Debate me

[wadlez]

Anything you want, I'll take the opposing view

[Cognisant]

I'm wrong.

[wadlez]

Giving up already? damn im good

[Cognisant]

:D

Okay seriously now, take your pick:
Tranhumanism
or
Nihilism

Awfully predictable I know, but you want a challenge correct?
So either explain why Transhumanism is a bad idea or try to undermine Nihilism.

[Anthile]

:D

Okay seriously now, take your pick:
Tranhumanism
or
Nihilism

Awfully predictable I know, but you want a challenge correct?
So either explain why Transhumanism is a bad idea or try to undermine Nihilism.


I sense some Author Tract here. :p


Let's debate time travel instead. Is it possible? How would a society look like where time travel is available like hot dogs?

[Cognisant]

:o

Oookay time travel it is.

Assuming we're talking about multidimensional time travel (thus grandfather paradoxes and such aren’t an issue) then with everyone jumping from time 'A' to 'B' by their own time reference it wouldn't really matter how many time travellers there were/are/whatever since they'll never (well it's unbelievably unlikely) come in contact with other post-time-jump travellers.

So in effect it's like living in the comic-books universe, the shit just happens, deal with it.

[wadlez]

So in effect it's like living in the comic-books universe, the shit just happens, deal with it. So to clarify, your saying that when you travel in time if you change something which could eventually change you being born in the first place, you will still travel back in time?

And I'll take the opposite view to that? which is that it would stop you from going back in time in the first place and create some paradox

Or instead Let's debate time travel instead. Is it possible? How would a society look like where time travel is available like hot dogs?Which aspect of this would you like to debate and which side are you for?

[Cognisant]

In a multiverse you can go back in time and kill yourself, because it wouldn't actually be you, just an alternate version of you in a time-space where you get killed by the future you.

The killers history is set, unchangeable, to put it metaphorically this kind of time travel isn't actually backwards/forwards time travel, it's lateral travel through alternate universes at different stages of their own time-space progression.

[wadlez]

I dont think you need mulitple universes for this to be the case. As we are just experiencing the 4th dimension from the perspective of the 3rd dimension, so viewing the 4th dimension in 3d slices. Basically what im saying is that if you go back in time and kill yourself, you wont just instantly die as the events that led to you going back in time still happened but from this point things will just happen differently.

[Cognisant]

But what happens when the progression of the new timeline catches up with the point when I went back in time to kill myself?

Would I become an existential anomaly with no history?

[TheHmmmm]

I sense some Author Tract here. :p


Let's debate time travel instead. Is it possible? How would a society look like where time travel is available like hot dogs?

It's probably just my extremely mundane knowledge of time, but is it actually a separate entity? To me, it always just seemed to exist as much as the meter exists, as a unit of measure for the process of aging. We centralize it in astronomy, basing it off of the rotation and revolution of the planet Earth in its orbit. It is for this reason that I do not believe in time travel.

Of course, these are insubstantial arguments based on my random, intuitive conjectures.

[wadlez]

But what happens when the progression of the new timeline catches up with the point when I went back in time to kill myself?

Would I become an existential anomaly with no history?

Basically if you went back in time again you would only see the new modified timeline, you were created from a different sequence of events

[Shatokan]

Basically if you went back in time again you would only see the new modified timeline, you were created from a different sequence of events

From the way i hear it, and understand it.

You have your life line, such as when/if you go back in time, it splits it, making it to where you can NEVER effect your current self, anything done in the past will create a split path where the timeline changes. So in essence, no matter how many times you screw the past up the future will remain unchanged.

If you go along with this principle, you also have to go along with the principle that for every decision made in the galaxy, the timeline is split. If one person see's a coin, for every decision available to them there is a split, creating a universe, one for when they pick it up, one for is they don't, one for if they kick it, and one for if they don't see it in the first place, along with the millions of time lines where they don't even exist. This is how i consider time travel.

[ashitaria]

Traveling back in time is impossible because travel back in time, you have to travel through space, and then there will be no place there. In any case, how will we send a person like that anyway? We have neither the knowledge of any material or science that can allow time to stop, though we have the technology to slow metabolism. The only way for time to stop is to hold the Earth in place, so good luck doing that.

And the time paradox that we oh so often spend time thinking about, probably will never come in a million years. Time (imo) isn't an extra dimension or power, is just a way to measure passing time.

[Agent Intellect]

Time travel already happens in quantum electrodynamics (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/forces/qed.html).

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/AntiMatter/transp10.4.gif
(Source (http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/AntiMatter/transp10.4.gif))

An electron can go forward in time, emit a photon, sending it backwards in time as a positron, to where it absorbs a photon and continues on a forward path. Of course, when we see the backwards moving electron (with it's polarity reversed making it a positron) we see it backwards from the direction it's actually moving in time - so, to us, it would look like light splitting into a positron and an electron, the positron colliding with a different electron and annihilating into a photon.

[Shatokan]

Traveling back in time is impossible because travel back in time, you have to travel through space, and then there will be no place there. In any case, how will we send a person like that anyway? We have neither the knowledge of any material or science that can allow time to stop, though we have the technology to slow metabolism. The only way for time to stop is to hold the Earth in place, so good luck doing that.

And the time paradox that we oh so often spend time thinking about, probably will never come in a million years. Time (imo) isn't an extra dimension or power, is just a way to measure passing time.


And so you also assume that it will never BE possible? saying we don't have it now means nothing if we have it tomorrow.

Time is not a measurement but the fourth dimension. (IMHO) Because we on;y realize life in three dimensions we can not fathom a way to travel in time and yet we know it is possible. As stated by AI. Even if it happens in a million years, it is still going to happen. Assuming something isn't possible because we know next to nothing about it is presuming yourself knowledgeable enough to say otherwise.

Edit:just saw this
It's just another way to measure passing time.

Why do you measure something that's just passing, if not to examine and change it.

[ashitaria]

And so you also assume that it will never BE possible? saying we don't have it now means nothing if we have it tomorrow.

Time is not a measurement but the fourth dimension. (IMHO) Because we on;y realize life in three dimensions we can not fathom a way to travel in time and yet we know it is possible. As stated by AI. Even if it happens in a million years, it is still going to happen. Assuming something isn't possible because we know next to nothing about it is presuming yourself knowledgeable enough to say otherwise.

Edit:just saw this


Why do you measure something that's just passing, if not to examine and change it.
Yet, the moon will still move around the Earth, and time itself is not causing the Moon to move around the Earth, does it? It is possible, and yet it can't. If you were wounded, it isn't time that heals you, but your body cells.
Time is really just a way of measuring passing time. Neither did I say that time travel is impossible, I am simply stating that time travel will never be within our reach.

And to answer your other question. Time was created to in other words examine the seasons, days, nights, etc. And by passing time, I mean the seasons, days, nights, etc. Yet these would still have happened without time right? Time is measuring approximately how long days last....

[Shatokan]

Yet, the moon will still move around the Earth, and time itself is not causing the Moon to move around the Earth, does it? It is possible, and yet it can't. If you were wounded, it isn't time that heals you, but your body cells.
Time is really just a way of measuring passing time. Neither did I say that time travel is impossible, I am simply stating that time travel will never be within our reach.

I like this explanation quite more than your other one. And just to clarify, i also think it will forever be beyond our grasp. If we humans as a race DO find a way to "time travel" It will be by some outside force and not something we can create.

[ashitaria]

I like this explanation quite more than your other one. And just to clarify, i also think it will forever be beyond our grasp. If we humans as a race DO find a way to "time travel" It will be by some outside force and not something we can create.

My explanations are usually extremely vague, so don't be afraid to ask.

In any case, I'm still learning chemistry, so my knowledge of photons and atoms are very limited. I'm considering taking physics next year.

[wadlez]

Really good explanation of the ten dimensions http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

[Hawkeye]

we already have to account for time distortions for GPS to work.

[wadlez]

Alright I think this time travel thing is winding down to an end. Anyone want to debate me on any other subject. Anything at all, I'll take the side which your sure is wrong.

[ashitaria]

Guns should be banned.

[Shatokan]

Guns should be banned.


And why do you say this? So the honest, hardworking citizen can get shot by the criminal and have no way to defend themselves?

[bananaphallus]

- Minorities are not second class citizens

- Maisy's alligator pal 'Charlie' in the hit kids' (lolz) television program...Maisy, is not a clear and present danger to those around him/society.

Evidence (pretty damning, imo):

YouTube- Maisy's bugs

[wadlez]

Guns should be banned.

Guns are means for citizens to defend themselves against criminals. They prevnt crime and keep your home safe.
Criminals dont care for laws so if you ban guns your only stopping innocent citizens from having them.

[echoplex]

Life is good.

[ashitaria]

Guns are means for citizens to defend themselves against criminals. They prevnt crime and keep your home safe.
Criminals dont care for laws so if you ban guns your only stopping innocent citizens from having them.
However, guns increase suicidal and homicidal rates in the house from three to five fold, and citizens are not the only one who can use guns. Also, there are other forms of weapons that can be used for protection, it is said that pepper gas is more effective than a gun.
By stopping the circulation of guns, criminals will eventually lose guns and no one gets hurt. In fact, guns were the major cause of murders in 2005.

[Cognisant]

The problem with a gun is that the only people who are prepared to use them are the ones willing to do harm to another human being (it's actually surprisingly hard) and those are exactly the kinds of people guns should be kept away from.

Also contrary to popular belief guns are dangerously inaccurate in but the most experienced hands, this is why police don't even try to shoot criminals with hostages, sure on the firing range hitting a 9x9 target at 20ft is within the ability of your average marksman, but irl if the gun is squeezed in ever so slightly the wrong way, the hostage gets shot in the head.

The only situation where having a gun would increase the average (moderately trained) person's chances of survival would be in a full urban-combat gun battle. But if things ever get that bad you can be assured police would be arriving en mass and requesting gunship close air support, in which case the last thing you would want to be is someone holding a gun, you’ll just get shot.

[ashitaria]

The problem with a gun is that the only people who are prepared to use them are the ones willing to do harm to another human being (it's actually surprisingly hard) and those are exactly the kinds of people guns should be kept away from.

Also contrary to popular belief guns are dangerously inaccurate in but the most experienced hands, this is why police don't even try to shoot criminals with hostages, sure on the firing range hitting a 9x9 target at 20ft is within the ability of your average marksman, but irl if the gun is squeezed in ever so slightly the wrong way, the hostage gets shot in the head.

The only situation where having a gun would increase the average (moderately trained) person's chances of survival would be in a full urban-combat gun battle. But if things ever get that bad you can be assured police would be arriving en mass and requesting gunship close air support, in which case the last thing you would want to be is someone holding a gun, you’ll just get shot.
Also considering the fact that suicide attempt by guns are 90% successful as compared to jumping off tall ledges which is 34% successful.

[wadlez]

However, guns increase suicidal and homicidal rates in the house from three to five fold

Dude if that was fact then there couldnt possibly be an argument. Thank god you just made that up

it is said that pepper gas is more effective than a gun.
By stopping the circulation of guns, criminals will eventually lose guns and no one gets hurt. In fact, guns were the major cause of murders in 2005.

Pepper spray is not going to dissuade a criminal from entering your home, a gun definatly will.
The idea of stopping the circulation of guns doesnt and hasnt worked. In australia where I live you cant have any guns except for maybe a rifle if your a farmer with a special liscense. This should stop guns circulating but it hasnt at all, its only stopped us civilians who respect the law from having them, criminals can get them and have no respect for the law. They have handguns which are better than our police.

The only situation where having a gun would increase the average (moderately trained) person's chances of survival would be in a full urban-combat gun battle

Thats ridiculous, if I had a gun i could shoot anyone who entered my home easily, i could shoot anyone on the street easily. It happens all the time.

The best thing about guns is that they deter crime, in countrys without legal guns for civilians, criminals can just enter any house they want and occupants are defenseless.
The crime rate in america would be much higher if people were not allowed guns.

[Cognisant]

Dude if that was fact then there couldnt possibly be an argument. Thank god you just made that up
Lol

Thats ridiculous, if I had a gun i could shoot anyone who entered my home easily, i could shoot anyone on the street easily. It happens all the time.
So am I to assume you would have a gun handy 24/7 ?
Actually come to think of it, if everyone wore a holstered piece everyday of their lives I suppose violent crime would become almost impossible, unless of course people started forming gangs, holding fortified positions and started investing in support equipment like artillery, APCs, tanks, etc to counter each others fortifications... have I made my point?

When a civilian populace enforces law through power of arms, the people with greatest destructive means become the most influential figures of authority, in effect it becomes a cold-war arms race on a neighbourhood level.
At this point violent crime becomes irrelevant, I'd be more worried about war crimes.

They have handguns which are better than our police.
Then clearly police need better guns, or perhaps armoured exosuits and drone close air support; lets not get all sentimental, a system of government stays in power because it enforces a suppressive authority over the populace, which is tolerated by the populace because they know civilisation thrives in the stability of the status quo.

Also police are trained to enforce an agreed upon set of laws, this means they can work together without conflict and rightly assume anyone breaking this set of laws is cognisant of the possible repercussion; in a world of civilian enforced martial law, who's to say what the law is and how zealously it should be enforced, this lack of unity creates interpersonal conflicts all by itself, escalating what may only be a minor dispute into a major armed conflict.

[ashitaria]

Ore-sama...
You beat me to it. -_-

@Wadlez, the reason why I provide a fact instead of an argument is because the fact is self-explanatory. It is common sense that a suicide attempted by a gun is more successful than jumping off buildings. I merely provided a statistic that explained it for me.

Also, in other countries with strict gun control, there are very little (32 deaths a year) deaths by firearms. America is America. Gun control does stop gun regulation, and it is a ridiculous statement to say that it doesn't and only lets criminals have guns. Not only that, it doesn't mean that in states with strict gun laws mean that you can't get guns. You can get guns from other states. America is America.

As I said, by stopping gun circulation, criminals will eventually run out. Getting guns shipped from other countries is unlikely, because there is no other country with quite as much gun deaths as America. America has eight times more deaths by guns than its economic counter-parts.

Pepper gas also deters criminals. It blinds them. That's better than a gun. If you shoot a criminal, he's still alive, and he can very well move, unless you shoot both his legs.

And you want the sites and websites, PM me.

[BigApplePi]

1. Males should treat females as sex objects.

2. INTP avatars should be as appealing as possible.

3. The two party system in the United States is a great thing.

4. The United States belongs in Afghanistan.

5. Muslims are not good people.

5b. INTPs are not good people.

6. All people should be treated equally.

Any of those .....

[BigApplePi]

Basically if you went back in time again you would only see the new modified timeline, you were created from a different sequence of events

Traveling back in time is easy. Just hit "edit, undo."

[ashitaria]

1. Males should treat females as sex objects.

2. INTP avatars should be as appealing as possible.

3. The two party system in the United States is a great thing.

4. The United States belongs in Afghanistan.

5. Muslims are not good people.

5b. INTPs are not good people.

6. All people should be treated equally.

Any of those .....
I know this sounds mean, but it's like as if you didn't put any thought into some of these topics. Of course, some of these topics are decent, though there wouldn't really be a debate over some of these because topics like number 7 has little or no controversy.

What about the topic:
What should be more highly valued? Mercy or Justice?

[Cognisant]

1. Males should treat females as sex objects.
Generally no.
Then again primitive men didn't hunt mammoths because they had to, they risked their lives hunting these greatest of beasts because there were women to impress. It's a sad but true fact that we're more-or-less hardwired to strive that much more when women are involved, so to the extent that this could increase workplace prodictivity/compitition I would agree, beyond that I would not.

2. INTP avatars should be as appealing as possible.
In what way?

3. The two party system in the United States is a great thing.
Heh, the "lesser of two evils" voting system.

4. The United States belongs in Afghanistan.
...why are they there again?

5. Muslims are not good people.
From personal experaince, they're likeable enough.

5b. INTPs are not good people.
We're not bad, but if the world came to an end it would likely be an INTP's fault.

6. All people should be treated equally.
In theory, yes.
In practice, no.

[BigApplePi]

I know this sounds mean, but it's like as if you didn't put any thought into some of these topics. Of course, some of these topics are decent, though there wouldn't really be a debate over some of these because topics like number 7 has little or no controversy.

What about the topic:
What should be more highly valued? Mercy or Justice?

ashitaria. Questions:

1. Choosing the topics or thought on the topics?
2. Some? Which?
3. #7 is fine. RU a J?

[BigApplePi]

wadlez in his OP said, "Anything you want, I'll take the opposing view"

I directed those 6 issues toward wadlez. At the time I was in linear mode and thought no one had replied to him. My error. I'm a little confused over which modes I have to display. Do I try all three? What do you recommend as I'm new this January.

[Hawkeye]

why when you type "Islam is " on google it blocks the predictive sentence table that always appears...

[wadlez]

Actually come to think of it, if everyone wore a holstered piece everyday of their lives I suppose violent crime would become almost impossible, unless of course people started forming gangs, holding fortified positions and started investing in support equipment like artillery, APCs, tanks, etc to counter each others fortifications... have I made my point?

Are you serious?

When a civilian populace enforces law through power of arms, the people with greatest destructive means become the most influential figures of authority, in effect it becomes a cold-war arms race on a neighbourhood level.
At this point violent crime becomes irrelevant, I'd be more worried about war crimes.

Definatlely, happens all the time.... Well its never happened before but Im sure it would if you allowed people in a country to have guns... Oh. This is the goverment mentality, they think that everyone and everything needs to be controlled or these ridiculous situations will occur (based on no observable facts).

Then clearly police need better guns, or perhaps armoured exosuits and drone close air support; lets not get all sentimental, a system of government stays in power because it enforces a suppressive authority over the populace, which is tolerated by the populace because they know civilisation thrives in the stability of the status quo.

Because it enforces a suppressive authority over the populace!!!!!! OMG. You would love north korea or china. Have you ever thought what if the people in charge are working in there best interests instead of the peoples?

Also police are trained to enforce an agreed upon set of laws, this means they can work together without conflict and rightly assume anyone breaking this set of laws is cognisant of the possible repercussion; in a world of civilian enforced martial law, who's to say what the law is and how zealously it should be enforced, this lack of unity creates interpersonal conflicts all by itself, escalating what may only be a minor dispute into a major armed conflict.
You should look into game theory and free markets, Negative liberty always beats positive liberty.


Wadlez, the reason why I provide a fact instead of an argument is because the fact is self-explanatory. It is common sense that a suicide attempted by a gun is more successful than jumping off buildings. I merely provided a statistic that explained it for me.

You ommited this commen sense fact this time around: However, guns increase suicidal and homicidal rates in the house from three to five fold

That is definitely not fact or common sense. The suicide attempt thing is just stupid, there are many ways people can kill themselves, just because an object can be used for suicide doesnt mean it should be banned.

Also, in other countries with strict gun control, there are very little (32 deaths a year) deaths by firearms. America is America

Which country are you referencing, and why does this country prove the fact for all other countrys. I think the homicides in america are due to there massive drug and crime problem than guns. If you look at canada which has similiar gun laws there is barely any homicides (eliminating guns as the dependent variable).

[wadlez]

5b. INTPs are not good people.

For a challenge I would like to choose this one, and I would like to argue that INTPs are not good people. Agreed?

[Cognisant]

OMG. You would love north korea or china.
Mmm, yeah, I would.

Japan too, because they understand the importance of robots.
By the great automata I love the Japanese.

(dyk that Shinto already has machine-cult elements?)

[ashitaria]

Are you serious?



Definatlely, happens all the time.... Well its never happened before but Im sure it would if you allowed people in a country to have guns... Oh. This is the goverment mentality, they think that everyone and everything needs to be controlled or these ridiculous situations will occur (based on no observable facts).

People do have to be controlled, that is what government is for. Without order, there will be chaos. Even the Native Indians had a government, because without a government, we will be in ridiculous situations. Same thing with guns. We don't have any gun laws, so now look. 10,677 deaths in America in 2006, 47 in Germany, 32 in Canada....

Go look up the statistics yourself.



Because it enforces a suppressive authority over the populace!!!!!! OMG. You would love north korea or china. Have you ever thought what if the people in charge are working in there best interests instead of the peoples?

What about Canada, what about the U.K, what about Germany, what about Singapore? These countries offer about as much freedom as America does, and they have strict gun control, and also there are very little gun deaths.

You should look into game theory and free markets, Negative liberty always beats positive liberty.

So you are saying that banning guns is positive liberty? I say more like not banning guns is positive liberty.


You ommited this commen sense fact this time around:

That is definitely not fact or common sense. The suicide attempt thing is just stupid, there are many ways people can kill themselves, just because an object can be used for suicide doesnt mean it should be banned.

Yes, but guns increase the risk and rate of suicides. Which takes more courage to do? Put your gun to your head and pull the trigger or jump of a cliff? Which is likely to be more successful? Which is likely to be more painful? Common sense prevails.

Which country are you referencing, and why does this country prove the fact for all other countrys. I think the homicides in america are due to there massive drug and crime problem than guns. If you look at canada which has similiar gun laws there is barely any homicides (eliminating guns as the dependent variable).
Yes, but guns, though not the cause of most homicides, do most homicides. It is easier for a person to kill with a gun than a knife, no? And Canada does not have the same gun laws as ours. In 1995, the Canadian government passed Bill C-68, also known as the Firearms Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-11.6/text.html), a strict gun-control law which came into effect in stages, is the reason for the low homicidal rates in Canada.

As I said. If you need websites or sites, PM me.

[ashitaria]

ashitaria. Questions:

1. Choosing the topics or thought on the topics?
Thought on the topics

2. Some? Which?

7,4,3
3. #7 is fine. RU a J?
The link on my sig explains it.



In any case, sorry if I sounded harsh or callous. I'm usually very business-like and serious when it comes to debates.

I love debates :P

[BigApplePi]

If I understand it then, wadlez is going to take the side of "INTPs are not good people"

Everyone else would stand up for INTPs being good people. Is this right? Is this how you meant it to go wadlez?Personally I think INTPs are good people because they have the ability to see the world as it really is. I.e. they aren't phonies.

[wadlez]

Yep thats right.

I think INTPS overall are terrible people for the following reasons:
They are very unsocial compared to other types.
They tend to have a bleak depressing view of reality (favour sad things).
There cold intellectual judgement strangles feeling out of situations, objects and life in general.
There preference to perceive rather that to judge and act makes them live overly in there subjective worlds and never actually act or make any impact, rendering them useless.

Generally there not taken by the same feelings other types are making them boring and over intellectual. Take live music events with crowds for example, most types love this, but an INTP will feel alienated, think everyone there is stupid and cant see why everyones so hyped up.

[ashitaria]

Hey hey hey, is the gun control debate over already? I already replied to Wadlez's post. C'mon?

[Jesin]

Yep thats right.

I think INTPS overall are terrible people for the following reasons:
They are very unsocial compared to other types.
They tend to have a bleak depressing view of reality (favour sad things).
There cold intellectual judgement strangles feeling out of situations, objects and life in general.
There preference to perceive rather that to judge and act makes them live overly in there subjective worlds and never actually act or make any impact, rendering them useless.

Generally there not taken by the same feelings other types are making them boring and over intellectual. Take live music events with crowds for example, most types love this, but an INTP will feel alienated, think everyone there is stupid and cant see why everyones so hyped up.

Mu. :p

[BigApplePi]

Yep thats right.

I think INTPS overall are terrible people for the following reasons:
1. They are very unsocial compared to other types.
2. They tend to have a bleak depressing view of reality (favour sad things).
3. Their cold intellectual judgement strangles feeling out of situations, objects and life in general.
4. Their preference to perceive rather that to judge and act makes them live overly in their subjective worlds and never actually act or make any impact, rendering them useless.

Generally there not taken by the same feelings other types are making them boring and over intellectual. Take live music events with crowds for example, most types love this, but an INTP will feel alienated, think everyone there is stupid and cant see why everyones so hyped up.

INTPs are not so terrible because --
1. INPTs are just introverted. Look at how sociable they are on this forum.
2. Need evidence they would favor sad things over happy things. No part of I, N, T, or P points to that.
3. Feelings can be too forceful and crude. If INTPs look at things dispassionately, better a cool head to get at the truth.
4. INTPs can't do everything. If INTPs lay it out there, then some J has to come along and get picky.

wadlez I took the liberty to fix your spelling of the possessive, "their."

[BigApplePi]

In any case, sorry if I sounded harsh or callous. I'm usually very business-like and serious when it comes to debates.

I love debates :P

That's okay. Debates are good. I picked some harsh topics myself cuz I wanted to see if wadlez would take them on. He took a safe but interesting topic.

[wadlez]

1. INPTs are just introverted. Look at how sociable they are on this forum.There too limited in the environments and relationships in which they'll come out of there shell. Internet forums are good, but if this is the only place there interacting then they are missing out on allot in life, these exchanges of text are very stunted compared to real interpersonal relationships.

2. Need evidence they would favor sad things over happy things. No part of I, N, T, or P points to that.I searched for the intp type description which explains this but to no avail. Its not part of an individual function itself but rather an interaction of the constellation of functions which make intps typically bleak and depressed.

3. Feelings can be too forceful and crude. If INTPs look at things dispassionately, better a cool head to get at the truth.Fine but what for? Everyone thinks were cold and we dont(/cant) participate with everyone else as we cant truely relate to them on there level. What we gain works for us, but is terrible for everyone else, so is selfish. We break peoples wonderful experiences and objects into logical peices and then attempt to show them components and explain that theres nothing magical to it.

4. INTPs can't do everything. If INTPs lay it out there, then some J has to come along and get picky.Most of the time we dont even express our ideas, we dont even care if other people get them or if there applied to anything. If we do end pushing them out onto reality in some form all we do is state the idea and expect it to be successful for its validity. No effort is made for how it is received and processed by any audience, then we get upset when there not accepted, taking this as further proof for the stupidity of man.

This is from a careers page:

"INTPs lack follow-through and this can isolate their ideas from practical examination. Their notions become over-intellectualized and too abstract to be of practical benefit"

[ashitaria]

Yep thats right.

I think INTPS overall are terrible people for the following reasons:
They are very unsocial compared to other types.

Being unsocial isn't a bad thing. Being social and manipulative is way way worse.
They tend to have a bleak depressing view of reality (favour sad things).

Better than being overly optimistic and making unpractical decisions. And I'm an INTP and I don't favor sad things.
There cold intellectual judgement strangles feeling out of situations, objects and life in general.
Yet provokes thought and logic. Feeling isn't always good.
There preference to perceive rather that to judge and act makes them live overly in there subjective worlds and never actually act or make any impact, rendering them useless.
Well, it is better than people who do act and make an impact that are bad. Take Hitler for example- an ENTJ. In his childhood, he lived in his own fantasy. Look at how he achieved it.
Generally there not taken by the same feelings other types are making them boring and over intellectual. Take live music events with crowds for example, most types love this, but an INTP will feel alienated, think everyone there is stupid and cant see why everyones so hyped up.
Nothing wrong with disliking music events. It just means that we focus on the more important things in life. Not some crummy party. And task-orientated people are usually more productive than people-orientated people.


Ah, I'm joining!

[ashitaria]

There too limited in the environments and relationships in which they'll come out of there shell. Internet forums are a good but if this is the only place there interacting then they are missing out on allot in life and these exchanges of text are very stunted compared to real interpersonal relationships.

But they aren't bad people aren't they? And while we may miss out on the social aspect of life, other people miss out on the thinking aspect of life that we experience. Lessons at school are very stunted compared to real thoughts and pondering.



I searched for the intp type description which explains this but to no avail. Its not part of an individual function itself but rather an interaction of the constellation of functions which make intps typically bleak and depressed.

Not all INTPs are necessary depressed. There is alot of potential for depression, but most of us choose to overcome it. Like me, for example.

Fine but what for? Everyone thinks were cold and we dont(/cant) participate with everyone else as we cant truely relate to them on there level. What we gain works for us, but is terrible for everyone else, so is selfish. We break peoples wonderful experiences and objects into logical peices and then attempt to show them components and explain that theres nothing magical to it.

Yet we do not intentionally try to break people's experiences and in our minds we actually think we are doing them a favor because we feel the need to shake people into reality. And what we gain doesn't necessary work for us because some of us have a conscious. Just like there can be good ENTJs, there can be bad INTPs. And what is there for us to gain by shaking people into reality? We are definitely not shaking people into reality for our own sake.

Most of the time we dont even express our ideas, we dont even care if other people get them or if there applied to anything. If we do end pushing them out onto reality in some form all we do is state the idea and expect it to be successful for its validity. No effort is made for how it is received and processed by any audience, then we get upset when there not accepted, taking this as further proof for the stupidity of man.

Ok, we are all guilty of this. Even I am guilty of this, and many of friends go, "What?" But not all of us take such as proof for the stupidity of man, and definitely not in my case. One of my principles is that all humans intellectually/physically/rightfully equal, and something that I get riled up about alot.

This is from a careers page:

"INTPs lack follow-through and this can isolate their ideas from practical examination. Their notions become over-intellectualized and too abstract to be of practical benefit"

Ah..I'd better go study for my finals tommorow o.O

[BigApplePi]

wadlez normal type, BAP bold, ashitaria red (I opened 2 tabs & copied to do this)

I think INTPS overall are terrible people for the following reasons:

1. They are very unsocial compared to other types.
1. INPTs are just introverted. Look at how sociable they are on this forum.
There[They're] too limited in the environments and relationships in which they'll come out of there[their] shell. Internet forums are good, but if this is the only place there[their] interacting then they are missing out on allot in life, these exchanges of text are very stunted compared to real interpersonal relationships.
But they aren't bad people aren't they? And while we may miss out on the social aspect of life, other people miss out on the thinking aspect of life that we experience. Lessons at school are very stunted compared to real thoughts and pondering.
INTPs can use the skills developed on a forum like this to gain confidence to exit their shells for real life.

2. They tend to have a bleak depressing view of reality (favour sad things).
2. Need evidence they would favor sad things over happy things. No part of I, N, T, or P points to that.
I searched for the intp type description which explains this but to no avail. Its not part of an individual function itself but rather an interaction of the constellation of functions which make intps typically bleak and depressed.
Not all INTPs are necessary depressed. There is alot of potential for depression, but most of us choose to overcome it. Like me, for example.
INTPs can feel badly if they envy social life. They do miss that. However they can learn to come out of their shell.

3. Their cold intellectual judgement strangles feeling out of situations, objects and life in general.
3. Feelings can be too forceful and crude. If INTPs look at things dispassionately, better a cool head to get at the truth.
Fine but what for? Everyone thinks were[we're] cold and we dont(/cant) participate with everyone else as we cant truely[truly] relate to them on there[their] level. What we gain works for us, but is terrible for everyone else, so is selfish. We break peoples wonderful experiences and objects into logical peices and then attempt to show them components and explain that theres nothing magical to it.
Yet we do not intentionally try to break people's experiences and in our minds we actually think we are doing them a favor because we feel the need to shake people into reality. And what we gain doesn't necessary work for us because some of us have a conscious. Just like there can be good ENTJs, there can be bad INTPs. And what is there for us to gain by shaking people into reality? We are definitely not shaking people into reality for our own sake.
Analysis does destroy. But it's only temporary. Things can be put back together again, only better.

4. Their preference to perceive rather that to judge and act makes them live overly in their subjective worlds and never actually act or make any impact, rendering them useless.
4. INTPs can't do everything. If INTPs lay it out there, then some J has to come along and get picky.
Most of the time we dont even express our ideas, we dont even care if other people get them or if there[they're] applied to anything. If we do end pushing them out onto reality in some form all we do is state the idea and expect it to be successful for its validity. No effort is made for how it is received and processed by any audience, then we get upset when there not accepted, taking this as further proof for the stupidity of man.
Ok, we are all guilty of this. Even I am guilty of this, and many of friends go, "What?" But not all of us take such as proof for the stupidity of man, and definitely not in my case. One of my principles is that all humans intellectually/ physically/ rightfully equal, and something that I get riled up about alot.
If INTPs fail to choose they must expect indifference by others. To think otherwise could be stupid. INTPs can use their thinking ability to RATE their values so a choice is made afterall.

This is from a careers page:

"INTPs lack follow-through and this can isolate their ideas from practical examination. Their notions become over-intellectualized and too abstract to be of practical benefit"
If INTPs are guilty of this, then they can follow their theorizing with CONCRETE examples provided they label them as such. J's would not be so kind.

[ashitaria]

D:

We need more people to go against us.

D:

[BigApplePi]

D:

We need more people to go against us.

D:
Is that another debating issue? If so, no reason why more than one issue can't be going, lol.

Counter argument:

If the new debaters are xxxJ's they will won't get the picture.
If the new debaters are xSxx's they will snarf things up.
If the new debaters are ExFx's they will be too touchy-feelie.

If that was NOT another debating issue, pardon me ashitaria. We need more people like INTP's to carry on

[wadlez]

Good luck on your exams ashi.

I like how you have summarised the debate so far BAP, I get a strange 3d effect when I read the black writting under the red though, anyone else get this?

I would like to make the argument that INTP's are bad people firstly only compared to other types who set the standards (so there are more types above INTP's than below), and secondly that INTP's are considered bad in the same way you would consider a criminal a bad person, as compared to judging there thinking ability, skills etc.

But they aren't bad people aren't they? And while we may miss out on the social aspect of life, other people miss out on the thinking aspect of life that we experience. Lessons at school are very stunted compared to real thoughts and pondering.


The thinking aspect of life is purely subjective and applys only to the inner world of the INTP, so this creative thinking is unseen to everyone else and produces little fruit because we dont care for practical application. We are selfish because we develop this function in exchange for the social aspect of life which can be experienced by everyone.


INTPs can use the skills developed on a forum like this to gain confidence to exit their shells for real life.

I dont think it will be enough because we are making the choice to stay in our shells.

Not all INTPs are necessary depressed. There is alot of potential for depression, but most of us choose to overcome it. Like me, for example.

INTPs can feel badly if they envy social life. They do miss that. However they can learn to come out of their shell.

The self concept of an INTP which is created as the result of there adaptation to life (Thinking), has them think of them selves as outsiders (as they are). They also have a preference for strange ideas and uniqueness which exacerbates this. Being outsiders and generally not included in the average persons groups and activitys leaves them bitter and is a constant source of anxiety (whether they choose this lifestyle or not). This can lead to depression, but even if it doesnt go that far you will find INTPS generally have a preference for sad things.

Yet we do not intentionally try to break people's experiences and in our minds we actually think we are doing them a favor because we feel the need to shake people into reality. And what we gain doesn't necessary work for us because some of us have a conscious. Just like there can be good ENTJs, there can be bad INTPs. And what is there for us to gain by shaking people into reality? We are definitely not shaking people into reality for our own sake.
Analysis does destroy. But it's only temporary. Things can be put back together again, only better.

But we cant help but not be taken in by the flow, stand off to the side and analyse them. Whether we deliberately tell them or not we still dont contribute and help the situation. We run counter to the flow of this energy everyone feels, were like the cold reminder of reality that nobody wants or needs.

Ok, we are all guilty of this. Even I am guilty of this, and many of friends go, "What?" But not all of us take such as proof for the stupidity of man, and definitely not in my case. One of my principles is that all humans intellectually/ physically/ rightfully equal, and something that I get riled up about alot.
If INTPs fail to choose they must expect indifference by others. To think otherwise could be stupid. INTPs can use their thinking ability to RATE their values so a choice is made afterall.

The stupidity of man thing Is a trap that I have observed many rational types fall into (including me). Its not truely rational but is logic distorted to make us feel of value when were so differnent and ostracised by all those around us. Despite this, on the whole many INTPS do this so is a good argument for why INTPS are bad people.

And the choice is often not to assert ourselves or our ideas and opinions which makes us just stand off embittered with out truely expressing and sharing our minds with anyone.

[BigApplePi]

wadlez normal type, BAP bold, new BAP orange.

I would like to make the argument that INTP's are bad people firstly only compared to other types who set the standards (so there are more types above INTP's than below), and secondly that INTP's are considered bad in the same way you would consider a criminal a bad person, as compared to judging there thinking ability, skills etc.

Quote:
INTPs can use the skills developed on a forum like this to gain confidence to exit their shells for real life.
I dont think it will be enough because we are making the choice to stay in our shells.

INTPs can progress as they gain experience. INTPs are open and won't make that firm a choice. They can learn social skills, learn how to choose, learn how to handle their feelings. They can always keep INTP as their home base.

________________________________

INTPs can feel badly if they envy social life. They do miss that. However they can learn to come out of their shell.
The self concept of an INTP which is created as the result of there[their] adaptation to life (Thinking), has them think of them selves as outsiders (as they are). They also have a preference for strange ideas and uniqueness which exacerbates this. Being outsiders and generally not included in the average persons groups and activitys leaves them bitter and is a constant source of anxiety (whether they choose this lifestyle or not). This can lead to depression, but even if it doesnt go that far you will find INTPS generally have a preference for sad things.
INTPs can still concentrate on reality with a move toward learning and improving things. While INTPs can suffer isolation due to their unique indulgences in thinking, they can try to take every opportunity to experience the outside world. If thinking is not as good as feeling in making contact with people, they can make a self conscious effort to practice empathy even if it is in (e.g. you may not care I just used 4 2 letter ix words in a row.) passing. That way they can share the joy that is in the outside world.

_____________________________________

Yet we do not intentionally try to break people's experiences and in our minds we actually think we are doing them a favor because we feel the need to shake people into reality. And what we gain doesn't necessary work for us because some of us have a conscious. Just like there can be good ENTJs, there can be bad INTPs. And what is there for us to gain by shaking people into reality? We are definitely not shaking people into reality for our own sake.
Analysis does destroy. But it's only temporary. Things can be put back together again, only better.
But we cant help but not be taken in by the flow, stand off to the side and analyse them. Whether we deliberately tell them or not we still dont contribute and help the situation. We run counter to the flow of this energy everyone feels, were like the cold reminder of reality that nobody wants or needs.
In that case we must use our observational skills to note where the flow is going. It's a constant battle of self-indulgence versus others wishes. Sometimes others do falls short though. If our observations don't help we must observe that and use what we see to correct the situation.

______________________________________

If INTPs fail to choose they must expect indifference by others. To think otherwise could be stupid. INTPs can use their thinking ability to RATE their values so a choice is made afterall.
The stupidity of man thing Is a trap that I have observed many rational types fall into (including me). Its not truly rational but is logic distorted to make us feel of value when were[we're] so different and ostracised by all those around us. Despite this, on the whole many INTPS do this so is a good argument for why INTPS are bad people.

And the choice is often not to assert ourselves or our ideas and opinions which makes us just stand off embittered with out truely expressing and sharing our minds with anyone.
Didn't the ancient Greeks have a saying, "Everything in moderation"? If so, we can look at ESFJs and see how they are. "Stupidity" is an emotional term. Ignorance is more objective. Seems to me INTPs are no more terrible than ESFJs because we all go too far to one extreme.

[BigApplePi]

wadlez. Now that we have established(?) that you, me and ashitaria have won the "INTP's are bad people" debate, is there another debate in the offing? Your call.

[ashitaria]

Is Jesin guilty? What measures of actions should we present for Jesin? Should we reinstate him as an administrator?

[BigApplePi]

Is Jesin guilty? What measures of actions should we present for Jesin? Should we reinstate him as an administrator?

Hi ashitaria. Sorry you had a bad day when the system was down.

I don't quite recall but think Claverhouse said they WOULD reinstate him but without admin privileges. I'd like to see that happen as then he could offer a first hand explanation without us guessing. What I find a pity is that his posts were deleted. If he was just banned and his posts remained, we could read them for evidence of an impending change of attitude. Also who is this guy "FACE" who some think is guilty? Where is his account?

[ashitaria]

Hi ashitaria. Sorry you had a bad day when the system was down.
That? Nah...that was a mock rant. Meant it in jest. But the debate that's going on it that thread- that's the real one.
I don't quite recall but think Claverhouse said they WOULD reinstate him but without admin privileges. I'd like to see that happen as then he could offer a first hand explanation without us guessing. What I find a pity is that his posts were deleted. If he was just banned and his posts remained, we could read them for evidence of an impending change of attitude. Also who is this guy "FACE" who some think is guilty? Where is his account?
Check the crime and punishment sub-forum. I have already read up on face, it seems he was banned. Currently though, I'm too busy to go debating here when there's another debate else where.

Sorry.

[Hawkeye]

Hi ashitaria. Sorry you had a bad day when the system was down.

I don't quite recall but think Claverhouse said they WOULD reinstate him but without admin privileges. I'd like to see that happen as then he could offer a first hand explanation without us guessing. What I find a pity is that his posts were deleted. If he was just banned and his posts remained, we could read them for evidence of an impending change of attitude. Also who is this guy "FACE" who some think is guilty? Where is his account?

Face (Facetious Persona) was amazing. Face had the ability to annoy most people. This provided amusement for me. :D

The same goes with XIII although the denial of what he was doing was rather silly.

[wadlez]

Sorry I havent posted for a while, that whole forum being attacked thing spun me out. I thought I had forgot the correct password for my account, then the only one room thing, had no idea.

I give up, Its very hard to argue that INTP's are bad people when I dont actually believe this. Good work BAP and ashi.

Lets move on to another debate, subjects anyone?

[BigApplePi]

Face (Facetious Persona) was amazing. Face had the ability to annoy most people. This provided amusement for me. :D

The same goes with XIII although the denial of what he was doing was rather silly.
It's easy to annoy people -- just go against their wishes. The question is, is this a good idea?

[BigApplePi]

Sorry I havent posted for a while, that whole forum being attacked thing spun me out. I thought I had forgot the correct password for my account, then the only one room thing, had no idea.

I give up, Its very hard to argue that INTP's are bad people when I dont actually believe this. Good work BAP and ashi.

Lets move on to another debate, subjects anyone?

Hi wadlez. I can sympathize. I wondered if my ability to create a new thread got damaged. I tried and it doesn't work for me. I'll try again later.

Anyway you put up a very good debate. Debating brings out the points. If yer interested in another debate we could go to the previous list. If you like, you can stick ME with which side you wish, lol.

[NothingTodo]

After looking at this thread i concluded i will stand no chance debating with any of you.

Rip Self esteem:segen:

[echoplex]

My submission that Life is good still stands. I think it's an important debate, because it's sort of the axiom of so many moral arguments. Like the gun argument -- it's assumed that life is something worth saving, and cases of deaths are often cited as evidence supporting either position. But what if someone believes that, well, life kinda sucks? Would be interesting.

Read: I made an earlier post that was ignored and I'm kinda pissed. :p

[wadlez]

Ok I'll take the debate that life is good, I'll be opposing.

Anyone else can begin

[BigApplePi]

Ok I'll take the debate that life is good, I'll be opposing.

Anyone else can begin
Okay. Life is good because you get to do a lot of stuff.

[wadlez]

Whether life is good or not is completely subjective to each individual, hugh hefner has a good life, a starving POW does not.
So whether life is good or not would have to be a collective overall opinion, like a vote from each person to decide. Since we cannot get this vote the debate will have to be over what the result of such a tally would be.
Immediately I see a bias in the scores if we only take into account the opinions of those people who are still alive, as many people who think life sucks and would definately vote for Not have killed themselves. So all people currently alive and who have ever lived each get one vote.
Another problem arises in the time of life in which they vote, someone at a high point of there life would vote Yes, while on a low would vote Not. We cannot say each votes just before they die as they would be biased towards Not.
So I think the best way to judge someones opinion on whether life is Good or Not is to weigh the time they think life is good against the time they say it is bad, and the greater side gets the vote.

Can we agree to this?

[BigApplePi]

Whether life is good or not is completely subjective to each individual, hugh hefner has a good life, a starving POW does not.
So whether life is good or not would have to be a collective overall opinion, like a vote from each person to decide. Since we cannot get this vote the debate will have to be over what the result of such a tally would be.
Immediately I see a bias in the scores if we only take into account the opinions of those people who are still alive, as many people who think life sucks and would definately vote for Not have killed themselves. So all people currently alive and who have ever lived each get one vote.
Another problem arises in the time of life in which they vote, someone at a high point of there life would vote Yes, while on a low would vote Not. We cannot say each votes just before they die as they would be biased towards Not.
So I think the best way to judge someones opinion on whether life is Good or Not is to weigh the time they think life is good against the time they say it is bad, and the greater side gets the vote.

Can we agree to this?

So I feel okay now and had a tummy ache yesterday, but there was a time my life was woo-woo ecstatic and a time it was utterly miserable. How do I decide some overall? Also if a general population count is to be taken, how do we rate the misery of untold starving billions and enslaved peoples or those living in poverty against those in high living western countries? I would hate to have this turn into a statistical problem. I'd look into rephrasing the topic. Make it more subjective.

[Kellhus]

Anything you want, I'll take the opposing view
Altruism, It is impossible. Debate?

[wadlez]

So I feel okay now and had a tummy ache yesterday, but there was a time my life was woo-woo ecstatic and a time it was utterly miserable. How do I decide some overall? Also if a general population count is to be taken, how do we rate the misery of untold starving billions and enslaved peoples or those living in poverty against those in high living western countries? I would hate to have this turn into a statistical problem. I'd look into rephrasing the topic. Make it more subjective.

The misery of untold starving billions and enslaved people would have to be taken into account, thats why I think its safe to say that life is overall bad.

Altruism, It is impossible. Debate?

Instead of rephrasing the good or bad life debate to make it more subjective we could just debate this instead.

If agreed I'll take the side it is not impossible.

[ashitaria]

Sorry I've been gone a few days guys. What are we debating now? *goes up and searches for topic*

[ashitaria]

Okay. Life is good because you get to do a lot of stuff.

Depends on what stuff you are limited to doing. Life would not be good if you were only limited to do let's say stupid stuff. It really is all relative (I should put this is my sig!). If you were allowed to do whatever the hell you want, perhaps life would be good, but then it's all relative again because rich people who have the power and resources to bail their ass out of court can do whatever they want, and it is proven that they are not the most happiest people in life, especially when regarding that even if get to do anything you want, you can't necessary gain the more precious things like love. You can do someone, but you can't make that person love you. Of course, if you don't give a crap about love and friendship and purpose in life, that's a different story altogether....

[BigApplePi]

Depends on what stuff you are limited to doing. Life would not be good if you were only limited to do let's say stupid stuff. It really is all relative (I should put this is my sig!). If you were allowed to do whatever the hell you want, perhaps life would be good, but then it's all relative again because rich people who have the power and resources to bail their ass out of court can do whatever they want, and it is proven that they are not the most happiest people in life, especially when regarding that even if get to do anything you want, you can't necessary gain the more precious things like love. You can do someone, but you can't make that person love you. Of course, if you don't give a crap about love and friendship and purpose in life, that's a different story altogether....
Well there is a lot of stuff out there and it a matter of looking it over, selecting some and tossing the other. Wealth is not everything if that gives you too many choices but poverty is too restrictive so one needs to build up against that.

Stupid stuff is okay if you can recognize it as stupid. Then you can control it as long as it doesn't control you.

Love is something you can't force outta people. Better to go where there is love. That's the advantage of having a lotta stuffin' time.

[ashitaria]

Well there is a lot of stuff out there and it a matter of looking it over, selecting some and tossing the other. Wealth is not everything if that gives you too many choices but poverty is too restrictive so one needs to build up against that.

Yet there are some things that life limits you from doing. If for example, you're wealthy and you're not healthy, how can lowering your status makes you happier? If Life is all about doing stuff, it's not necessarily a happy life, though it is to some people.

Stupid stuff is okay if you can recognize it as stupid. Then you can control it as long as it doesn't control you.

Anyone can recognize stupid stuff, anyone can control stupid stuff, but in the end, genius intelligence (which by itself can spark another debate) does not give you everything life has to offer.

Love is something you can't force outta people. Better to go where there is love. That's the advantage of having a lotta stuffin' time.

It doesn't mean that people in a community who share lots of love will include you in their love. It is possible though, there are certain communities who will shower kindness on you like flowers, but love out of kindness and love out of intimacy are two very different things. And love out of intimacy is something I have yet to experience....-_-

Yayz!

[Anling]

We're not bad, but if the world came to an end it would likely be an INTP's fault.

That sounds like a fun experiment to be involved in. Certainly an exciting result for the theory tested. Perhaps we just need to learn to test our theories from space so that if we cause the end of the world we can continue on with the theorizing.

[EloquentBohemian]

Altruism, It is impossible. Debate?
Impossible.
The definition of altruism is:
the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of othersWhen one decides that one shall act in a way labeled 'altruistic', it is a decision made by one's self and therefore done for a reason or reasons of and for one's self. There is a motive of the self prompted by the reason or reasons for one to actions labeled 'altruistic'. This motive supplies a feeling to the self, such as satisfaction, piety, goodness, self-gratification, etc., in other words, a 'reward' to the self for acting in an altruistic way.

One cannot disengage the feelings toward one's self from the act engaged in. In acts labeled 'altruistic', there are feelings regarding one's actions which arise and cannot be dismissed. To act in an altruistic way, one would have to completely disregard one's own feelings and the impact of one's actions on one's self, in other words, be completely detached from one's self.

[BigApplePi]

Impossible.
The definition of altruism is:
When one decides that one shall act in a way labeled 'altruistic', it is a decision made by one's self and therefore done for a reason or reasons of and for one's self. There is a motive of the self prompted by the reason or reasons for one to actions labeled 'altruistic'. This motive supplies a feeling to the self, such as satisfaction, piety, goodness, self-gratification, etc., in other words, a 'reward' to the self for acting in an altruistic way.

One cannot disengage the feelings toward one's self from the act engaged in. In acts labeled 'altruistic', there are feelings regarding one's actions which arise and cannot be dismissed. To act in an altruistic way, one would have to completely disregard one's own feelings and the impact of one's actions on one's self, in other words, be completely detached from one's self.

How would one place a mother who seeing her child ready to drown, jumps in the river to toss her baby ashore only to be swept away herself?

How would we explain a research physician who not being allowed to use human guinea pigs, injects himself with a test serum knowing the outcome is unlikely to be good?

[EloquentBohemian]

How would one place a mother who seeing her child ready to drown, jumps in the river to toss her baby ashore only to be swept away herself?
Parents of children, whether human or otherwise, will sacrifice themselves for their children; as example, birds which will fake injury on the ground in the presence of a predator in order to distract the predator from the nest.
This is not altruistic, rather it points toward the survival of the species, not a selfless choice.

How would we explain a research physician who not being allowed to use human guinea pigs, injects himself with a test serum knowing the outcome is unlikely to be good?Though I would suspect this would be a rare case, a scientist pursues certain research to achieve results or to discover a solution. Logically, if the achievement or solution requires that human testing would be the only path and the only human available is the scientist himself, then self-injection is a necessity. The scientist does not do this purely from an altruistic standpoint, rather it is a logical choice in the continuation of the specific research.

[BigApplePi]

Parents of children, whether human or otherwise, will sacrifice themselves for their children; as example, birds which will fake injury on the ground in the presence of a predator in order to distract the predator from the nest.
This is not altruistic, rather it points toward the survival of the species, not a selfless choice.

Though I would suspect this would be a rare case, a scientist pursues certain research to achieve results or to discover a solution. Logically, if the achievement or solution requires that human testing would be the only path and the only human available is the scientist himself, then self-injection is a necessity. The scientist does not do this purely from an altruistic standpoint, rather it is a logical choice in the continuation of the specific research.

Was your original topic the existence of altruism? This statement doesn't answer what you just said, but it seems you have defined altruism so it doesn't exist by always ascribing motives to selfish ends.

To what you said -- The mother still sacrificed herself regardless of some "survival of the species" internal force.

The researcher risks his health to further the research which also relates to survival of the species. He may also have the self-interest of recognition for a discovery, but that doesn't negate the chance he's taking in his chosen altruistic field.

If your point is self-interest is always involved, I'd have to say yes. The mom is satisfying her desires.

[BigApplePi]

I will debate the opposite of this:
"My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image to be servants of their human interests."

(I found this as EloquentBohemian (http://www.intpforum.com/member.php?u=702)'s line)

I say denying such a god (God) won't work.

[Hawkeye]

I will debate the opposite of this:
"My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image to be servants of their human interests."

(I found this as EloquentBohemian (http://www.intpforum.com/member.php?u=702)'s line)

I say denying such a god (God) won't work.


That also isn't atheism.

[BigApplePi]

That also isn't atheism.
Hawkeye. Maybe the statements are too convoluted so I'm not sure what isn't atheism.

[Hawkeye]

Hawkeye. Maybe the statements are too convoluted so I'm not sure what isn't atheism.

My apologies. I did try to make the bit I was referring to stand out by making it bold but alas, it failed.

I was referring to this

"My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image to be servants of their human interests."It isn't Atheism. It's Adevism (the denial of legendary or popular gods).

[BigApplePi]

My apologies. I did try to make the bit I was referring to stand out by making it bold but alas, it failed.

I was referring to this

It isn't Atheism. It's Adevism (the denial of legendary or popular gods).

Well maybe we'll have to see what eloquent_bohemian is after. I assumed he wanted to call Spinoza's Pantheism atheism whether it is or not. If the issue isn't resolved I may have to withdraw and have you take over, lol.

[EloquentBohemian]

It isn't Atheism. It's Adevism (the denial of legendary or popular gods).
Actually, Adevism is Atheism...

Adevism (from the Sanskrit term deva, on the analogy of atheism) is a term introduced by Friedrich Max Müller to imply the denial of gods: in particular, the legendary gods of Hinduism. Müller used it in the Gifford Lectures in connection with the Vedanta philosophy, for the correlative of ignorance or nescience. In modern contexts it is rarely found, though it is sometimes used to represent a disbelief in any gods, contrasted with a specific disbelief in the Judaeo-Christian God.
(source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adevism))Well maybe we'll have to see what eloquent_bohemian is after. I assumed he wanted to call Spinoza's Pantheism atheism whether it is or not. If the issue isn't resolved I may have to withdraw and have you take over, lol.
The quote in my signature is by George Santayana, not Spinoza.
Santayana was a philosophical atheist who preferred to refer to himself as an 'aesthetic Catholic', though his philosophical views were atheistic. Santayana was a materialist and a naturalist, but referred to Spinoza in this quote to illustrate the creation of "gods fashioned by men in their own image to be servants of their human interests".

Spinoza considered God or Nature as two words for the same thing - everything.

“That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists” (Ethics, Part IV, Preface)He sets this out in his Propositions in Part One of his Ethics:

Proposition 1: A substance is prior in nature to its affections.
Proposition 2: Two substances having different attributes have nothing in common with one another.
Proposition 3: If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot be the cause of the other.
Proposition 4: Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another, either by a difference in the attributes.
Proposition 5: In nature, there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.
Proposition 6: One substance cannot be produced by another substance.
Proposition 7: It pertains to the nature of a substance to exist.
Proposition 8: Every substance is necessarily infinite.
Proposition 9: The more reality or being each thing has, the more attributes belong to it.
Proposition 10: Each attribute of a substance must be conceived through itself.
Proposition 11: God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists.
Proposition 12: No attribute of a substance can be truly conceived from which it follows that the substance can be divided.
Proposition 13: A substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible.
Proposition 14: Except God, no substance can be or be conceived.
(source (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNat))To summarize:
This proof that God—an infinite, necessary and uncaused, indivisible being—is the only substance of the universe proceeds in three simple steps. First, establish that no two substances can share an attribute or essence (Ip5). Then, prove that there is a substance with infinite attributes (i.e., God) (Ip11). It follows, in conclusion, that the existence of that infinite substance precludes the existence of any other substance. For if there were to be a second substance, it would have to have some attribute or essence. But since God has all possible attributes, then the attribute to be possessed by this second substance would be one of the attributes already possessed by God. But it has already been established that no two substances can have the same attribute. Therefore, there can be, besides God, no such second substance.
(source (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNat))Santayana characterized Spinoza as his “master and model” in understanding the naturalistic basis of morality. ( Persons and Places, p.233–36)
Therefore, the quote from Santayana echos, but is not exactly the same as (his use of the word 'like' in the quote) Spinoza in that there can be no god(s) which are separate beings (supernatural) from existence itself (nature), of which the Abrahamic god is.

The term panentheism ("all in God") was not used by Spinoza, rather it created by the Karl Krause in 1828 when he was trying to reconcile monotheism and pantheism. (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism#Development_of_a_formal_philosophy))

[BigApplePi]

After looking over all that, I'm inclined to say there are too many things going on at once in one post. If there is to be any debate we might begin with selecting and identifying one thing. Whenever there is a debate each party may have different goals. Mine is to clarify ideas. I don't favor packaging ideas into people though many do, if that makes any sense.

The one thing which drew my interest was, "denies only gods fashioned by men." I wish to deny such denial.

[Hawkeye]

Actually, Adevism is Atheism...


It isn't. Adevism is a special subsection of Atheism. This is important because it allows for something that Atheism does not.

Atheism is the disbelief in God i.e. any god what-so-ever (which includes the idea of God contained in your signature.) Adevism does not dismiss the existance of God only the gods as we know them.

Piety and Atheism do not mix at all. However, you can be a pious adevist.


Therefore, it is not Atheism but Adevism :p

[edit]

I got this (http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPNATR&Volume=0&Issue=0&ArticleID=11) from the first reference off the wikipedia source you posted

The same doubt as to the real existence of such gods as Indra, that had grown into impossible beings by the accumulation of all kinds of misunderstood legends about them, occurs again and again in Indian literature. But we must remember that to doubt or to deny the existence of Indra or of Jupiter is not Atheism, but should be distinguished by a separate name, namely Adevism. The early Christians were called ἄθϵοι, because they did not believe as the Greeks believed nor as the Jews believed. Spinoza was called an atheist, because his concept of God was wider than that of Jehovah; the Reformers were called atheists, because they would not deify the mother of Christ nor worship the Saints. This is not Atheism in the true sense of the word, and if an historical study of religion had taught us that one lesson only, that those who do not believe in our God are not therefore to be called Atheists, it would have done some real good, and extinguished the fires of many an auto da fe.

[EloquentBohemian]

I'm not here to argue over the finer points of a quote in my signature. I would rather debate the question of 'altruism', but that seems to be derailed.

[BigApplePi]

I'm not here to argue over the finer points of a quote in my signature. I would rather debate the question of 'altruism', but that seems to be derailed.

EB here was a leaving off point: Re: Debate me (http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=156732#post156732)

BTW, I'm not against looking at "finer points" in general because sometimes they reveal something but that's just me. Looking at overall points is good also.

[Hawkeye]

I'm not here to argue over the finer points of a quote in my signature. I would rather debate the question of 'altruism', but that seems to be derailed.

I will stop. ;)

Anyways... It was your turn to continue the debate of altruism. :p

[spoirier]

Some aspect of my worldview (more easily undestandable than infoliberalism) is presented there (http://singlesunion.info/creed.htm) (you can also see other texts of the same site for further remarks) Can anyone oppose it ?

[Hawkeye]

Some aspect of my worldview (more easily undestandable than infoliberalism) is presented there (http://singlesunion.info/creed.htm) (you can also see other texts of the same site for further remarks) Can anyone oppose it ?

I oppose your fourth level of hell.

The fourth hell is the eternel hell of loneliness (to have no love for many years, and to not succeed to find one).There are those who do not seek a companion by choice. I would hardly say they feel damned and suffer from this way of living. Infact, I find it ironic because the people who do this are often the most devouted to holy scriptures and faiths.

You also imply true love which doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks that there is only one companion for them in this world lives an incredibly sheltered life.



There is no real goal to life other than to exist. Any other goals are merely fabricated by men themselves in order to entertain the mind. If we were all nihilists for example we'd get nowhere. Nihilism whilst probably the dullest way of existing is probably the most accurate. Of course we as a species can not accept this and so we hope that there is something much greater.

It works up until the point we die. In death we lose all that we are and so the reason for existence becomes void. There is no afterlife we simply end. I have no proof of this of course but basing it on reality I deem it the most probable outcome. Which is sad because I like existing. I wouldn't even complain if I were wrong on this!

To praise those who are getting married, possibly to worship God when it happens, and anyway to make a party for them; to sing songs in praise for the joy of loveWhat if the marriage wasn't meant to be like it was mentioned near the top of the link. Surely you are praising God over a lie and this would count as a sin and so you shall be going to hell whilst the couple remain in limbo.

To tax the singles more than the married peoplepolitics shouldn't come into a religion.

The sin of being actively searching for love (as the creators of the world don't want competitors, but only to be accepted by their possible matches they hunt for) I think you should think really carefully about this one. You may have never existed if this was a sin. Also you'd be surprised how many relationships would never happen if this were the case.

The sin of being generally unhappy and complaining, so that no disagreement with the general (dis)order of the world can ever be accepted or justified;This will never ever happen. EVER... Even if you cloned yourself you'd still have disagreements.




This morality system is moreover completed by the following rules:

selfishness (because they are caring about their own siutation and not about the interest of their future lovers)This entire system relies on selfishness because you have to ignore everyone elses problems just to be save you are getting into heaven. It's a paradox.


I'd go on but it gets worse further down the page...

I totally oppose it! :p

[BigApplePi]

Some aspect of my worldview (more easily undestandable than infoliberalism) is presented there (http://singlesunion.info/creed.htm) (you can also see other texts of the same site for further remarks) Can anyone oppose it ?

I'm a little lost. Do you still wish anyone to debate what is on your website marked, "there"? I would do so, but where would you like me to start as it is long? At the beginning? How far into it?