]

I gotta say. I have had very similar interactions with dsayers; A simple disagreement became very personal very quick. This appears to be a pattern for him. In my instance I called dsayers out for various inconsistencies and he went and made a separate thread about it which basically was a passive-aggressive attack. That said...

 

"His sarcastic statements are crap, and he was being a dick to Kevin. I'm not going to sugarcoat it."

 

No need to sugar coat it, yes. But is there a less confrontational way to express your experience? I think so...

[cynicist]

No need to sugar coat it, yes. But is there a less confrontational way to express your experience? I think so...

 

I think these boards could use some more directness instead of this under-the-table kicking that often goes on under the guise of rational discourse. I could use more flowery language and project a sense of maturity or civility but that would give a false impression; In truth, his repetition and persistent lack of awareness is beginning to grate on me, and the long-winded denials and deftly-executed logical manuevering is exhausting to read. I would prefer overt aggression to the sublimated hostility in his posts...

[prolix]

I think these boards could use some more directness instead of this under-the-table kicking that often goes on under the guise of rational discourse. I could use more flowery terms and project a sense of maturity or civility but that would give a false impression; In truth, his repetition and persistent lack of awareness is beginning to grate on me, and the long-winded denials and deftly-executed logical manuevering is exhausting to read. I would prefer overt aggression to the sublimated hostility in his posts...

I actually agree 100%. I am actually surprised that our roles are not reversed given here both of our post histories. Normally I take the position you have. But I do respect the counterpoints I get that go something like this. "Yes, be direct, but you can be nice while doing it".....

[Kevin Beal]

I would prefer overt aggression to the sublimated hostility in his posts...

It would make unproductive threads a fraction of the size, taking less time and be much much more honest. I love bluntness. I love when people tell me that they think I'm full of it, or that I'm a jerk. Parsing through language and rhetoric in order to glean what people are actually saying without saying is exhausting. And when people deny it afterward, it's so annoying. I hate it.

[prolix]

I think the art of communication itself is just as important as any of the subjects we communicate about. RTR and NVC are powerful starting points, but it really comes home when you have a good amount of self-knowledge in practice. To me I just keep focused on win-lose vs. win-win ways of framing ideas for communication. Calling someone a "dick" or calling their behavior "crap" are win-lose from an emotional point of view. Regardless of what they are really doing they lose if they submit to this kind of criticism. However calling someones behavior "unproductive" and other neutral terms is more win-win because everyone wins if we recognize and correct unproductive behavior. Heh, food for thought I guess...

[cynicist]

I would agree if he were new or this were a rare occurrence but he has double my post count, which makes him a veteran here. Besides, if I said his behavior was 'unproductive' he'd have me define my terms; With pejoratives I'm off the hook for the verbal sparring.

[Kevin Beal]

For whose benefit do we withhold salty words? I doubt dsayers minds terribly the fact that Rob used the word "dick" rather than some other phrasing that means essentially the same thing, in so many neutral words.

 

I really don't think that word choice is the thing worth focusing on the most. I've had people use NVC on me to try and shut me up. It was just another brand of sublimated hostility in those cases. It's the hidden nature of it that pisses me off so much.

 

I think that whatever way you cut it, under the table aggression is worse than overt aggression, or win-win negotiation (obviously), because if it's sublimated and hiding behind creative word choice, you can't see it very easily and when you react to the aggression hiding underneath, you are often the one who's criticized, by people who aren't paying much attention. If it's overt aggression at least it's honest in that respect and we don't have to deal with the craziness of it's subterranean nature (denial, more verbal abuse, etc).

 

It's like having an economic mind, seeing the unseen costs. Having an eye for passive aggression, yes-but personalities, pedantry, etc. Some people just don't see it very easily. They don't see the bee who stings you, they just see you waving your arms frantically trying to swat it away and telling you that you are a crazy person.

 

And if you are in a space where you are choosing your words to avoid being overtly aggressive, then I'm betting that will just come out as passive aggression, in nicer terms. If you have a problem with win-win vs win-lose, then I think the entire message should be reconsidered at that point. At least, that's what makes sense to me now in the moment. Of course, you can let me know if you think I'm full of it

[prolix]

[dsayers]

if it's sublimated and hiding behind creative word choice, you can't see it very easily and when you react to the aggression hiding underneath, you are often the one who's criticized, by people who aren't paying much attention.

 

Unreal. You're exactly describing the dilemma I faced with the gender thread. Also, in both of these threads, you were actually counting on people who weren't paying much attention to side with you instead of convincingly addressing the challenges presented to you. Do you think those paying attention wouldn't be able to see that the two of you have agreed to a narrative rather than accept reality? It's like watching Christians assure one another that God works in mysterious ways.

[cynicist]

Because I accept that since I have a preference, that doesn't mean others must have the same preference? Most would call that humility (the healthy kind). I was giving you the benefit of the doubt since your presence here and the quality of your posts that led to me contacting you in the first place when I was new here gave me the impression that you were somebody that would sooner try to talk to somebody than to just mark them down for asserting themselves in a way you disagreed with. Again, that would be projection, meaning that if it's not an realistic expectation of you, that I would owe you an apology.

 

If you want to insult me then come out and say it directly; Stop hiding behind excessive words.

 

You are not the least bit humble.

[powder]

In that thread, I had expressed feeling helpless, I had expressed confusion, pride, and feeling ostracized. I didn't respond to Mr. Rak's 8 June post because I hadn't seen it in a timely fashion. That thread motivated me to take my leave of this place. My post history shows a gap from 6 June to 15 September (during which I hadn't even lurked). Looking at my PMs, I didn't again come across the topic until 3 November when I was explaining to somebody why I don't allow myself to be vulnerable here often anymore. It was at that time that I saw Mr. Rak's post and felt it would not be productive or timely to respond to since his claim was demonstrably false.

 

For what it's worth, I did initially give him the benefit of the doubt, knowing that I'm not very good at expressing feelings in ways that are easily identifiable as the sharing of feelings. However, after a quick skim of the thread, it is clear to me that the claim that I had not shared any feelings was not accurate.

 

Fair enough, the claim of you not expressing feelings in the thread was not accurate, and the timing lapse is there, still, that is not the part of his critique that I thought was poignant, you did not address that part.  

[powder]

I still don't see how insults and personal attacks are of any value, esp here.  I have heard and seen Stef being called many things, I have also listened to a few of his rebuttals, and he simply argues and I don't recall ever seeing or hearing him insult someone.  

 

Passive aggression and covert hostility are not OK.  I think if you want to help someone see that you can call them out on it or walk away.  Framing insults by saying things like "calling a spade a spade", "call it like I see it", "not sugarcoat" and so on seems like an attempt to make it sound like an objective truth.  

[Kevin Beal]

I still don't see how insults and personal attacks are of any value, esp here.  I have heard and seen Stef being called many things, I have also listened to a few of his rebuttals, and he simply argues and I don't recall ever seeing or hearing him insult someone.

And you're not alone. Dsayers says that people have commented to him privately that his detractors are jerks and don't know what they are talking about.

 

I also know that Rob, Prolix and I are not the only ones who've arrived at this conclusion, either. You can refer to when Dsayers accused Rob of simply believing anything I say simply because I said it, because I have status or something (post #35), for one example of this.

 

What value does calling someone a "dick" bring? Well it forces this necessary conversation for one. Whether or not it's "ok" (whatever that means) it is (if we are right) a response to aggression. It makes no sense logically to criticize the person who responds to aggression unless their response is way beyond necessary, like if Rob started making threats or something.

 

Imagine how frustrating it would be if you got slapped in the face and when you got mad about it, people try and manage you by telling you that no, actually you didn't get slapped in the face. They appeal to nice platitudes around how you shouldn't be confrontational and that we should all get along, all the while the face slapper is receiving sympathy.

 

You don't see it? Well, how about all the framing of me that I cannot take any criticism ever? (post #35 again)

 

There is nothing wrong with confrontation. Dsayers is a big boy. He can handle some salty words.

[Kevin Beal]

And I love this accusation that I'm throwing my weight around to defend the status quo, like my reputation score is enough that people don't have to check my reasoning. Part of me would love it if it were true, but it's very clearly not true. If I tried and said that people should listen to me because of my reputation score, I would be heavily criticized, if not ridiculed. And it's not like I never get downvoted, I get downvoted often. This position of mine that confrontation is not a bad thing is not widely appreciated, for example. I piss people off all the time, it seems. But I don't go around like I'm a martyr, talking about myself like I'm bringing hard truths and people just can't handle it. God, I hate that.

[dsayers]

Dsayers says that people have commented to him privately that his detractors are jerks and don't know what they are talking about.

 

No he doesn't. I would ask you where you got this from, but the last time I challenged you on a bald-faced lie about me, you just said people could see for themselves instead of qualifying your assertion. source

 

Fair enough, the claim of you not expressing feelings in the thread was not accurate, and the timing lapse is there, still, that is not the part of his critique that I thought was poignant, you did not address that part.  

 

Well, just because somebody says something doesn't mean I have to address it. But which part are you referring to? This part?

 

Accusing someone of being manipulative and saying that their words "struck you" as if they were manipulative (aka you "felt" they were manipulative) is the same thing.

 

They're not the same thing. The former has an element of certainty while the latter is with the caveat of accepting my own capacity for error (the humility Mr. Rak says I do not possess). Accusing somebody shuts down conversation by invoking defenses while commenting on the possibility opens up conversation (if shared with somebody who possesses self-knowledge and accepts their own capacity for error).

 

I'm more interested in the manipulative language there. "Accusing" paints the accused as if they were a victim of verbal assault and therefore automatically ineligible of what they're supposedly accused of (not that that would follow anyways).

 

More still, I'm interested in the hypocrisy. If accusations are an unfavorable standard as Mr. Rak portrays, then wouldn't his accusations in this thread be not adhering to the very standards he'd prescribe and in fact condescend somebody for not adhering to? What about the repeated accusations Mr. Beal is making in his presence, the deceptive nature of which are a matter of record in this very thread?

[powder]

I think I hit the "mark forum as read" link while some posts were not yet live. These posts never crossed my radar. Luckily another thread gave me reason to search this one out.

 

 

Assertion. For those interested in the (in)accuracy of it, Mr. Beal is referring to this thread. Note the bump for no reason other than to say, "This guy is back." Given the gross misrepresentation of this quote, I'm guessing you thought it made me look bad, as you did then. I've shared that thread with others when they wonder why on the boards I don't often allow myself to be vulnerable even though I used to and when I am, I'm honest and direct. They too were blown away, both by how such prominent members could use such unphilosophical approaches to avoid their bias and that I managed to not stoop to that level of personal attacks.

 

Saying "X is not an argument" is not saying "the person who provided X is a terrible person." I'm not telling you something you don't already know. You word it that way not because it's honest or even because you believe it to be honest. It's a form of doubling down and throwing your weight around, neither of which are healthy ways of interacting with other people. These are things that previously I would've thought to be uncharacteristic of you, which is why I continued to hold you in high regard despite one misstep one time. I'm sorry to hear that even if your representation of that one time were accurate, you wouldn't do the same.

 

You didn't answer my questions here: "If "theft, assault, rape, and murder is immoral" (I never mentioned UPB; see above obfuscation) is an objective claim and an accurate overview of morality, then how does saying things like epistemic vs ontological, morality EXISTS, and morality is subjective at all helpful? And how do you classify that as a bad question?" No, you don't have to care that I don't see the relevance. I'm guessing by this lash out that you do care to not be corrected. I'm guessing this is why in a recent thread, when I challenged your position that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, you just sort of gave up, but not as a form of accepting your own capacity for error.

 

 

 

I didn't realize that holding somebody accountable for their own attempts at being understood was being a dick. I didn't realize that asking questions in order to understand was not taking the time to understand. I do realize that this lack of rationality is an attempt to erase another person in order to manage your own anxiety as the result of irrationally regarding somebody as if infallible. The good news is that my pointing this out gives you another opportunity to use downvoting as an ideological WEAPON against me

I do think that statements like the ones highlighted, and characterizing things as manipulative and shaming are offensive, its like calling someone a dick.  I asked dsayers to respond to this in 2 recent posts, one of them is off in moderation land apparently.  

 

And you're not alone. Dsayers says that people have commented to him privately that his detractors are jerks and don't know what they are talking about.

 

I am alone if they called you jerks.  name calling and insults are what I am questioning.  I read the responses to Ana Kasparians review of one of Stef's videos and she was accused of ad hominems and baseless assertions rather than making arguments, that is what I like about this place.  In Stef's follow up to his debate with PJ he made arguments and I don't recall him saying anything about PJ personally.  PJ responded to that with some pretty dandy insults.  It just made me lose (more) respect for him.  

 

I also know that Rob, Prolix and I are not the only ones who've arrived at this conclusion, either. You can refer to when Dsayers accused Rob of simply believing anything I say simply because I said it, because I have status or something (post #35), for one example of this.

 

what conclusion?  example of what?  that he is a jerk?  

 

What value does calling someone a "dick" bring? Well it forces this necessary conversation for one. Whether or not it's "ok" (whatever that means) it is (if we are right) a response to aggression. It makes no sense logically to criticize the person who responds to aggression unless their response is way beyond necessary, like if Rob started making threats or something.

 

I did not say it was not OK to call someone a dick, I don't know, I am exploring that idea, like you say, it is a conversation worth having - I said it was not OK to be passive aggressive.  

 

Imagine how frustrating it would be if you got slapped in the face and when you got mad about it, people try and manage you by telling you that no, actually you didn't get slapped in the face. They appeal to nice platitudes around how you shouldn't be confrontational and that we should all get along, all the while the face slapper is receiving sympathy.

 

I get that, do you think that is what I am doing?  I think, like I said before, that if a person is being aggressive they can be confronted on it in the spirit of self-knowledge, or you can walk away if they are not willing or able to address it.  I am suggesting that that is more productive than insults and the kind of thing that dsayers has done.  

 

You don't see it? Well, how about all the framing of me that I cannot take any criticism ever? (post #35 again)

 

 

There is nothing wrong with confrontation. Dsayers is a big boy. He can handle some salty words.

 

I agree, but why not say personal attacks and insults instead of  'salty words' - isn't that a platitude? 

[dsayers]

@powder: I think my last post was not live when you made this last post. I did want to clarify that I personally do not have a problem with somebody calling somebody a dick or even being called one. I think it's important that the conclusion is a rational one, made by sound methodology. Which doesn't include things like supposition and allowing bias to interfere with calling things by their proper names. Which I think was the case in this thread.

 

Also, I don't know if this has any bearing on the highlighted parts above, but I wanted to point out that somebody getting offended isn't always the fault of the alleged offender. Some people get offended as the result of unprocessed trauma. Others feign offense in an attempt to manipulate others. So kind of like in the first paragraph, I don't have a problem with people offending one another or even being offended. It's when it's done for the sake of inflicting harm that I find it to be problematic. Sort of like somebody not taking the time to understand something (another standard Mr. Rak has put forth while defying it) but proceeding as if they completely understand it.

[Kevin Beal]

No he doesn't. I would ask you where you got this from, but the last time I challenged you on a bald-faced lie about me, you just said people could see for themselves instead of qualifying your assertion. source

My mistake. I thought you said something like that. I went through the thread again and I didn't see it. Thanks for the correction!

 

Also, could you please stop referring to me as "Mr Beal"? It makes me feel weird, like I'm a test subject or something...

 

Also, I have 3 questions for you:

1) What's with the signature "Providing value doesn't justify providing anti-value. I won't pay to be censored."?

2) What's with the member title "collateral damage"?

3) Have you done therapy? I'm genuinely curious, not a trap. If you haven't, it doesn't make you wrong, obviously.

 

 

I get that, do you think that is what I am doing?  I think, like I said before, that if a person is being aggressive they can be confronted on it in the spirit of self-knowledge, or you can walk away if they are not willing or able to address it.  I am suggesting that that is more productive than insults and the kind of thing that dsayers has done.

I was suggesting that to some degree, but it I was mistaken. Thank you for clarifying. What you are saying makes total sense. No disagreement here. I just want to focus on what I think is most problematic in the interaction rather than the response to it, which you already seem to understand, so, I guess that's what I get for assuming

 

And the conclusion I was referring to that we came to was simply that he's bothersome. Additionally, I would add the passive aggressive bit, and I think for my own sanity: obtuse. I really would love to get a second opinion about that last one, though. Sure, I was using unnecessary jargon as Rob pointed out, but if you were actually trying to understand, I think you could get it. Rob did, and then explained it much more simply, lol.

[dsayers]

My mistake. I thought you said something like that. I went through the thread again and I didn't see it.

 

Okay, but WHY would you see that when it wasn't there? You could counteract months of damage if you could answer that, if only for your own benefit. It's not an isolated incident.

[Pelafina]

Stephan made a good point in one of his recent podcast about this. He said if you believe morality is subjective then start teaching children that you can murder steal rape ect and it shouldn't matter to you because morality is subjective. You wont find anyone that is willing to say they will teach children morality is subjective in that way. People give objective moral standards to children all the time. Hitting is wrong stealing is wrong lying is wrong. For me that pretty much seals the argument up right there. Fortunately I dont have children of my own to have to really understand exactly why morality is objective so I'll save the studying for when I do. XD

 

People have different subjective moral beliefs, such as believing that the minimum wage is just, while some people believe it is unjust.  Those who believe it is just will teach the same to their children.  Those who believe it is unjust will also teach their children to believe what they believe.  

[Kevin Beal]

Okay, but WHY would you see that when it wasn't there? You could counteract months of damage if you could answer that, if only for your own benefit. It's not an isolated incident.

Or maybe my capacity to see and address it, in combination with my certainty, is a sign that I actually have some idea of what I'm talking about. I admit fault all the time. I've done it multiple times in this very thread. I may have just missed it, but I don't think I've ever seen you admit when you got something wrong. Can you point me to it if you have?

 

And months of damage? What are you talking about?

Sort of like somebody not taking the time to understand something (another standard Mr. Rak has put forth while defying it) but proceeding as if they completely understand it.

He took the time to understand my case in this thread and demonstrated an understanding of it. You didn't. I got the impression that you were just passively drooling on your keyboard and when my argument didn't penetrate, you concluded that this was my failing. If one man can do it, another can do it.

[powder]

 

And the conclusion I was referring to that we came to was simply that he's bothersome. Additionally, I would add the passive aggressive bit, and I think for my own sanity: obtuse. I really would love to get a second opinion about that last one, though. Sure, I was using unnecessary jargon as Rob pointed out, but if you were actually trying to understand, I think you could get it. Rob did, and then explained it much more simply, lol.

I can certainly see in the exchanges you are having with him that you would find him bothersome.  

 

Mostly I find dsayers writing on the nature of government and property rights esp to be brilliantly clear and to the point.  I have learned a lot by reading his posts.  Sometimes I do find dsayers writing to to obtuse, esp in the kinds of exchanges that are happening in this thread, I have to read over his stuff at least a couple of times to unravel what he is saying on occasion.  I find that with your writing too sometimes Kevin, but that may be just me, I am still getting accustomed to this kind of dialogue.  

People have different subjective moral beliefs, such as believing that the minimum wage is just, while some people believe it is unjust.  Those who believe it is just will teach the same to their children.  Those who believe it is unjust will also teach their children to believe what they believe.  

that is only because they have not made the connection that minimum wage is violence.  

[Kevin Beal]

Sometimes I do find dsayers writing to to obtuse, esp in the kinds of exchanges that are happening in this thread, I have to read over his stuff at least a couple of times to unravel what he is saying on occasion.  I find that with your writing too sometimes Kevin, but that may be just me, I am still getting accustomed to this kind of dialogue.

When I say "obtuse", I actually mean when people feign misunderstanding or confusion as a way of avoiding a conclusion. That is to say that he really could understand it if he tried, but isn't putting any effort into it.

 

If you mean to say that I could be more succinct or concise or that I use words which are needlessly complicated, I accept that criticism enthusiastically. I think you are right. I have been working on that recently. I find it annoying when other people do that, so I think it's definitely worth mentioning. Thank you.

 

I think I do that to sound smarter than I really am . I am vain at times.

[dsayers]

And months of damage? What are you talking about?

I got the impression that you were just passively drooling on your keyboard and when my argument didn't penetrate, you concluded that this was my failing.

 

Saying I'm obtuse while pretending not to know what damage I'm talking about while continuing to do the exact same making false claims using provocatively manipulative language.

 

Saying you admit that you're wrong all the time doesn't let you off the hook for the times that you don't.

 

I admit when I'm wrong. I reject your premise that even if I didn't, it would serve as evidence that I DID say the things you continue to claim I have when I haven't.

 

It's like you're not even trying anymore. Or maybe I'm projecting based on how easy it is to cut through the bullshit.

[Pelafina]

 

that is only because they have not made the connection that minimum wage is violence.  

 

And when they are enlightened to learn that the minimum wage is violence, they will hold the subjective belief that this petty violence is well worth the utilitarian result of avoiding having underpaid workers.  They will subjectively believe that their morality is better than the morality of the free market.  Therefore morality is subjective.

[Agalloch]

And when they are enlightened to learn that the minimum wage is violence, they will hold the subjective belief that this petty violence is well worth the utilitarian result of avoiding having underpaid workers. They will subjectively believe that their morality is better than the morality of the free market. Therefore morality is subjective.

Erm... No? I'm no expert on logic, but allow me an analogous parody. When people are enlightened to learn that the expected value on the government lottery is negative, they will hold the belief that this minor physical inconvenience not applying to their lives is well worth the utilitarian result of winning the lottery. They will subjectively believe their stupidity is better than reality. Therefore mathematics is subjective!

 

As you can see, people holding a belief is not the same as those beliefs all being correct and therefore the theory those beliefs refer to being subjective. In fact, people can just be wrong...

[Peaceful Parent]

They will subjectively believe that their morality is better than the morality of the free market.  Therefore morality is subjective.

They subjectively believe that the initiation of force is "better" than not initiating the use of force?