Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 03-16-2011, 05:45 PM
Miss Shelby's Avatar
Miss Shelby Miss Shelby is offline
angry white woman
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: MMCCCXXVIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
As I said, I cannot reduce these principles to such a degree that the concept will be diluted.
Then I put it to you that there isn't any concept there.
That's your preogative.
prerogative. sorry. i just spelled it wrong the other day and had to look it up.
__________________
When God gives you AIDS, make lemonaids. --Sarah Silverman
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
JoeP (03-16-2011)
  #102  
Old 03-16-2011, 06:43 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCXXIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

None of this deals with a central objection - not all harm is caused by retaliation, nor is all harmful intent merely the product of ones environment.

A good example of the first case is a pedophile. A good example of the second case is a true sociopath.

If you need a case-study, study our very own Brandon and wonder if you really want to let him loose on your blameless society...
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (03-19-2011), The Man (03-17-2011)
  #103  
Old 03-16-2011, 07:01 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
In your what, 4-5 years, of presenting and discussing this online, how many people have stated they felt the concepts or your arguments were compelling?
Some people will only accept empirical proof, and therefore they discredit the book from the very outset. Others, as I said, argue that man has free will and never understood the author's definition of determnism which reconciles the two opposing ideologies. Some philosophers, especially of the Nietzschian persuation, believe conscience is heritable and therefore can be excluded as the basis for further discussion. For every person I talked to, there was a definite reason why the conversation ended, but that does not mean this knowledge is flawed.

Lots of ideas are flawed, but are refined and researched further if the basic concept is compelling enough to people and/or shows promise. I think your presenting it as a scientific hypothesis is leading to trouble as well. It is philosophy from my reading, not science.

I have read (skimmed in the case of the freeratio archives of 3300 posts) your previous discussions at three different forums, and didn't see anyone agree that the concept was unique or enlightening (and you have talked to what, several dozen people?). Where else have you presented this info? Has it been well received anywhere?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (03-19-2011), The Man (03-17-2011)
  #104  
Old 03-16-2011, 07:22 PM
Dingfod's Avatar
Dingfod Dingfod is offline
Name Dropper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In a Hole
Gender: Male
Posts: XLMMCCLXVI
Blog Entries: 21
Images: 92
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I can't believe that I read this thread thus far. I'm certainly going no farther.
__________________
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Miss Shelby (03-16-2011)
  #105  
Old 03-16-2011, 07:33 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
None of this deals with a central objection - not all harm is caused by retaliation, nor is all harmful intent merely the product of ones environment.

A good example of the first case is a pedophile. A good example of the second case is a true sociopath.

If you need a case-study, study our very own Brandon and wonder if you really want to let him loose on your blameless society...
This is exactly why I cannot have a fair discussion because you obviously do not understand the principles of this book. He never said we should stop blaming. Gandhi and his people turned the other cheek and got struck on the first cheek over and over again. Many died as a consequence.

Of course not all harm is caused by retaliation; it is caused by a first blow. A pedophile has struck a first blow to another. You are also looking through the lens of a free will environment. When this law becomes a permanent condition, children will not grow up to become pedophiles.

As far as your second case, a true sociopath is obviously mentally ill and could not be let loose if he was so psychotic that his conscience was severed. But the majority of pertetrators could never repeat the same behavior under changed conditions because they could not justify what they were able to justify in the past.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 03-16-2011, 07:34 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCXXIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Hurray! This has now officially become the Say Shit Behind Dingfod's Back Thread!

I think he smells.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (03-19-2011), The Man (03-17-2011)
  #107  
Old 03-16-2011, 07:40 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
In your what, 4-5 years, of presenting and discussing this online, how many people have stated they felt the concepts or your arguments were compelling?
Some people will only accept empirical proof, and therefore they discredit the book from the very outset. Others, as I said, argue that man has free will and never understood the author's definition of determnism which reconciles the two opposing ideologies. Some philosophers, especially of the Nietzschian persuation, believe conscience is heritable and therefore can be excluded as the basis for further discussion. For every person I talked to, there was a definite reason why the conversation ended, but that does not mean this knowledge is flawed.
It has never been marketed or distributed. I don't need anyone to tell me that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. I know this knowledge is undeniable and if you don't want to go any further, that's fine with me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Lots of ideas are flawed, but are refined and researched further if the basic concept is compelling enough to people and/or shows promise. I think your presenting it as a scientific hypothesis is leading to trouble as well. It is philosophy from my reading, not science.

I have read (skimmed in the case of the freeratio archives of 3300 posts) your previous discussions at three different forums, and didn't see anyone agree that the concept was unique or enlightening (and you have talked to what, several dozen people?). Where else have you presented this info? Has it been well received anywhere?
If you want to take this as a red flag, what can I say? That's why I believe the internet can be used for good or not. In this case, looking up my history and using it against me by assuming these people are correct in their analysis, is a sad state of affairs. Moreover, the fact that this group of people did not accept the premises for various reasons, and therefore refused to read the book (without even considering the possibility that these premises may be correct), is unfortunate. I realize the discussion turned into quite a tome.

Last edited by peacegirl; 03-16-2011 at 08:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 03-16-2011, 07:42 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCXXIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[quote=peacegirl;924673]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
None of this deals with a central objection - not all harm is caused by retaliation, nor is all harmful intent merely the product of ones environment.

A good example of the first case is a pedophile. A good example of the second case is a true sociopath.

If you need a case-study, study our very own Brandon and wonder if you really want to let him loose on your blameless society...
Quote:
This is exactly why I cannot have a fair discussion because you obviously do not understand the principles of this book. He never said we should stop blaming. Gandhi and his people turned the other cheek and got struck on the first cheek over and over again. Many died as a consequence.

Of course not all harm is caused by retaliation; it is caused by a first blow. A pedophile has struck a first blow to another. You are also looking through the lens of a free will environment. When this law becomes a permanent condition, children will not grow up to become pedophiles
.

Yes they will. Now show me why what you say is more likely than what I say?

Quote:
As far as your second case, a true sociopath is obviously mentally ill and could not be let loose if he was so psychotic that his conscience was severed. But the majority of pertetrators could never repeat the same behavior under changed conditions because they could not justify what they were able to justify in the past.
Psychotic means not to know the difference between fantasy and reality. A sociopath is someone who knows what is right and what is wrong, but sees no reason to differentiate between the two as regards to his own behavior.

There is strong evidence for a genetic component for both conditions. Your system would not remove these people, and they would make your system impossible - and they are just some extreme examples! There are many intermediate one. There is a good reason the revolution still has not happened.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 03-16-2011, 07:48 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

You have been either unwilling, or unable, to describe what exactly about the concept you find so personally compelling. "Just look at it, it is apparent how important it is" is not a description. You have also been unable to explain exactly why others' interpretations are wrong in any kind of detail. Again, mostly "You are wrong, if you understood it you wouldn't think that"...so help us understand. What exactly are we not understanding?

I did not see anything in what I read to make me want to read further...nothing even got a "hmmm, interesting". Maybe I am unique in my interpretation of the work as "meh", and maybe you are unique in your interpretation of the work as "world changing", or maybe it's a split.

I reviewed the other discussions, and asked you the question, to see if anyone, besides you and the deceased author, find the idea very important, or valuable, or compelling, or even mildly revelatory.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (03-19-2011), The Man (03-17-2011)
  #110  
Old 03-16-2011, 07:59 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCXXIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Hang on - if a pedophile struck a first blow, then his harmful desire was not a retaliation. Nor does this desire necessarily go away when he realizes no-one is making him harm children.

So where does it come from? All evil is A) rationalized or B) a retaliation in your philosophy. But a pedophile, while he may well rationalize after the fact that his act was not so bad, does not do so when giving in to the urge to have sex with very young children, and thus causing harm. The majority know very well that it is harm they are causing - the problem us that they are overcome by a desire to do so.

Do they not invalidate your theory?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (03-19-2011), The Man (03-17-2011)
  #111  
Old 03-16-2011, 08:12 PM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
See! If you don't believe it, Lady Shea, that means you won't read it like you believe it already, and may end up not believing, and this is bad and shows you have the wrong kind of mind.
And you might kill a Baby Angel Kitteh. . . .

--J.D.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 03-16-2011, 08:22 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[quote=Vivisectus;924682][quote=peacegirl;924673]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
None of this deals with a central objection - not all harm is caused by retaliation, nor is all harmful intent merely the product of ones environment.

A good example of the first case is a pedophile. A good example of the second case is a true sociopath.

If you need a case-study, study our very own Brandon and wonder if you really want to let him loose on your blameless society...
Quote:
This is exactly why I cannot have a fair discussion because you obviously do not understand the principles of this book. He never said we should stop blaming. Gandhi and his people turned the other cheek and got struck on the first cheek over and over again. Many died as a consequence.

Of course not all harm is caused by retaliation; it is caused by a first blow. A pedophile has struck a first blow to another. You are also looking through the lens of a free will environment. When this law becomes a permanent condition, children will not grow up to become pedophiles
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Yes they will. Now show me why what you say is more likely than what I say?
Your question involves understanding the discovery, and I cannot simplify it in order to answer your question adequately. All I can tell you is that when children grow up in a world such as the one described in the book, there is no way they could turn out to have these urges (and if they did they would never be able to act on them), which are often a result of some kind of trauma growing up.

Quote:
As far as your second case, a true sociopath is obviously mentally ill and could not be let loose if he was so psychotic that his conscience was severed. But the majority of pertetrators could never repeat the same behavior under changed conditions because they could not justify what they were able to justify in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Psychotic means not to know the difference between fantasy and reality. A sociopath is someone who knows what is right and what is wrong, but sees no reason to differentiate between the two as regards to his own behavior.
Knowing the difference between right and wrong, they would never be able to hurt others, but it is difficult to imagine this when you have no idea how different the environment is going to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
There is strong evidence for a genetic component for both conditions. Your system would not remove these people, and they would make your system impossible - and they are just some extreme examples! There are many intermediate one. There is a good reason the revolution still has not happened.
The revolution hasn't happened because this knowledge is for the most part, unknown. This system (as you call it) would not alter someone's genetics, but it would prevent those genetics from being expressed. We all have certain predispositions (even when it comes to our health), but if the environment does not aggravate those genetic tendencies, they will never have a chance to cause havoc.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 03-16-2011, 08:30 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
All I can tell you is that when children grow up in a world such as the one described in the book, there is no way they could turn out to have these urges (and if they did they would never be able to act on them), which are often a result of some kind of trauma growing up.
What makes you think pedophilia is caused by childhood trauma? As the author died prior to the enormous recent progress in neuroscience, he didn't have nearly the knowledge we do now.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (03-17-2011)
  #114  
Old 03-16-2011, 08:35 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Hang on - if a pedophile struck a first blow, then his harmful desire was not a retaliation. Nor does this desire necessarily go away when he realizes no-one is making him harm children.
What I am saying is that this is not a genetic defect but has everything to do with his environment. If he is unable to control his urges, then he will be treated in the same way he would be in today's world. The only difference is that even in his confinement, he would be treated with compassion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
So where does it come from? All evil is A) rationalized or B) a retaliation in your philosophy. But a pedophile, while he may well rationalize after the fact that his act was not so bad, does not do so when giving in to the urge to have sex with very young children, and thus causing harm. The majority know very well that it is harm they are causing - the problem us that they are overcome by a desire to do so.

Do they not invalidate your theory?
You are taking a very small segment of society that will not have this issue in the next generation. Those who have these urges and cannot help themselves (because the desire is too strong) will need to be supervised at all times, just as they are today. Rationalizations offer people what they need to satisfy their desires, but when they can no longer rationalize their behavior, even in this generation, you will see a great change. This in no way discredits the knowledge in this book.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 03-16-2011, 08:39 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCXXIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Your question involves understanding the discovery, and I cannot simplify it in order to answer your question adequately. All I can tell you is that when children grow up in a world such as the one described in the book, there is no way they could turn out to have these urges (and if they did they would never be able to act on them), which are often a result of some kind of trauma growing up.
That is tantamount to saying that to believe it will work, I must first believe it will work, and makes it sound like the woo-woo train has come to town. Also, you are saying that all desire to harm is environmental in origin. This is simply not the case, or at least I know of no reason to assume this is the case.

Quote:
As far as your second case, a true sociopath is obviously mentally ill and could not be let loose if he was so psychotic that his conscience was severed. But the majority of pertetrators could never repeat the same behavior under changed conditions because they could not justify what they were able to justify in the past.
Only if you decide that all intent to harm is either retaliation or caused by environment. Again, this is not the case, or at least not proven or supported in any way.

Quote:
Knowing the difference between right and wrong, they would never be able to hurt others, but it is difficult to imagine this when you have no idea how different the environment is going to be.
This is not the case. Sociopaths know exactly what the rest of the world feels are right or wrong, they just see no reason to adhere to those standards.

Quote:
The revolution hasn't happened because this knowledge is for the most part, unknown. This system (as you call it) would not alter someone's genetics, but it would prevent those genetics from being expressed. We all have certain predispositions (even when it comes to our health), but if the environment does not aggravate those genetic tendencies, they will never have a chance to cause havoc.
Again, you stress environment and relegate the genetic component to insignificance without the slightest bit of support for this theory. We are to take it on faith that this is so.

I still think there is a good reason the revolution never happened.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (03-17-2011)
  #116  
Old 03-16-2011, 08:40 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
All I can tell you is that when children grow up in a world such as the one described in the book, there is no way they could turn out to have these urges (and if they did they would never be able to act on them), which are often a result of some kind of trauma growing up.
What makes you think pedophilia is caused by childhood trauma? As the author died prior to the enormous recent progress in neuroscience, he didn't have nearly the knowledge we do now.
It might not be caused by childhood trauma; that's just one of the possibilities. Whatever the impulse is that drives these people, under these new conditions, someone who has these fantasies would not be able to act on them. In order to cause this kind of harm one would have to have a rationalization that justifies their behavior, for without it, their conscience would eat at them. When someone knows they are doing something wrong (and that is everyone who can think rationally), they have to have some kind of justification for what they are about to do.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 03-16-2011, 08:44 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[quote=Vivisectus;924709]
Quote:
Your question involves understanding the discovery, and I cannot simplify it in order to answer your question adequately. All I can tell you is that when children grow up in a world such as the one described in the book, there is no way they could turn out to have these urges (and if they did they would never be able to act on them), which are often a result of some kind of trauma growing up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
That is tantamount to saying that to believe it will work, I must first believe it will work, and makes it sound like the woo-woo train has come to town. Also, you are saying that all desire to harm is environmental in origin. This is simply not the case, or at least I know of no reason to assume this is the case.
Not at all. Conscience works in a very predictable way. Living in a free will environment (an environment of blame and punishment) actually gives us the ability to ease our conscience when we know what we are doing is wrong. But when we can no longer ease our conscience (which goes back to the two-sided equation, which you don't understand and maybe never will because we won't get that far), the mere contemplation of these acts of violence will never be a preferable choice under these conditions.

Quote:
As far as your second case, a true sociopath is obviously mentally ill and could not be let loose if he was so psychotic that his conscience was severed. But the majority of pertetrators could never repeat the same behavior under changed conditions because they could not justify what they were able to justify in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Only if you decide that all intent to harm is either retaliation or caused by environment. Again, this is not the case, or at least not proven or supported in any way.
In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means
that self-preservation demands and justifies this; that he was
previously hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back
‘an eye for an eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows
absolutely and positively that he would be blamed by the person he
hurt and others if they knew. Blame itself which is a condition of
free will and a part of the present environment permits the
consideration of hurt for it is the price man is willing to pay for the
satisfaction of certain desires.


Quote:
Knowing the difference between right and wrong, they would never be able to hurt others, but it is difficult to imagine this when you have no idea how different the environment is going to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
This is not the case. Sociopaths know exactly what the rest of the world feels are right or wrong, they just see no reason to adhere to those standards.
Because they can justify it.

Quote:
The revolution hasn't happened because this knowledge is for the most part, unknown. This system (as you call it) would not alter someone's genetics, but it would prevent those genetics from being expressed. We all have certain predispositions (even when it comes to our health), but if the environment does not aggravate those genetic tendencies, they will never have a chance to cause havoc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Again, you stress environment and relegate the genetic component to insignificance without the slightest bit of support for this theory. We are to take it on faith that this is so.
I am not relegating the genetic component to insignificance, but the truth is it takes genetics combined with the environment to create the monsters we see in today's society. There is a lot of support for this observation, even without understanding this discovery.

Last edited by peacegirl; 03-16-2011 at 08:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 03-16-2011, 08:45 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCXXIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
What I am saying is that this is not a genetic defect but has everything to do with his environment. If he is unable to control his urges, then he will be treated in the same way he would be in today's world. The only difference is that even in his confinement, he would be treated with compassion.
My point is that we don't know that. Nor do we know it is the current atmosphere of blame that makes people pedophiles. Really, we don't know what it is that makes some people crave sex with children, and we have not reason to believe they will disappear in your new environment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
So where does it come from? All evil is A) rationalized or B) a retaliation in your philosophy. But a pedophile, while he may well rationalize after the fact that his act was not so bad, does not do so when giving in to the urge to have sex with very young children, and thus causing harm. The majority know very well that it is harm they are causing - the problem us that they are overcome by a desire to do so.

Do they not invalidate your theory?
Quote:
You are taking a very small segment of society that will not have this issue in the next generation. Those who have these urges and cannot help themselves (because the desire is too strong) will need to be supervised at all times, just as they are today. Rationalizations offer people what they need to satisfy their desires, but when they can no longer rationalize their behavior, even in this generation, you will see a great change. This in no way discredits the knowledge in this book.
But it does - in that we have no reason to assume that whatever it is that makes people do these things today will go away in the new environment. It is to be taken as an article of faith.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (03-17-2011)
  #119  
Old 03-16-2011, 08:54 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Are you the author's daughter? He thanks his children at the end and one is named Janis. Is that you?
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 03-16-2011, 08:56 PM
wildernesse's Avatar
wildernesse wildernesse is offline
The cat that will listen
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Valley of the Sun
Gender: Female
Posts: MMMDCCCXXVII
Blog Entries: 6
Images: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It might not be caused by childhood trauma; that's just one of the possibilities. Whatever the impulse is that drives these people, under these new conditions, someone who has these fantasies would not be able to act on them. In order to cause this kind of harm one would have to have a rationalization that justifies their behavior, for without it, their conscience would eat at them. When someone knows they are doing something wrong (and that is everyone who can think rationally), they have to have some kind of justification for what they are about to do.
So, what happens to the people who cannot think rationally in your new society? Those people who do not have the mental capacity to follow cause and effect or whose mental illness distorts their rational thinking?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (03-17-2011)
  #121  
Old 03-16-2011, 09:50 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
This is not the case. Sociopaths know exactly what the rest of the world feels are right or wrong, they just see no reason to adhere to those standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Because they can justify it.
No, because they want to. Sociopaths in particular feel no need justify anything they do. They do what they want to do when they want to do it because they do not care.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (03-17-2011)
  #122  
Old 03-17-2011, 12:16 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[quote=Vivisectus;924714]
Quote:
What I am saying is that this is not a genetic defect but has everything to do with his environment. If he is unable to control his urges, then he will be treated in the same way he would be in today's world. The only difference is that even in his confinement, he would be treated with compassion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
My point is that we don't know that. Nor do we know it is the current atmosphere of blame that makes people pedophiles. Really, we don't know what it is that makes some people crave sex with children, and we have not reason to believe they will disappear in your new environment.
It's not just the current atmosphere of blame that makes people pedophiles; it is the atmosphere of blame that allows pedophiles to rationalize their behavior. What will stop anyone from gaining at someone else's expense is that they will get less satisfaction, not more, under the changed conditions. Right now they get more satisfaction having their desires met in spite of threats from the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
So where does it come from? All evil is A) rationalized or B) a retaliation in your philosophy. But a pedophile, while he may well rationalize after the fact that his act was not so bad, does not do so when giving in to the urge to have sex with very young children, and thus causing harm. The majority know very well that it is harm they are causing - the problem us that they are overcome by a desire to do so.

Do they not invalidate your theory?
Quote:
You are taking a very small segment of society that will not have this issue in the next generation. Those who have these urges and cannot help themselves (because the desire is too strong) will need to be supervised at all times, just as they are today. Rationalizations offer people what they need to satisfy their desires, but when they can no longer rationalize their behavior, even in this generation, you will see a great change. This in no way discredits the knowledge in this book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
But it does - in that we have no reason to assume that whatever it is that makes people do these things today will go away in the new environment. It is to be taken as an article of faith.
Once again, you are talking about a small segment of society that has become deviant. If during the transition these people are not controlled by this higher law --- which supercedes all manmade laws --- then he will be confined to a place where he can't hurt others, just as they do today. But these behaviors will die out in a very short time and then we won't have to confine anyone again.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 03-17-2011, 12:22 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDLXXV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
This natural law, which
reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully
behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that no wonder it wasn’t
found until now.
Just like ShamWow!

Here's a discussion from JREF referencing some of the more ... unorthodox ... features of this system. My favorite description thus far is The Plan 9 from Outer Space of Books. There are examples of how discussions such as this one begin and end here and here.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (03-17-2011), Nullifidian (03-19-2011), The Man (03-17-2011)
  #124  
Old 03-17-2011, 12:24 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
This is not the case. Sociopaths know exactly what the rest of the world feels are right or wrong, they just see no reason to adhere to those standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Because they can justify it.
No, because they want to. Sociopaths in particular feel no need justify anything they do. They do what they want to do when they want to do it because they do not care.
That is true LadyShea, and that is because conscience is not at the temperature necessary to change behavior. In the new world, conscience will reach such a high temperature that they could never do what they were capable of doing in a free will environment. In other words, in the world of free will man was able to absolve his conscience in a world of right and wrong and get away with murder the very things our new knowledge that man's will is not free positively prevents.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 03-17-2011, 12:27 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
This natural law, which
reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully
behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that no wonder it wasn’t
found until now.
Just like ShamWow!

Here's a discussion from JREF referencing some of the more ... unorthodox ... features of this system. My favorite description thus far is The Plan 9 from Outer Space of Books. There are examples of how discussions such as this one begin and end here and here.
That guy went behind my back and secretly wrote this off the wall review that was totally inaccurate. Believe me, there will be other reviews that will much more flattering. :yup: As far as graveyardofthegods, this website was one of my first. I was so taken aback by people's rude behavior, that it was either going to stop me in my tracks, or make me stronger. It made me stronger. NoDeity, the administrator, invited me to have my very own sub-forum but due to their anything goes policy, I had to decline.

Last edited by peacegirl; 03-17-2011 at 12:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (0 members and 5 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.22099 seconds with 14 queries