Times you've changed your mind

[Hadoblado]

INTPs are supposed to be pretty open-minded. They're supposed to be curious. This forum should reflect that.

But I'm sitting here and it's been a while since I changed my mind on anything meaningful. And I can't remember many recent instances where other people have either. I'm concerned that this forum is just a place for people to repeat their beliefs without changing those positions, which would make it pretty pointless.

So I want to see evidence of changing minds. I want to be reassured that the people here are open-minded and not just talking about how open-minded they are.

From this point onward (12/9/2018), please give examples of where you have held one belief, but then been convinced of another position. Learning new things when you didn't have a previous position doesn't count, and neither does anything that has happened before I posted this.

 

[Polaris]

If you haven't changed your mind over something for a while, that may not necessarily be a reflection of the forum's input....I change my mind all the time, or at least I debate myself a lot over issues that are brought up. Whether that is a reflection of me being weak-assed or open, I'm not so sure, but I certainly don't think this place is that lacking in controversial topics. It's just that there is a finite nunber of times one can rehash these, and it can become a bit meh if people are lazy in the way they present the issues.

With respect to the latter, I think I skip a lot of posts that could potentially be interesting if OP had just bothered to put a bit more thought into it.

 

[Black Rose]

Last time I meaningfully changed my mind was in 2015. It was a YouTuber that changed my mind on something.

 

[The Gopher]

I change my mind constantly about random things but tend to have a few core beliefs that haven't so much changed but become more refined and have added more exceptions to them.

 

[The Gopher]

Wtf no I never change my mind I'm pretty much always set in stone but I do change my core beliefs every year or so maybe bi yearly.

 

[The Grey Man]

Open-mindedness is not a virtue. It is a frailty common to children and credulous adults who are thus continually abused by the cant and chicane of liars and scoundrels. Let an INTP be skeptical and conservative in his assessments. A position, once adopted, should meet mere vehement objection with adamantine resistance, only to melt like ice in the springtime against the light of plain refutation. Anything less demonstrates contempt for one's own intellectual powers and disavows even the hope of enlightenment.

 

[Hadoblado]

Doh... I just realised that by the very nature of the way I framed this, I basically kill all immediate responses...

So yeah, talking about previous mind changes is fine too - I'm more interested in changes going forward but either is fine.

@Polaris
Oh I'm not blaming the forum for my stagnation. I just want to witness the changing of minds. A lot of my views have concreted because I've not seen any reason to think them challenged.

Here's some things I'm a little excited about that might change my mind on something:
1) @higs showing me the folly of strict materialism.
2) @Kuu showing me why Trump is not the figurehead for everything that's wrong with the world
3) @redbaron showing me why a black James Bond is taking affirmative action too far

Okay this is also a changemymind request thread. Whatever.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Well, less than a year ago I claimed to not be a Christian. 3 or so years ago, and the 10 years prior to that I wasn't a Christian. In the past few years I've changed my mind a few times on it. It's a journey.

Just recently I read the full Koran, wondering if it would change my mind, and I was questioning things for a bit. I don't think I have accepted it, but I'm open to what will come regarding it.

 

[Niclmaki]

I’m pretty close-minded about somethings, and open-minded towards other things.

There’s no... how would you put it... universal setting for all topics. I reckon this is how most people are.

“Any belief system you have has got to be updated and revised as you take in new data. You’ve got to be continually revising your map of the world.” - Robert Anton Wilson (I think?)

While that is a good quote, there are days when I just don’t want to do the mental leg-work of reassessing my belief structure. If you’re getting along well enough I don’t see a need. (Unless you’re like struggling with anxiety / depressing - then you may want to examine your philosophy)

On the opposite end, I change my mind at least 20 times if I’m looking for a restaurant, and then 20 more times looking at the menu.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

I find that certain people here get frustrated when an argument isn't presented a specific way, wanting others to state their thoughts as certain facts so that they can either be spoonfed a perspective or counter with their own facts, posting and running away as if that means they "won," because the victory itself is what gives them a sense of certainty.

In a way, this is normal. Everyone wants to be wanted, and a Ti-heavy environment is full of people with lots of knowledge to share, but too often that exchange is one-sided, sometimes to the extent that people with a response style that induces others to be open-minded and thoughtful are criticized for their contributions.

My most recent change has been in the area of the philosophy of blame, conquering fault, and overcoming weakness. Some of my own positions haven't changed in some time, but that's not due to a lack of openmindedness, but because they're undefeated since I adopted them.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

'Changing your mind' implies a decision one way or the other has been made. You can have honest, open minded and productive conversation analyzing a concept without changing anyone's mind, if the minds aren't made up. The most useful conversations around here are like that.

Although I have a personal pet peeve against people who refuse to make up their minds purely to save face and self-protect. They don't want to assert any opinions at all, because they're afraid how other people will react or lazy. It is deceitful, cowardly, and accomplishes nothing. However it's good to deliberate and be incredibly rigorous and suspicious of your own thought processes and biases. However these are not the same thing.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Although I have a personal pet peeve against people who refuse to make up their minds purely to save face and self-protect. They don't want to assert any opinions at all, because they're afraid how other people will react or lazy. It is deceitful, cowardly, and accomplishes nothing.

I do something that probably looks a lot like this to an outside observer. When I haven't formed an opinion on something, I argue all sides in posts and/or internally, sort of like trying on a pair of shoes before buying.

 

[Black Rose]

In 2015 the YouTuber Inspiring Philosophy helped me to consider that the supernatural was real. I began to feel it was real when I had no tangible feelings of it before. I had before, believed in God beginning when little but I was really scared until in 2007 when I stopped having such fearful feelings. I read Richard Dawkins The God Delusion in 2007. Since 2015 I have experienced many things supernatural. It is distinct having the feeling, from not having it. I have had a powerful sense of mysticism my whole life but never have such events happened, connected to these feelings, that I could say were beyond what could be explained naturally.

 

[The Gopher]

Although I have a personal pet peeve against people who refuse to make up their minds purely to save face and self-protect. They don't want to assert any opinions at all, because they're afraid how other people will react or lazy. It is deceitful, cowardly, and accomplishes nothing.

I do something that probably looks a lot like this to an outside observer. When I haven't formed an opinion on something, I argue all sides in posts and/or internally, sort of like trying on a pair of shoes before buying.

I'm actually curious about this Adaire. A while ago you mentioned something along these lines to people who seem to always take "the middle ground" I remember arguing with you about this and was wondering if you changed your mind. IIRC and feel free to correct me your position at the time was that it was intellectually lazy and self protects saves face due to not asserting an opinion.

My counter point was somewhere along the lines of if you are in the middle (not necessarily dead centre) then that means you have had to specifically decide what exact level of each side you agree with and where exactly that places you. You can then vehemently hold that middle or left of middle or right of middle or right of middle then take the second exit on the left of middle position while still appearing more neutral simply due to the fact you're arguing against or with and for both sides.


As far as things I've changed though. Obviously I'm open minded regarding type being INTP ENTP INFP ENFP ESFP ESTP and oh boy I guess type doesn't matter and it's all relative.


Serec is currently banned so I'm probably safe to broach this topic. I've also changed my opinion in regards to transgender stuff. Originally my opinion was more along the lines of pure gender being social constructs/whatever part is affected by biology so whatever you feel is by default male or default female because you only have your own experiences to go off. I would have argued for instance, that I don't know what male feels like or what female feels like I just know what I feel like and because I'm male that must be it or it must be included in the spectrum of what male is.

I still occasionally have pangs of that where I think if the social parts of gender weren't so fucked up maybe it would help things a lot. However I think that was maybe my way of rationalising or ignoring why I was female so often in my imagination, part of the reason I was so annoyed about the social constructs being that way is how much better my personality and such would fit being female and how preferable it would be to be that way. If I knew what I knew now and was younger I probably would have a hard time deciding if I wanted to transition or not. If anything I would consider myself both genders or neither. Maybe it's just me rebelling against the system or it's inbuilt somewhere I'm not entirely sure.

Either way a lot of those debates over the years probably seem pointless but, well I won't say it's been really helpful for me as I'm probably more confused than ever but the ability to challenge people and play devils advocate and swap sides mid debate. I think my record was 6 times before someone noticed... While probably confusing not helpful and maybe hurtful to others at times probably helped me and the debates probably help others in general you just don't see it.

Only the constructive open ones though, it is quite easy for people to get locked into the I'm right you're stupid you can die debates which are the opposite of productive.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I don't really see how it relates to transgender stuff. I don't really remember the the conversation tbh, but I know you like to make a habit out of being difficult to pin down. I purposefully do the same with people with whom I'm not interested in having discussion.

Devil's advocacy is irritating about 2/3rds of the time. Namely when it's obstructive or obfuscative. If it's used to illustrate intricate points, I can get behind it. Tricking hardcore evangelicals into admitting that slavery is ethically sound under their belief system is a lot of fun. The problem is that career devil's advocates are rarely half as clever as they think they are, and rarely have any goal or point they're trying to make. They just shut down progress and move goalposts and think it makes them clever. They really just don't want to be accountable to whatever stupid shit they say or they want to trivialize the perspectives of others.

Then you have fearfulness to make a stand. Anyone who knows a touch of my personal history, will probably understand the crux of my irritation. When you know something, when you are something... You make a stand, you state what you are and what you believe, without flinching. Consequences be damned. This doesn't have to close discussion, but it does mean standing on your own, potentially against a hostile crowd and asking them to take their best shot.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

As far as gender goes, there's a lot of false dichotomy and individual subjective quirks. People should always keep that in mind. I also think there's this perception that 'sexuality' must be figured out by your early to mid-20s. and I generally disagree. That shit is only going to get more complicated and blurry as you age; especially if you're queer. You're more or less blazing your own trail. (ideally) I'd encourage everyone to embrace that confusion.

 

[Hadoblado]

Would you categorise yourself as gender dysphoric gopher?

I was thinking about this the other day (probly following our conversation on the issue). I don't really feel a strong sense of gender either, but if it were reversible, I'd try being a lady fucking yesterday.

As it's not reversible, I just try not to think about it and experience no dysphoria, so see no reason to open pandora's box.

Regarding holding a consistent position:
I enjoy devils advocate a bit, but limit myself to one position per conversation. That position can be a mid-ground or a lack of a position. I don't like it when people switch mid-conversation without acknowledging it, this immediately makes me not care what that person is saying because it's not coherent and it's often not honest.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

My counter point was somewhere along the lines of if you are in the middle (not necessarily dead centre) then that means you have had to specifically decide what exact level of each side you agree with and where exactly that places you.

This is different. Cool.

Gopher's style seems to be all about maintaining harmony; preserving truth. Mine is active exploration (I can't assert an opinion I don't have) and/or an attempt to walk someone through a perspective shift that's almost always customized to that specific individual, so it's possibly confusing to outsiders. I assume a Ti-dom will ruminate on the topic for however long before even posting, if they do at all, which would explain one-sided information exchange and why it can be hard to change views. Their conclusions are often already made, and almost strictly internally at that.

I don't like it when people switch mid-conversation without acknowledging it, this immediately makes me not care what that person is saying because it's not coherent and it's often not honest.

My best explanation for this in my case is Se? I generally assume people have functioning eyeballs and will thus notice it, because it's obvious to me. *Edit: Actually, I also tend to assume people will integrate competing ideas into a larger structure as well.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I'd still switch, even if it wasn't reversible. So much less to worry about, I'd be taller, and the clothing makes way more sense. I'd still keep the long hair and wouldn't bother adjusting some of my more feminine mannerisms, so I'd probably come off as rather fab as far as body language goes. It's all to serve convenience though. Grass is greener eh?

 

[The Gopher]

That's fair regarding devils advocacy. I generally use it more to challenge my own position as I tend to get as far into the role as I can. Almost as a way to see someone else's perspective. Like playing chess with yourself. I generally try to use it in a positive way though not the ooh so sneaky devil advocate type. (although it almost certainly seems that way)

Depends how slowly Lag.

Would you categorise yourself as gender dysphoric gopher?

I was thinking about this the other day (probly following our conversation on the issue). I don't really feel a strong sense of gender either, but if it were reversible, I'd try being a lady fucking yesterday.

As it's not reversible, I just try not to think about it and experience no dysphoria, so see no reason to open pandora's box.

Yeah... probably, maybe just overwhelming disappointment, but like I said not completely. Like, how I imagine 50% dysphoria feels like? I think I would probably have dysphoria if I was completely female as well. It's a shame I can't be both, at the same time.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

It's a shame I can't be both, at the same time.

Why can't you?

Spoiler

Not serious, just making devil's advocacy meta-humor.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Lago
I just want to make it clear, that while I do think you guilty of some of this more than others, I'm stating my position on it as a general issue, not trying to have a go at you. Not sure if that was the way you were taking it.

I find it interesting you think gopher preserves truth? I see him as just constantly filibustering to preserve harmony. The fish can't fight each other if they can't see each other through the now muddy water. Whenever people put their mitts up to swing it always felt like a trope for Gopher to come in and dazzle us with his word vomit XD JennyWocky used to do it too... though haven't seen her around in a while.

@Gopher Do you see yourself as preserving truth? You often keep things open ended but that moves people away from being both right and wrong?

 

[redbaron]

i'm generally open to ideas until the point i've synthesized enough information and then it's unlikely my mind will change unless there's some real big revelation that i wasn't aware of before

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

We cool, Hado. I'm just generally a demonstrator, and those were all recent examples that came to mind.

I think Gopher's style preserves the truths of others as a means of finding his own. Like, it's first about achieving harmony of other's perspectives in his own mind or something vs harmony between others, which is an after-effect when people start to interact with the resulting post/s.

 

[redbaron]

sounds like gopher post-hoc rationalizing his bad opinions tbh ;^)

 

[Polaris]

@Hadoblado What do you mean by stagnation? It sounds like you're just bored, and needs someone to challenge your current views, so that you can further establish the foundations of your position? What happens when you have reached that point?

Edit: the above paragraph is the final result of me writing a 2000 word post. I have a headache.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

sounds like gopher post-hoc rationalizing his bad opinions tbh ;^)

heh... I'm definitely doing "it" ITT. "seems" "may" "if...."

Waiting for Gopher to verify. It occurs to me that I could just look through his other posts to get verification on my own, but for whatever reason that feels weird, as if I can't hold him or anyone else to being static.

*Edit: See? And then post #28 comes in. Turns out I was projecting, but I never would have gotten the truth had I not probed or let another do so by proxy.

 

[The Gopher]

I find it interesting you think gopher preserves truth? I see him as just constantly filibustering to preserve harmony. The fish can't fight each other if they can't see each other through the now muddy water. Whenever people put their mitts up to swing it always felt like a trope for Gopher to come in and dazzle us with his word vomit XD JennyWocky used to do it too... though haven't seen her around in a while.

@Gopher Do you see yourself as preserving truth? You often keep things open ended but that moves people away from being both right and wrong?

Yokay ya'll gonna have to get some mind changing going on here. You’re going to have to come into this with a pretty open mind because I feel like you're pretty stuck on the filibustering preserving harmony train and I both think I know why and need to attempt to derail it. In person. Sure, I really dislike disharmony in person. Apart from funny toad disharmony. This includes voice to some degree but I'm not disagreement phobic.

You’re looking at what I’m saying and seeing weird harmony mush in your argument but what it really is about is an attempt to get people to open their minds which they are less likely to do while angry and hating each other. In other words in order to spread what I think is truth I try to get people into a state where they can accept and process and think about it free from emotion which to you might look like trying to be harmony filibuster.

The filibuster part comes because what I’m trying to say is generally nuanced and has people on both sides of the argument initially against it so I try to preempt the arguments and complains and misconceptions before it happens. This combined with the fact I don’t spend much time organising it into a smaller package. Comes across as a huge wall of text that has a bunch of harmony stuff in it for seemingly no point.

In short. I want to get people in what I view is a productive open mindset. Often in the middle of an argument they are not in this, also since I am taking a position against both sides I try to explain everything about my position so people don’t latch onto one aspect and assume the worst. The only reason I care about the fish fighting each other is because they are both wrong but have some aspects that are right and I want to bring the right aspects to light and discard the wrong ones. I don’t enter an argument if I feel one side is actually right I’ll just join them or leave them to it.

So yes, I do think I want to preserve truth, or at least find it give my opinion of what it is and then have that opinion challenged.

i'm generally open to ideas until the point i've synthesized enough information and then it's unlikely my mind will change unless there's some real big revelation that i wasn't aware of before

The only issue I have with this is often with information you can get completely the wrong opinion about something even if you have 90% of the information. Once you get the final 5-10% it might be gradual enough that if you had it at the start you would have had a different opinion but not big enough to be a revelation.

sounds like gopher post-hoc rationalizing his bad opinions tbh ;^)

No I have bad opinions both in the past and now. I don't need to rationalise something that's wrong just move beyond it. I understand why you think that but it is incorrect in this instance.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

People get resentful of manipulation/control like that though.

 

[Hadoblado]

I'd accuse you of talking too much about yourself gopher but I guess I brought that on myself haha XD

 

[The Gopher]

It's not manipulation or control. Manipulation and control is different and back when I was 2edgy4u I might have included it in that to feel special.

It's simply trying to get people to calm down and have a discussion. I didn't know attempting to have a good discussion was so alien to the INTP forum.

 

[Hadoblado]

I think Gopher is in a similar camp to me. Not a manipulator per se (as that would imply he exploits others to his own advantage), but he's attempting to exert influence and that can be condescending.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Manipulation isn't always (or even most of the time) exploitative and mediating the emotions of others is a form of control imo.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

I agree with Gopher. Why is there an apparent feeler/thinker divide re: whether influencing the emotions of others is manipulation?

 

[Deleted member 1424]

It is manipulation... though...
I'm not saying it's bad. It's just that they're time where people won't welcome this influence and will respond negatively towards it. Just because you're telling someone to calm down with a layer of subterfuge, doesn't mean people want to be told to calm down.

and that whole layer of condescension

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I mean keep doing what you're doing, I don't care. I'd just call you on it, if it bothered me in a specific instance. Just don't be surprised if it irks people sometimes, and if you're unlucky they won't express it and they will become resentful and uncooperative over time and you won't understand why.

Humans are a rebellious lot.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

It is manipulation... though...
I'm not saying it's bad. It's just that they're time where people won't welcome this influence and will respond negatively towards it. Just because you're telling someone to calm down with a layer of subterfuge, doesn't mean people want to be told to calm down.

and that whole layer of condescension

I'm actually really, really curious about the implied enantiodromic conspecific: Why certain logic is perceived as dickish or deceitful. I mostly understand this in terms of 7th slot Te; trickster.

Sorry if I'm derailing at this point. Perspective stuff just fascinates me.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Mediating isn't always logically driven, in fact, I'd say it's usually emotionally driven. In many cases conflict makes some people uncomfortable, so they are driven to mediate to alleviate that emotional discomfort. Or maybe it just offends their sensibilities of what polite discourse should be. That's still emotional reasoning.

 

[Hadoblado]

This thread is likely going to be full of derails - it's asking people to bring up a bunch of different topics.

If any conversations turn into their own conversation, I might split. But if such discussion occurs that's a good thing IMO. So don't worry too much about it.

 

[The Gopher]

I mean I disagree with that definition of manipulation it's changing the definition of normal social interaction to manipulation. Influence maybe.

I also disagree it's condensation. It's not a conscious thing I was just dissecting it in meta analysis because hado stated something I thought was not accurate. The only reason I brought it up was because he thought the harmony and filibustering was the intentional part to cause harmony when simply being generally harmonious is how I like to do conversation and the point is whatever position I'm arguing for.

If you chose to be angry and unreasonable or feel condescended to simply because someone is trying to have agency in a conversation that's up to you.

^ See now that's condescending as fuck and warrants a manipulation charge.

The point still stands though. The person I'm talking to is perfectly free to take issue with my style of communication which I consider normal and reasonable in normal and reasonable places. However I also don't need to care at all if someone is irked or resentful about someone trying to be harmonious because that's due to their own emotional prerogative.

 

[Black Rose]

I was told I am very neutral in how I communicate. Neither confrontation nor apathetic. But calm and tentative. Though I did have a laps in emotional stability since April. It is difficult to say what I really want to say instead of what I would regret saying as I hold back makes me feel even more unstable. It upsets me tremendously being misunderstood and not being able to do anything about it. Being able to explain myself requires I be honest with myself and keep my emotions under control the best I can.

Changing your mind mean you must accept that in some way you were wrong. This requires a new perspective where you can see an alternative that is correct. We cannot accept what we do not understand and through communication, we can encounter other views that demonstrate ways to know what we did not before. We must understand how were were wrong or we remain in a vacuum. If we strive for Truth we will want as many views as possible to see every angle together.

 

[Minuend]

In terms of the "big stuff", when you get old you've kinda heard most of the opinions and arguments before (of the topics that are of interest to you), and it has been evaluated and you've reached a conclusion. It's rare I see new information or something is presented from a new perspective. It doesn't really happen on intpf. (When it comes to the bigger stuff that I have more solid opinions of, and I guess in terms of perspectives I would initially disagree on). I usually don't have that solid opinions of stuff that haven't been through a fairly long chain of reasoning.

I think it's more likely to happen if someone with specialized knowledge or unusual, but well founded perspectives present their opinion. But that is rare as well. (When I say unusual, I don't refer to perspectives that are disconnected from reality). If you work or study something specialized, I can see changing your opinion more often happening, at least for a while. But in the everyday life, most of the conversations I have with people are about the weather or being asked if I want the receipt. Not grounds for much changing of opinions thar. Exception being the discussions I have with my bf, which is probably where I change my mind most often as we talk about a wide variety of topics. Intpf have like 5-10 new posts a day, so I don't think you can expect that being the grounds for mind changing. The quality isn't that exceptional.

I change my mind about smaller stuff all the time, usually I don't think too much about having changed it or even that I did. I also form new opinions fairly often when presented with new information. And there are a lot of bigger topics I have a " things seem to be this way and having this opinion seem the most reasonable based on that, but there's a lot I don't know so I'm not going to be invested in it" (or I know this is wrong, but I'm gonna do it anyway). I'm less likely to engage in conversations of that type, since the reason I don't know more in the first place is usually because I'm too lazy or uninterested in learning more about it and it's fairly inconsequential for the life I live.

I guess I'm not really here because I find myself often challenged or because I want to change minds, though, the main reason I'm here is because I'm often too incapacitated to do much else and the other reason would be I occasionally just enjoy writing in the style I write here and usually nowhere else. But even that gets draining fairly quickly and the things I have to write are limited and become repetitive after a while, so I don't post that often

 

[Polaris]

condensation

I also disagree it's

 

[redbaron]

some of the posts in this thread are too condensely worded

 

[redbaron]

on topic:

when i was a kid i was religious, then i slowly became agnostic and then eventually just atheist. took about 8-9 years to happen?

my mind has changed on a lot of surface things but on most big issues per minuend's point, i'm pretty much the same as before. a lot of the time it's also the case that i'm not changing my mind per se, but i'm learning something new and my mind changes.

'changing your mind' kind of implies a polemic element that's not often there

 

[Reluctantly]

Maybe this is Fi or something, but I'd like to point out the distinction between making up your mind about yourself (and not easily changing that) versus being open-minded about others. Although typology discussion is kind of dead now, I used to see this a lot with typology in how people come to understand it (not just here though). People try to explain themselves in relation to others or others in relation to themselves, but rarely do people seem to compartmentalize the two.

So I won't easily change or adjust my self-knowledge just because someone on the internet that has never met me thinks they know me better than I know myself or finds fault with something about me that they don't understand. But I "think" I'm pretty open-minded about everyone else.

I also tend to find fault with arguments and form counter opinions based on them, so it's hard for me to change my mind unless someone can reconcile those faults in a way that truly or completely supports their understanding (which doesn't seem to happen much here). People do make arguments that open my awareness of say the complexity of an issue, but changing my mind is difficult when people don't form a complete picture and just nit-pick things with no seeming over-arching point. Usually the point is often to obfuscate understanding and over-complicate things or just make counter-points or take a Sophist devil's advocate point of view that doesn't really address people's arguments or make anything clear. Then again, I don't think finding fault necessarily means I've made up my mind either, except to say what I reject, which isn't the same thing? But really I think a lot of times arguments here follow rejection of what another person accepts without even addressing why the other person considers it valid to begin with. Or some people go to the other sophist extreme and claim there is only grey. But it's all just a kind of noise when there is no putting everything together.

 

[The Grey Man]

Just now, in the "Plant eating" thread, I denied the truth of dualism, animal (and, implicitly, human) rights, utilitarianism, and, consequently, all political theories based on their implicit foundations, while asserting the truth of dual-aspect monism, panpsychism and metempsychosis. Surely somebody's beliefs were contradicted there, and yet not a serious argument was deployed in their defence. If you would see your own or others' beliefs changed, why do you squander opportunities for a sincere philosophical debate, only to waste all these words on so much navel-gazing humbug?

 

[Hadoblado]

Sorry dude it was tldr

You're definitely wrong tho.

 

[The Grey Man]

If only you were more open-minded and curious, you would see that I'm right. I guess you're just not INTP enough.

 

[Hadoblado]

You've got me there T-T