Ryan S's Comments
The basis of any and all world-view
http://www.youtube.com/user/MenoftheInfinite#p/u/22/-gBLXJsDnII
http://www.youtube.com/user/MenoftheInfinite#p/u/22/-gBLXJsDnII
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
There are some distinctive differences between forms of argument that are based in logical continuity. But I think you probably need to train your mind in logical thinking to really pin-point the differences. This is not a part of our educational system because our educational system is set-up for post-war industrialized consumerism in a capitalist-democracy. Logic and things, in the original Platonic Republic was the craft of the ruling class, which consisted solely of broke-ass philosophers. Plato asserted that the ruling class should be philosophers (not lawyers, bankers, actors, or tycoons) and they should earn less than the lowest class in the society. Such that monetary interest would not be an influence and anyone getting into politics would not be doing so for monetary reasons. Personally I think Trump should forfeit all of his assets if he runs for President in 2012. So, lowly workers aren't expected to understand these things in such a system. But we don't have that system, we have the hellish opposite of the platonic ideal, we are ruled by lawyers, bankers, actors and tycoons. Philosopher's are some of the least paid, undervalued members of our societies. When taking an interest in philosophy, I quickly learned that it is basically a profitless profession. Completely undervalued by the entire society, all except philosophers themselves. Yet, what is philosophy? The love of wisdom, from greek philos and sophia. That's all it is, I don't get into schools of thought, I'm not a "Kantian" or a "Thomist" like those academics. I just love wisdom, truth over ignorance and there is a lot of ignorance. But this is lost, gone, dried up in electronic gadgets. Yea, I get a bit disillusioned when the thoughts that I develop after hours of intense study and contemplation are rejected out of hand by someone who got their opinion from Fox or the popular trend. I work hard on my "sight" on the way I see the world, to try to see it accurately. I don't see this happening unless you are getting paid for it. I don't get paid for it, nothing, nada, I don't get friends, no parade on my behalf. Again, I just do it because I love wisdom, and that is what I call philosophy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RsbmjNLQkc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RsbmjNLQkc
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
@onecooldan
Bailey and Blanchards theory of autogynephilia is not a very old theory and it was immediately rejected by organized "LGBT" communities. I'm using the term "LGBT" because that is what they call themselves as part of organized groups of mutual interest. If I could avoid categorization all together, I would, but as Kant and Hegel point out, thinking is categorization.
My point there was that the arguments that end up coming out of the mouths of 90% of the public, which is relfected on this blog, are asinine or completely non-sequitor. The "I was born that way" argument is a non-sequitor as I pointed out, you assert that there is a phantom middle step where it is proved that homosexuality is okay. I don't see that being argued! If it was being argued that homosexuality is okay, then there would be no need to appeal to genetics or heritability. If its okay, its okay. There is nothing more to add to that socially speaking. But that's not it, you got it wrong, they say "I was born that way" precisely in order to skip-over arguing that homosexuality is okay, it's meant as an argument for "homosexuality is okay". Otherwise that point just isn't being made at all.
Now, I've never gotten into whether or not it is okay. But the way people work is to assume the worst. Obviously I must be anti-gay because I'm making all these arguments against what pro-gay people are saying. That's not it at all. I don't care if you are gay, just like I don't care if you are a pedophile. What I do care about is the compounding affect it has on the social mores of our society. That conversation is evidently far too touchy for this blog.
@anothercommentor
You are right, it is poor argumentation. The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) picked up the argument for homosexuality and began stating "We were born this way, therefor its okay to have sex with kids." In this light the argument is obviously absurd, or is it?
The thing I notice is that when coming from the mouths of pedophiles people are quick to deny any such reasoning and lash out in hatred at the one saying it. When it comes from the mouths of homosexuals it is all too reasonable to even be doubted. As onecooldan has pointed out, the judgement whether it is good or bad, doesn't ever factor into the argument, it is assumed to be okay or not and that justifies the argument. See the argument isn't like a philosophical argument where logical consistency and non-contradiction and argument form are actually required, here it is all political propaganda that people either buy into because they already think its okay, or reject because they already think its not okay.
And that has been my main point of contention throughout, that none of the arguments from anyone have any actual bearing on truth or approximate any kind of proof or demonstration, they are all just ego-driven vomit.
Bailey and Blanchards theory of autogynephilia is not a very old theory and it was immediately rejected by organized "LGBT" communities. I'm using the term "LGBT" because that is what they call themselves as part of organized groups of mutual interest. If I could avoid categorization all together, I would, but as Kant and Hegel point out, thinking is categorization.
My point there was that the arguments that end up coming out of the mouths of 90% of the public, which is relfected on this blog, are asinine or completely non-sequitor. The "I was born that way" argument is a non-sequitor as I pointed out, you assert that there is a phantom middle step where it is proved that homosexuality is okay. I don't see that being argued! If it was being argued that homosexuality is okay, then there would be no need to appeal to genetics or heritability. If its okay, its okay. There is nothing more to add to that socially speaking. But that's not it, you got it wrong, they say "I was born that way" precisely in order to skip-over arguing that homosexuality is okay, it's meant as an argument for "homosexuality is okay". Otherwise that point just isn't being made at all.
Now, I've never gotten into whether or not it is okay. But the way people work is to assume the worst. Obviously I must be anti-gay because I'm making all these arguments against what pro-gay people are saying. That's not it at all. I don't care if you are gay, just like I don't care if you are a pedophile. What I do care about is the compounding affect it has on the social mores of our society. That conversation is evidently far too touchy for this blog.
@anothercommentor
You are right, it is poor argumentation. The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) picked up the argument for homosexuality and began stating "We were born this way, therefor its okay to have sex with kids." In this light the argument is obviously absurd, or is it?
The thing I notice is that when coming from the mouths of pedophiles people are quick to deny any such reasoning and lash out in hatred at the one saying it. When it comes from the mouths of homosexuals it is all too reasonable to even be doubted. As onecooldan has pointed out, the judgement whether it is good or bad, doesn't ever factor into the argument, it is assumed to be okay or not and that justifies the argument. See the argument isn't like a philosophical argument where logical consistency and non-contradiction and argument form are actually required, here it is all political propaganda that people either buy into because they already think its okay, or reject because they already think its not okay.
And that has been my main point of contention throughout, that none of the arguments from anyone have any actual bearing on truth or approximate any kind of proof or demonstration, they are all just ego-driven vomit.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
And to think we never used to have sweeteners at all. Now we need them!!!!! Addiction! Of course they knew that which is why they put sugar in everything that is made. So that everything is somewhat addictive and sweet tasting.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Well, when it comes to psychology and neuroplasticity, even a placebo can be a real cure. It's a heck of a lot better than coming back to a society where you are misunderstood and ignored.
I am/was a PTSD sufferer myself, but I also have some friends that served in the Canadian Armed Forces. After watching their friends blown to pieces and having to take lives themselves, they simply cannot reintegrate to a society which concerns itself with the pettiest of grievances.
One of my friends continues to repeat the same horrid stories over and over again in graphic detail. Whenever I talk to him, I invariably say something that triggers one of his stories either from war or from while he served on the police force. It's as if he simply can't get them out of his mind, they are stuck there permenantly. Much of what I say triggers these memories and he begins to talk about them. For my part after hearing the story once I don't care to hear it anymore, if I didn't know any better I might get really annoyed and want to distance myself from him. But I've gone through that myself with my own experiences getting lodged in my head that way.
Maybe sitting around in a damp hut with a wise man is the way to go.
I am/was a PTSD sufferer myself, but I also have some friends that served in the Canadian Armed Forces. After watching their friends blown to pieces and having to take lives themselves, they simply cannot reintegrate to a society which concerns itself with the pettiest of grievances.
One of my friends continues to repeat the same horrid stories over and over again in graphic detail. Whenever I talk to him, I invariably say something that triggers one of his stories either from war or from while he served on the police force. It's as if he simply can't get them out of his mind, they are stuck there permenantly. Much of what I say triggers these memories and he begins to talk about them. For my part after hearing the story once I don't care to hear it anymore, if I didn't know any better I might get really annoyed and want to distance myself from him. But I've gone through that myself with my own experiences getting lodged in my head that way.
Maybe sitting around in a damp hut with a wise man is the way to go.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
a reamer
I'm not a schizophrenic, neither am I L
I'm not a schizophrenic, neither am I L
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Well this is one issue which I tend to agree with the majority. She is definitely overstepping acceptable bounds for the respect of human individuality and the propriety of parental guidance.
With that said; I wanted to point out on the side that this has no relationship to "communism at it's finest". I'm currently studying Marx and Engels life works and learning how they adapted Hegel for economics. Hegelian philosophy is really interesting, I haven't engaged in a serious study yet, but on the face of it, Hegelian philosophy is a reiteration of what already seems obvious to me from elsewhere.
"Here, as in the philosophy of history, there are three great moments, Oriental religion, which exaggerated the idea of the infinite, Greek religion, which gave undue importance to the finite, and Christianity, which represents the union of the infinite and the finite. Last of all, absolute mind, as philosophy, transcends the limitations imposed on it even in religious feeling, and, discarding representative intuition, attains all truth under the form of reason. Whatever truth there is in art and in religion is contained in philosophy, in a higher form, and free from all limitations. Philosophy is, therefore, "the highest, freest and wisest phase of the union of subjective and objective mind, and the ultimate goal of all development.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegelianism
A friend once asked me; I need $35,000 really quick, what does your philosophy say about that? To which I replied; It says if you had studied philosophy earlier you would't need $35,000 really quick.
With that said; I wanted to point out on the side that this has no relationship to "communism at it's finest". I'm currently studying Marx and Engels life works and learning how they adapted Hegel for economics. Hegelian philosophy is really interesting, I haven't engaged in a serious study yet, but on the face of it, Hegelian philosophy is a reiteration of what already seems obvious to me from elsewhere.
"Here, as in the philosophy of history, there are three great moments, Oriental religion, which exaggerated the idea of the infinite, Greek religion, which gave undue importance to the finite, and Christianity, which represents the union of the infinite and the finite. Last of all, absolute mind, as philosophy, transcends the limitations imposed on it even in religious feeling, and, discarding representative intuition, attains all truth under the form of reason. Whatever truth there is in art and in religion is contained in philosophy, in a higher form, and free from all limitations. Philosophy is, therefore, "the highest, freest and wisest phase of the union of subjective and objective mind, and the ultimate goal of all development.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegelianism
A friend once asked me; I need $35,000 really quick, what does your philosophy say about that? To which I replied; It says if you had studied philosophy earlier you would't need $35,000 really quick.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
@All
I might drum up some papers to support my point of view as well. I find it interesting that prior to Bailey & Pillard in the early 90s there was no evidence for heritability of homosexuality. They were the first researchers to show a significant correlation. What is particularly interesting about this is that Bailey, J. Michael has done a lot of research into gender orientation and gender identity. The LGBT community jumped all-over his research from the early 90s, but when he wrote The Man Who Would Be Queen, arguing that transgender men have an intense desire to be treated like the Queen of England, the LGBT community got in an uproar.
J. Michael Bailey had to defend his reputation and even resigned from his tenured and respected position at Northwestern University. The zeal with which his early work was supported had shifted poles. That is an interesting case study in how research is filtered through the public eye. Bailey and Blanchards theory of autogynephilia is not popular with the LGBT community who holds a lot of sway over the opinions of many "liberally" minded people. What LGBT'ers say, they must assume, has to be the most progressive and respectful of differences. But... is it true? Or simply defensive behavior? At least one transsexual openly agreed with autogynephilia. With that said, Bailey is a controversial person who recently came under fire for performing a live sex act on stage at Northwestern.
We have to consider that we are not aware of our own motives much of the time. Out of concern for self-image we dwell in lies about ourselves. When questioned on our motives, we don't own up to the real motives, we engage in deflection, scapegoating, name-calling and all kinds of defense mechanisms. We do this because how others evaluate us has more apparent importance than how we evaluate ourselves. If we are met with disapproval we set about denying the basis for the disapproval and not examining our actual selves. You know, in AA the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Because a similar processs happens with alcoholics, they deny their motives. "I don't drink because I'm addicted, I drink because I want to." What the alcoholic overlooks is that their "wants" are subverted or hijacked by the addiction.
Though there is a relationship between genetic factors and sexual orientation,there is also a relationship between childhood sexual abuse and sexual orientation. This latter link is overlooked or out-right rejected by LGBTers. They are only interested in causes which support a clean, healthy, perfect bill of mental health. When you demand that you get a perfect pass on mental health issues, you are mentally ill. Your illness is egotism, selfishness, the problem of appearance, identity and so forth. Your concern is not about being right or being good, it is about appearing right and appearing good. Your concern is pride not humility, and as such you pick and choose what you want to see and what you want to believe. You are a slave to desire and ignorance.
There is a difference between being born with an inclination and acting on that inclination. Psychopathy has pretty strong genetic correlates. Pedophilia correlates with early childhood sexual abuse. Almost anything has a genetic correlate that modulates the propensity one has to attach to any particular. There are genetic correlates for all inclinations and character traits. That is not a measure of goodness. David Hume explained in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding why you cannot derive an ought from an is. You can't say "I am a thief, therefor it is okay." or "I was born with psychopathic tendencies, therefor its okay to feed them." I was born that way is just a way of washing your hands of your life, a way of not taking any responsibility.
As for whether homosexuality is good or bad, I refrain from commenting because the society at large is far too myopic to appreciate any depth of actual concern. There is so much depth to it that can't be penetrated when the atmosphere is to quickly latch onto labels and categories and freak out. We need to grow up to tackle these issues.
I might drum up some papers to support my point of view as well. I find it interesting that prior to Bailey & Pillard in the early 90s there was no evidence for heritability of homosexuality. They were the first researchers to show a significant correlation. What is particularly interesting about this is that Bailey, J. Michael has done a lot of research into gender orientation and gender identity. The LGBT community jumped all-over his research from the early 90s, but when he wrote The Man Who Would Be Queen, arguing that transgender men have an intense desire to be treated like the Queen of England, the LGBT community got in an uproar.
J. Michael Bailey had to defend his reputation and even resigned from his tenured and respected position at Northwestern University. The zeal with which his early work was supported had shifted poles. That is an interesting case study in how research is filtered through the public eye. Bailey and Blanchards theory of autogynephilia is not popular with the LGBT community who holds a lot of sway over the opinions of many "liberally" minded people. What LGBT'ers say, they must assume, has to be the most progressive and respectful of differences. But... is it true? Or simply defensive behavior? At least one transsexual openly agreed with autogynephilia. With that said, Bailey is a controversial person who recently came under fire for performing a live sex act on stage at Northwestern.
We have to consider that we are not aware of our own motives much of the time. Out of concern for self-image we dwell in lies about ourselves. When questioned on our motives, we don't own up to the real motives, we engage in deflection, scapegoating, name-calling and all kinds of defense mechanisms. We do this because how others evaluate us has more apparent importance than how we evaluate ourselves. If we are met with disapproval we set about denying the basis for the disapproval and not examining our actual selves. You know, in AA the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Because a similar processs happens with alcoholics, they deny their motives. "I don't drink because I'm addicted, I drink because I want to." What the alcoholic overlooks is that their "wants" are subverted or hijacked by the addiction.
Though there is a relationship between genetic factors and sexual orientation,there is also a relationship between childhood sexual abuse and sexual orientation. This latter link is overlooked or out-right rejected by LGBTers. They are only interested in causes which support a clean, healthy, perfect bill of mental health. When you demand that you get a perfect pass on mental health issues, you are mentally ill. Your illness is egotism, selfishness, the problem of appearance, identity and so forth. Your concern is not about being right or being good, it is about appearing right and appearing good. Your concern is pride not humility, and as such you pick and choose what you want to see and what you want to believe. You are a slave to desire and ignorance.
There is a difference between being born with an inclination and acting on that inclination. Psychopathy has pretty strong genetic correlates. Pedophilia correlates with early childhood sexual abuse. Almost anything has a genetic correlate that modulates the propensity one has to attach to any particular. There are genetic correlates for all inclinations and character traits. That is not a measure of goodness. David Hume explained in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding why you cannot derive an ought from an is. You can't say "I am a thief, therefor it is okay." or "I was born with psychopathic tendencies, therefor its okay to feed them." I was born that way is just a way of washing your hands of your life, a way of not taking any responsibility.
As for whether homosexuality is good or bad, I refrain from commenting because the society at large is far too myopic to appreciate any depth of actual concern. There is so much depth to it that can't be penetrated when the atmosphere is to quickly latch onto labels and categories and freak out. We need to grow up to tackle these issues.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
@Some Canadian Skeptic
Affluenza
Affluenza
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Let me relate; having recently dug up my Magic card collection and assessed their value, I got the bug to want to buy more cards. My girlfriend was out with her neice the other day and bought me a 15-pack of Magic cards. They were on the coffee table when I got home. Immediately I wanted to tear open the package and see the cards, which was an impulse I am wise enough to recognize and scrutinize. I abstained and spent some time examining this impulse. My girlfriend was still awake and I thanked her for the cards. I had little problem abstaining while she was up, but after she went to bed the desire to open them began gnawing at me. Several times I picked the package up and realized that I was impulsively behaving this way and not through a conscious act. The desire was in control and not my better judgement. It is important to me that desire does not control me this way. I was able to go a while without having the desire and decided it would be okay to check them out and finally did.
I don't play magic anymore, I just thought it would be neat to check out the newer cards and maybe collect them again for safe keeping. So all the excitement I was going to get was in the anticipation, opening and examining the cards for rares. Afterwards, they get filed in a box not to be seen for a long time. I knew if I gave into the desire it would have an addictive property that would leave me feeling a lacking after having opened the cards. Because I fought the desire, this feeling of loss and lacking never occurred.
I don't play magic anymore, I just thought it would be neat to check out the newer cards and maybe collect them again for safe keeping. So all the excitement I was going to get was in the anticipation, opening and examining the cards for rares. Afterwards, they get filed in a box not to be seen for a long time. I knew if I gave into the desire it would have an addictive property that would leave me feeling a lacking after having opened the cards. Because I fought the desire, this feeling of loss and lacking never occurred.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I'm not convinced that living longer is a good measure of a successul life. If you are ego-driven then you may live longer, but you might suffer or cause more suffering. I know for myself, as long as I don't buy anything new I'm stable. When I buy new things I am drawn to them, I like to keep them in my sight, I get potective of them, possessive. Again, I don't have this problem when I don't buy myself things, or when I buy things for other people. It is only stuff in my possession that causes this neurotic possessive obsession. It is especially true of anything with vibrant coloring.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Everyone is biased, even full Juries can be biased. As Erich Fromm famously wrote in The Sane Society: "It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share certain ideas or feelings proves the validity of these ideas and feelings. Nothing is further from the truth... Just as there is a folie à deux there is a folie à millions. The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same form of mental pathology does not make these people sane."
Personally, I think most of us are insane which makes juries just as pathetic.
Personally, I think most of us are insane which makes juries just as pathetic.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
@Alex
I don't see how this blog post is either heinous or disgusting or anything else. I think it is a great question and something that warrants some serious consideration. But I fear we are too entrenched in the "anything goes" "do what you feel" thinking to ask any serious questions about our behavior.
I don't see how this blog post is either heinous or disgusting or anything else. I think it is a great question and something that warrants some serious consideration. But I fear we are too entrenched in the "anything goes" "do what you feel" thinking to ask any serious questions about our behavior.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Reminds me of an Iranian film I'm still trying to see. It is called "The Willow Tree" and it's about a man born congenitally blind. He learns his world through touch and becomes extremely fond of the willow tree. An operation restores his sight and he begins to evaluate the world according to how he sees. People he knows now have appearances, but with great costs, the man begins evaluating them on their beauty and his attitudes toward them change accordingly. What's worse, is he now finds the willow tree to be an ugly tree. The short-story is that everything this man valued becomes devalued or cast into the world of vision for re-evaluation.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
http://www.youtube.com/user/MenoftheInfinite#p/u/38/FSQHq9bMjj4