Do you admire intelligent or kind people more?

[Grayman]

You need to learn to know when to shut up.

You keep making things worse for yourself.

That wasn't directed at you, since you obviously decided to mock me back there, overtly.

It seems you can't stop either, like a child with no self-control. Instead of facing your mistake, you choose to deny it, thus repeat it.

Sensitive?

Yes, that is a compliment. You are entirely insensitive. Nothing to be proud of.

Just taking my part of the onus. I know your ego won't let you take your part but that's okay.

 

[Rixus]

Isn't this like a question on the MBTI test? Would you rather your kids be successful or kind?

I usually say I admire intelligent people more. But, really, my answer is that it's not that simple. Intelligence without any kindness is basically psychopathic. Kindness without intelligence is uselessly naive. You need a balance of both to know how to use either effectively.

My own stance is that I've seen enough shitiness in the world that there's no need to add to it. Might as well try to counter it with a bit of good when it's within my power.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Grayshit thinks having an ego means not allowing people to shit on you.

According to this moron, one ought to allow people to shit on them, and not only that, one ought to take pleasure in the act.

If they respond negatively to being shat on, they are "angry" or "sensitive".

This is how one removes the ego.

Grayshit has succeeded in this a long time ago, and thus, cannot understand why someone else wouldn't love to be shat on as he does.

 

[Sinny91]

MOAR!

 

[Grayman]

Grayshit thinks having an ego means not allowing people to shit on you.

According to this moron, one ought to allow people to shit on them, and not only that, one ought to take pleasure in the act.

If they respond negatively to being shat on, they are "angry" or "sensitive".

This is how one removes the ego.

Grayshit has succeeded in this a long time ago, and thus, cannot understand why someone else wouldn't love to be shat on as he does.

 

[Rixus]

Actually, your Ego is the reasonable level headed part that makes decisions. Super-ego is your selfless side, and Id is the totally selfless side.

I wonder how it came to be how people refer to a person arrogance and pride. I normally love how meanings of words change.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Just taking my part of the onus. I know your ego won't let you take your part but that's okay.

stop baiting him/her

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Grayman, you have such an ugly personality. Victimising with cruelty and patience and you could stop at any time as you were in control of the conversation. It was clear he couldn't take your criticism.

Anyway, it's a good lesson for Pressure Spring to heed his own advice and respect others the way he wants himself to be respected.
---
I admire good will and fair ethical relations.

Intelligence is a neutral tool, it makes success more likely in anything it's applied to. Including bullying children on the internet it seems.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

He knows very well that I will react to him, so he baits, and this gives him the impression that he has power, a sense of control.

He gets a sense of satisfaction every time he thinks he has pinched a nerve, which he hasn't.

The reality is that his "bait" is childish and pathetic, and does nothing but reveal how shameless he is.

It is painful to witness.

There was never any criticism to begin with, what there was, was an unresolved grudge, and impulsivity.

As for any accusations of bullying children, one simply ought to refer to that thread, and it should be clear that there was no malintention.

There was a lack of context and a position that was asserted which had to be managed appropriately with the input of new information.

 

[Tannhauser]

If you get worked up over that, then he is in control, and you should really do some introspection to consider how severely frail your ego is and how easily you allow outside forces to control your emotions.

If anything, you should thank Grayman for revealing this side about you. Your behavior is kinda bizarre.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

i admire and respect kindness more
also im dumb so i always find intelligence awe-inspiring...even when cold and toxic

 

[Pressure's Spring]

When somebody attacks you, and you respond, this is not "getting worked up".

It is called self-defense.

It is a very adequate measure to take, whether or not emotions are stimulated. If they are, there is nothing wrong with this, being lethargic is not healthy.

My responses are based in reason (with controlled emotion), while his responses were emotional (actually, I believe he had to numb his emotions to follow through with his insensitive actions.)

These accusations of frailty are merely methods at getting people to disarm theirselves, to numb their emotions (which is frailty, in the true sense.)



Who cares if somebody is in control?

What matters is who is being just.

When a man assaults an animal, and the animal suffers, the man is in control, and the animal is not.

Are you saying that the man is good simply because he is in control?

Do we ask the animal to give thanks to his abuser for revealing its weakness?

Of-course not, what we do, is punish the abuser.

Not to mention, he was not in control of my emotions (there was certainly nothing close to a "rage response" which Lagomorph and others seem to believe) he was making a fool of himself, whereas I was obligated to my self to respond to his attacks (I could have easily ignored it, but I do not believe this is the correct response.)

I believe this is the right thing to do.

His continued attacks did not stimulate any insecurity, rather, it stimulated pain and disgust for having to perceive such shamelessness. I take absolutely no pleasure in any of this, neither now, nor our previous conflict, while this insensitive bastard clearly does.

What is bizzare is how somebody would interpret all this as possessing a "severely frail ego".

 

[Rixus]

Not that I'm condoning any personal attacks, but in response to the self defence and reaction point - shouldn't we endeavour for our reactions to be proportional to the situation? I mean, metaphorically, if a person punches you it's justifiable to stop them by blocking, pushing them over, perhaps even hitting them back. But not to smash a bottle and stab them in a blind rage. To not respect people's feelings is insensitive, but perhaps "sensitive" could be described as a disproportionate reaction. Or one perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being so.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Sinny91]

Actually, your Ego is the reasonable level headed part that makes decisions. Super-ego is your selfless side, and Id is the totally selfless side.

I wonder how it came to be how people refer to a person arrogance and pride. I normally love how meanings of words change.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Id totally selfless? Dont you mean selfish?

 

[Rixus]

Sorry, yes. I meant selfish. Phone autocorrect and trying to post while making dinner.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Tannhauser]

When somebody attacks you, and you respond, this is not "getting worked up".

It is called self-defense.

It is a very adequate measure to take, whether or not emotions are stimulated. If they are, there is nothing wrong with this, being lethargic is not healthy.

My responses are based in reason (with controlled emotion), while his responses were emotional (actually, I believe he had to numb his emotions to follow through with his insensitive actions.)

These accusations of frailty are merely methods at getting people to disarm theirselves, to numb their emotions (which is frailty, in the true sense.)



Who cares if somebody is in control?

What matters is who is being just.

When a man assaults an animal, and the animal suffers, the man is in control, and the animal is not.

Are you saying that the man is good simply because he is in control?

Do we ask the animal to give thanks to his abuser for revealing its weakness?

Of-course not, what we do, is punish the abuser.

Not to mention, he was not in control of my emotions (there was certainly nothing close to a "rage response" which Lagomorph and others seem to believe) he was making a fool of himself, whereas I was obligated to my self to respond to his attacks (I could have easily ignored it, but I do not believe this is the correct response.)

I believe this is the right thing to do.

His continued attacks did not stimulate any insecurity, rather, it stimulated pain and disgust for having to perceive such shamelessness. I take absolutely no pleasure in any of this, neither now, nor our previous conflict, while this insensitive bastard clearly does.

What is bizzare is how somebody would interpret all this as possessing a "severely frail ego".

When you responded with "Go fuck yourself, Grayshit" at some point, that is evidence that you either don't understand that such a thing is unacceptable, or you were unable to control your emotions. It is not "lethargic" to abstain from stuff like that, it is what would be expected from an individual who is capable of differentiating between good and bad reasons to get emotional.

 

[Sinny91]

It's good to get mad. Its just another avenue. Another outlet. Let it all out

 

[Pressure's Spring]

He deserves far worse.

If somebody punches another, one has effectively placed the other in having to force themselves into defending himself, one violence stacked upon yet another, and another, and another. Consider the emotional pain, the self-violation, that occurs in having to abruptly stimulate this action of defense.

Think of what happens when somebody is attacked and mugged unjustly and consider the painful emotions that follow and subsist, for example, if one was not able to defend themselves.

Where is the justice for the rest of the violence?

There is no proportion, if somebody would simply reciprocate the attack, "an eye for an eye" is a superficial idea.

 

[Rixus]

But anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the dark side.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Rixus]

And eye for an eye is just blind vengeance. It means everyone would be blind. And I don't believe in vengeance, personally. I have found it unnecessary.

You are correct, though, attacking someone in the first place is usually unnecessary. Responding in this case, though, only escalates. And whereas I've ended an actual violent fight by simply catching a punch and trying to talk reasonably without either of us getting hurt, others respond with anger and more violence and both end up really hurt. I guess I'm kind of saying that usually diffusing is better than reacting with intense emotions. Not everyone can, in every situation, though. And metaphors are always easily broken down.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[QuickTwist]

This question is derived from this quote:

“When I was young, I used to admire intelligent people; as I grow older, I admire kind people.”
— Abraham Joshua Heschel

I encountered this quote when I was younger. At that time, I admired intelligent people. When I saw it, I wondered if I'd ever admire kind people. Recently, I realized that I'm starting to admire kind people more.


What about you?

I agree with both of you. Being smart doesn't mean you are a decent human being.

 

[Tannhauser]

He deserves far worse.

If somebody punches another, one has effectively placed the other in having to force themselves into defending himself, one violence stacked upon yet another, and another, and another. Consider the emotional pain, the self-violation, that occurs in having to abruptly stimulate this action of defense.

Think of what happens when somebody is attacked and mugged unjustly and consider the painful emotions that follow and subsist, for example, if one was not able to defend themselves.

Where is the justice for the rest of the violence?

There is no proportion, if somebody would simply reciprocate the attack, "an eye for an eye" is a superficial idea.

So supposedly it had something to do with morality... give me a break.

You're philosophizing your way into a pit of nonsense.

 

[Sinny91]

He deserves far worse.

If somebody punches another, one has effectively placed the other in having to force themselves into defending himself, one violence stacked upon yet another, and another, and another.

The last time somebody tried to punch me (not long ago) , I grabbed their arms, pinned them down, and told them resistance was futile.

Job done.

I agree, you give people too much power. Grant them none.

Consider the emotional pain, the self-violation, that occurs in having to abruptly stimulate this action of defense.

Or don't consider it and just push on!

Think of what happens when somebody is attacked and mugged unjustly and consider the painful emotions that follow and subsist, for example, if one was not able to defend themselves.

Why unable to defend? Anger, is what I'd be feeling, and at least it's a useful emotion in such a situation. Ill get my damn things back, what would you do? Cower in a corner?

Where is the justice for the rest of the violence?

You're right, I should thump that fucker back and that'll make them think twice next time.

There is no proportion, if somebody would simply reciprocate the attack, "an eye for an eye" is a superficial idea.

Turning the other cheek is a superficial idea.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

To Tannhauser,

I had already justified my insult on the first page (I disagree with your reasoning). Read the exchange from the beginning.

No, I am not. Tis' your problem if that's the way you perceive it.

I already dealt with your (false) criticism effectively in the post before that which is quoted.

No reason to derail this thread any longer, if all you want to do is say "that's nonsense" with nothing to back up the statement.




I agree, Sinny, turning the other cheek is far worse, and simply, when one is unable to defend oneself because of being overpowered.

Incidentally, I came across this recently:

https://www.facebook.com/AmentetNeferetEgyptianReligion/photos/a.513733448655373.130021.470588459636539/692580877437295/?type=3&theater

Yet, here we are, speaking of the great sin one has committed because one chose to respond to (admitted) malice with an insult.

Emotional this, emotional that...

Give me a break, Tannhauser.

 

[Tannhauser]

To Tannhauser,

I had already justified my insult on the first page (I disagree with your reasoning). Read the exchange from the beginning.

No, I am not. Tis' your problem if that's the way you perceive it.

I already dealt with your (false) criticism effectively in the post before that which is quoted.

No reason to derail this thread any longer, if all you want to do is say "that's nonsense" with nothing to back up the statement.




I agree, Sinny, turning the other cheek is far worse, and simply, when one is unable to defend oneself because of being overpowered.

Incidentally, I came across this recently:

https://www.facebook.com/AmentetNef...0588459636539/692580877437295/?type=3&theater

My point originally was that you are too reactive to bullshit. Now you are reacting even more by trying to defend your reaction. Grayman gave you a window into your own psyche and now you are missing out on it by coming up with all this gibberish philosophy about morality.

 

[Rixus]

The last time somebody tried to punch me (not long ago) , I grabbed their arms, pinned them down, and told them resistance was futile.

Situation handled perfectly.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Tannhauser says:

If you get worked up over that, then he is in control, and you should really do some introspection to consider how severely frail your ego is and how easily you allow outside forces to control your emotions.

If anything, you should thank Grayman for revealing this side about you. Your behavior is kinda bizarre.

I simply replied to these misperceptions.

If that bothers you, then, you should have remained silent.

In addition, Rixus asked a question to do with proportionality, I replied, before that, Lagomorph made a comment addressed to me, I replied.

Why? In order to clarify.

You are making no sense, the bias you are choosing to maintain is bizarre, it is as if, you just need to criticize for no good reason, just for the sake of it, because the impulse is there. I don't know. Maybe you are "buddies". I don't care.

Frankly, you are wasting my time.

This silly idea that, somehow, he gave me access to something I did not previously possess, when I had already outlined my beliefs, values, and reasoning beforehand.

My behaviour was predictable from the get-go; I explained how I would react in the face of this and that.

All he did was recognise that, and take advantage of it.

Playing with my boundaries as if I were a toy.

In addition, I was mostly offensive, not defensive, I recognised his (subtle) behaviour, what drove it, how it worked, and called him out on it.

For you, all he did was say a word or two, he remained brief and subtle, because it would work in his favor and fool others, but in reality, there was more going on.

I've dealt with his type too many times and it is right of me to wish to put an end to it.

 

[Hadoblado]

Actually, your Ego is the reasonable level headed part that makes decisions. Super-ego is your selfless side, and Id is the totally selfless side.

I wonder how it came to be how people refer to a person arrogance and pride. I normally love how meanings of words change.

The term 'ego' predates Freud.

When somebody attacks you, and you respond, this is not "getting worked up".

It is called self-defense.

It is a very adequate measure to take, whether or not emotions are stimulated. If they are, there is nothing wrong with this, being lethargic is not healthy.

My responses are based in reason (with controlled emotion), while his responses were emotional (actually, I believe he had to numb his emotions to follow through with his insensitive actions.)

These accusations of frailty are merely methods at getting people to disarm theirselves, to numb their emotions (which is frailty, in the true sense.)



Who cares if somebody is in control?

What matters is who is being just.

When a man assaults an animal, and the animal suffers, the man is in control, and the animal is not.

Are you saying that the man is good simply because he is in control?

Do we ask the animal to give thanks to his abuser for revealing its weakness?

Of-course not, what we do, is punish the abuser.

Not to mention, he was not in control of my emotions (there was certainly nothing close to a "rage response" which Lagomorph and others seem to believe) he was making a fool of himself, whereas I was obligated to my self to respond to his attacks (I could have easily ignored it, but I do not believe this is the correct response.)

I believe this is the right thing to do.

His continued attacks did not stimulate any insecurity, rather, it stimulated pain and disgust for having to perceive such shamelessness. I take absolutely no pleasure in any of this, neither now, nor our previous conflict, while this insensitive bastard clearly does.

What is bizzare is how somebody would interpret all this as possessing a "severely frail ego".

He deserves far worse.

If somebody punches another, one has effectively placed the other in having to force themselves into defending himself, one violence stacked upon yet another, and another, and another. Consider the emotional pain, the self-violation, that occurs in having to abruptly stimulate this action of defense.

Think of what happens when somebody is attacked and mugged unjustly and consider the painful emotions that follow and subsist, for example, if one was not able to defend themselves.

Where is the justice for the rest of the violence?

There is no proportion, if somebody would simply reciprocate the attack, "an eye for an eye" is a superficial idea.

Tannhauser says:


I simply replied to these misperceptions.

If that bothers you, then, you should have remained silent.

In addition, Rixus asked a question to do with proportionality, I replied, before that, Lagomorph made a comment addressed to me, I replied.

Why? In order to clarify.

You are making no sense, the bias you are choosing to maintain is bizarre, it is as if, you just need to criticize for no good reason, just for the sake of it, because the impulse is there. I don't know. Maybe you are "buddies". I don't care.

Frankly, you are wasting my time.

This silly idea that, somehow, he gave me access to something I did not previously possess, when I had already outlined my beliefs, values, and reasoning beforehand.

My behaviour was predictable from the get-go; I explained how I would react in the face of this and that.

All he did was recognise that, and take advantage of it.

Playing and testing with my boundaries as if I were a toy.

In addition, I was mostly offensive, not defensive, I recognised his (subtle) behaviour, what drove it, how it worked, and called him out on it.

For you, all he did was say a word or two, he remained brief and subtle, because it would work in his favor and fool others, but in reality, there was more going on.

I've dealt with his type too many times and it is right of me to wish to put an end to it.

The fact is, if you hadn't responded with an over-reaction, I'd have given Grayman a ban. As is, it'd be within reason to ban you both because you're both scuffling. I won't do that, because I feel as if this is a good learning moment, even if Grayman was being a twat in order to make it happen. This altercation just illustrated my point about how kindness pays better than retaliation. You're all worked up over an obvious troll. He wants you to get angry. Lex talionis does not deal well with trolls.

@Grayman
Consider yourself officially warned. The world doesn't need your 'lessons'. You may feel very clever right now but this is street level trolling and I don't have the patience for it. If you bully around at the community's expense there will be very few to speak for you come hammer time.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

You're a moderator then, yes?

Ok. I will take a risk and reply, not because I want to cause any disturbance, but, rather, in the hope your statement will be retracted, or otherwise proven to be unreasonable.

I will make it as simple as possible to avoid any provocations.

Here, I recognise Grayman's mal-intent early on in our exchange:

It's pretty clear that Grayshit has developed a grudge.

Here, I am proven correct, Grayman later on says:

Oh I was blatantly fucking with you.

Which, I believe, justifies the insult given to him beforehand that Tannhauser mentions and that will be addressed below.









Now, I am accused of over-reacting.

I do not believe this to be the case, let me demonstrate what an over-reaction really looks like:

If you get worked up over that, then he is in control, and you should really do some introspection to consider how severely frail your ego is and how easily you allow outside forces to control your emotions.

What were the grounds for such a strong accusation?

This was:

When you responded with "Go fuck yourself, Grayshit" at some point, that is evidence that you either don't understand that such a thing is unacceptable, or you were unable to control your emotions. It is not "lethargic" to abstain from stuff like that, it is what would be expected from an individual who is capable of differentiating between good and bad reasons to get emotional.

Notice how the judgment drops in harshness from "severely frail ego" to "unable to control your emotions," although one cannot be sure whether, in Tannhauser's mind, losing control over one's emotions is equal to saying "fuck yourself" which is equal to possessing a severely frail ego, nevertheless, he equates an insult with losing control, thus, it is possible Tannhauser has a fear of losing control, which may explain his involvement and over-reaction.

This was the effect of my argument (directed at Tannhauser, not Grayman, who was effectively the cause of all the following posts, except for, the post related to proportionality where I was interacting with Rixus.)

This is a much better argument, although, I disagree with it, for the reasons stated above, which are, that I believe insults are justified under certain conditions, including these, whereas Tannhauser either believes that insults can never be justified (an extreme position related to a fear), or, that, the conditions were not met in this particular situation for an insult to be made.

Do you now see how, it was precisely his over-reaction, that lead to myself being accused of over-reacting?


The rest of my posts were level-headed.

If you read those posts again, the majority of the content is impersonal (objective statements), and include refutals of ideas, observations, reasonable arguments, and clarifications of false interpretations made by others.

That is all.

Thank you.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Oh I was blatantly fucking with you. No victim card needs to be played. Totally my fault. The one thing I didn't expect was that you'd be so sensitive. That migbt be part of that ego thing though...

I'd like to know what you're netting by"blatantly fucking" with people?

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

I kind of got the impression from pressure's posts that this isnt the first time grayman provokes them with needless hostility...hence their strong reaction
If this isnt the case then this really was an overreaction, pressure. anyway....do not feed the troll no matter how tempting

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Does this thread actually highlight the value of social intelligence? Huh? Huh? Maybe? Maybe? *poke* *poke*

But anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the dark side.

^^^

I simply replied to these misperceptions.

PM sent.

 

[Sinny91]

The fact is, if you hadn't responded with an over-reaction, I'd have given Grayman a ban.

That's some very strange modding.

As is, it'd be within reason to ban you both because you're both scuffling.

Stranger still..

I won't do that, because I feel as if this is a good learning moment, even if Grayman was being a twat in order to make it happen.

Hmm strange Indeed.

This altercation just illustrated my point about how kindness pays better than retaliation. You're all worked up over an obvious troll. He wants you to get angry. Lex talionis does not deal well with trolls.

@Grayman
Consider yourself officially warned. The world doesn't need your 'lessons'. You may feel very clever right now but this is street level trolling and I don't have the patience for it. If you bully around at the community's expense there will be very few to speak for you come hammer time.

 

[Sinny91]

I kind of got the impression from pressure's posts that this isnt the first time grayman provokes them with needless hostility...hence their strong reaction
If this isnt the case then this really was an overreaction, pressure. anyway....do not feed the troll no matter how tempting

Pressures Spring stated as much.

Bloody feelers

Whether that was the stated truth or no, I do not know.

 

[Rixus]

Do not feed the troll no matter how tempting

The troll seems to have had an all you can eat banquet on this thread.

 

[PmjPmj]

I'm glad PS has moved on, because we were in real danger of me making a serious, heartfelt post.

That would've been some scary shit.

 

[Hadoblado]

That's some very strange modding.



Stranger still..



Hmm strange Indeed.

Yes, strange.

#INTPforumthings

 

[Sinny91]

The only person to ask me how I'm feeling; the ESFP.

I admire that.

 

[Rixus]

Feeling? Never mind how are you doing that, WHY are you doing that?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Sinny91]

Because I'm aware of my own shadow, and I intend to face it.

 

[Rixus]

My own dark shadow is fine. He's under control. Feelings - not so much. Just keep those things switched off.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Pressures Spring stated as much.

Bloody feelers

Whether that was the stated truth or no, I do not know.

I found it strange that he stated as much but then went on to only reference grayman quotes from this thread whenever he talked about grayman's "grudge"

 

[Sinny91]

Do you hear this, dude who we're talking about - we want the evidence!

Lol.

 

[baccheion]

Intelligence means more to me than kindness. That is, I would prefer someone smart and not kind over someone kind and stupid. I admire both, though, and would rather not have to choose.

 

[Not Anyone To Care For]

Actually, your Ego is the reasonable level headed part that makes decisions. Super-ego is your selfless side, and Id is the totally selfless side.

I wonder how it came to be how people refer to a person arrogance and pride. I normally love how meanings of words change.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

The word "ego" has been around before Freudian psychology.

The way that they are using it is to describe the other persons self-esteem. It's not good to have low self-esteem but it is also bad to have a massive self-esteem, it makes you condescending and borderline delusional from my observations of famous people.

I hope I helped clearing things up

 

[Intolerable]

I remember a year ago when saying "fuck you" was a bannable offense.

You desensitized the mods.

 

[Sinny91]

*Takes a very deep bow*

My work here is done.

 

[Black Rose]

Fuck you sinny <3

a sudden sense of admiration is welling up inside of me.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Fuck you sinny <3

 

[Sinny91]

Fuck you sinny <3

a sudden sense of admiration is welling up inside of me.

> +1