Hey, we want to be part of the hate!

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 02:14
VIEWED: 18566
PAGE 16 of 23

PREV PAGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT PAGE

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, January 17, 2009 6:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
We are? I thought we put them in jail, in isolation, and on death row. That's not "studying" them.

I think you will find that there is considerable case study on Ted Bundy.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Evil implies "free will". For the religious (and there are many) it also implies the work of the devil. As a response, we fear evil. We isolate evil. We kill evil. We don't study it.

Perhaps you fear evil. But I don’t necessarily fear evil. And we study evil all the time, hence the case study of Ted Bundy.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But IMHO most people are hostages of their lizard-brain most of the time. They fear. They desire. Their wet computer keeps on working below the level of awareness. I see VERY FEW people on this board who have made truly conscious choices.

I think you probably see a lot of people who haven’t made choices that agree with you, but that doesn’t make them lizards.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

AGENTROUKA

Saturday, January 17, 2009 6:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That would depend a lot on the definition of miracle that we agree on. The usual definition is dependent upon divine intervention, but it doesn’t have to be that way. A miracle could simply be an unlikely, lucky event. And if that were the definition that we agreed upon, than I might be similarly confused by your unwillingness to use the word to describe such an event.

My definition of miracle does contain a supernatural influence, yes.

Quote:

We seem to agree up on a definition of evil, yet despite that you continue to insist that there is something else.

The problem is that we haven't actually agreed upon a definition.

My definition of evil emphasizes that it is an absolute concept.

I perhaps misleadingly gave an example of what PARTS of Bundy's behavior would inspire others to use the word. But you cannot separate those parts from every other part. It is not absolutely one thing.

Quote:
What? Because according to the definition, evil simply means morally reprehensible. That’s it.

Not my definition. Morally reprehensible is morally reprehensible.

My own definition from an earlier post: "Evil is an absolute, irredeemable, destructive, conscious malice. It doesn't exist."

The sense of the absolute and irredeemable, as if there was nothing vulnerable or understandable in the act, be it ever so miniscule, is what I reject about the concept.

If it is not part of your defintion, then we are not agreeing on one. If it is part of your definition, then we are disagreeing about the existence of the concept.

Either way, it's not about political correctness.

Quote:

I’m not concerned with whether or not you acknowledge the word or not, I’m just curious as to what drives you to deny it.

I'm not denying the word. I'm denying the concept. And I hope I adequately explained it above.

Quote:

I disagree with the whole concept of political correctness. At best it’s a redundant social norm, at worst it’s a manipulative attempt to control thought.

So you don't think that racial or sexist slurs or such should be avoided? Because avoiding them, I agree, is a kind of manipulation, but not all manipulation is bad. Education is manipulation. Raising children is manipulation. Communication is manipulation. Preferring a more neutral language is a manipulation of associations and categories. It is, however, not synonymous with lying or hiding the truth.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
My own definition from an earlier post: "Evil is an absolute, irredeemable, destructive, conscious malice. It doesn't exist."

Well it doesn’t exist according to you, but what you describe is Ted Bundy. In what way is he not absolutely irredeemable, destructive and consciously malicious? I think you will be hard-pressed to come up with an argument that makes what Ted Bundy did completely understandable? But why must evil not be understandable? Evil describes human behavior, so as humans should we not have some incite?

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So you don't think that racial or sexist slurs or such should be avoided?

I don’t think we need political correctness to demonstrate common courtesy or tolerance. As I said, at best it’s a redundant social norm. We don’t need it.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:12 PM

Dreamtrove: that concept and discussion needs it's own thread.

My own beliefs have eastern leanings, but closer to the Black Zen rooted in much misunderstood cults of earlier generations, maltheistic in nature and with a view of the deisms as forces inevitably inimical to humanity because of their very nature.

Whether those deisms are a natural force or an artificial one, either created by those who seek to create the force of their worship (gestalt theory) or a force existing outside the realm of human perception (foreigner theory) is much debated, but their detriment to humanity is not.

Anyhow, this really needs it's own thread, and even then expect to be nitpicked by conventionalists.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:13 PM

Quote:
We are? I thought we put them in jail, in isolation, and on death row. That's not "studying" them. -SignyM

I think you will find that there is considerable case study on Ted Bundy.- Finn

Has anyone ever done a complete neurological assessment? Put him in an fMRI and shown him pictures of butterflies and dead babies? Tested him for heavy metal poisoning? Tried giving him antidpressants? More dopamine? Taken a small sample of brain tissue to look for various receptors? Tried to look for a BIOLOGICAL cause of his behavior, as opposed to a historic (environmental) one?

Did you know that 50% of peeps on death row have physical brain trauma, mostly as a result of abuse?

Quote:
Perhaps you fear evil. But I don’t necessarily fear evil. And we study evil all the time, hence the case study of Ted Bundy.

The point is: what does the definition of "evil" get us? What action are we to take as a result of such a concept? I can see isolating people for the protection of others but... then what?

Quote:
I think you probably see a lot of people who haven’t made choices that agree with you, but that doesn’t make them lizards.

Sigh. You really don't understand what I'm saying.

EVERYONE has a lizard-brain. Long before humans evolved, long before the big-brain with all of its nicely folded gray matter, animals were sensing, reacting, remembering, abstracting, learning, and predicting. Cats, they have an abstract notion of "water": they recognize it whether it is in a puddle, a bowl, or a stream.

And just because we have a big-brain doesn't mean our lizard-brain has gone away or stopped working. It hasn't. It's still there- comparing, remembering, constructing- motivating us in ways we often don't even recognize. LONG BEFORE someone has made a conscious decision to move their arm, it shows up by fMRI in the motor strip of the frontal cortex. If you were to cut someone's corpus callosum (the bundle that ties both halves of the brain together) and present a horrific picture to right-brain, their pupils will constrict and they will sit back and possibly gasp. If you ASK them why they just did that, their LEFT brain (which handles words and absolutely no idea what the right-brain saw) will confabulate a long story which has nothing to do with what actually happened.

Being conscious means understanding what your lizard-brain is doing. That is far beyond most people... me included.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Has anyone ever done a complete neurological assessment? Put him in an fMRI and shown him pictures of butterflies and dead babies? Tested him for heavy metal poisoning? Tried giving him antidpressants? More dopamine? Taken a small sample of brain tissue to look for various receptors? Tried to look for a BIOLOGICAL cause of his behavior, as opposed to a historic (environmental) one?

I don’t know. I’m not a forensic psychologist, but I do know that we have studied many serial killers; Bundy may have been among them.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The point is: what does the definition of "evil" get us?

I’ve already explained that.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Being conscious means understanding what your lizard-brain is doing. That is far beyond most people... me included.

I’m not sure that’s what being conscious means, but so what?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

AGENTROUKA

Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
My own definition from an earlier post: "Evil is an absolute, irredeemable, destructive, conscious malice. It doesn't exist."
Well it doesn’t exist according to you, but what you describe is Ted Bundy. In what way is he not absolutely irredeemable, destructive and consciously malicious?

I do not believe in "absolutely irredeemable", is why. What he did, though horrible and in need of consequence, is as much part of humanity as the pleasurable and good things we are capable of. I cannot deny his fears, normal pleasures, damage or hopes, as if they do not exist in the light of his crimes. He's a whole, full human being. His actions are made up of every part of him just like every one of his actions make up who he is. I cannot reject a human being as irredeemable.

No, I do not expect anyone who was victimized by his actions to forgive him. Or anyone, really. Just explaining my personal views here.

Quote:
I think you will be hard-pressed to come up with an argument that makes what Ted Bundy did completely understandable? But why must evil not be understandable? Evil describes human behavior, so as humans should we not have some incite?

My definition doesn't say anything about not being understandable, where are you taking this from?

I think what he did, if you try, you can absolutely understand from his perspective, so it is understandable. Doesn't make it right.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So you don't think that racial or sexist slurs or such should be avoided?
I don’t think we need political correctness to demonstrate common courtesy or tolerance. As I said, at best it’s a redundant social norm. We don’t need it.

Political correctness IS common courtesy and tolerance. It's just a different name for it. Or what is the difference you perceive?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Political correctness IS common courtesy and tolerance. It's just a different name for it. Or what is the difference you perceive?

Hence, redundant social norm (at best).

The difference is that political correctness is used to control people. It is a way of shaming people into a accepting a certain view point. For instance, I have been very critical of the “in-your-face” philosophy presented by many in the gay rights movement. I don’t think they help the goal of making homosexuality more acceptable by presenting gay people as intolerant of religious views and publicly sexually provocative. That doesn’t mean that I refer to my homosexual friends as “fags,” or think less of them because they aren’t heterosexual. Yet many people on this board and in other circles label me a bigot, in the name of political correctness, because I criticize a political movement they agree with, not because I am. If common courtesy and tolerance is what we want, then I’m okay with that, but there is often an ulterior motive to political correctness. So let’s just simplify the world and do away with it altogether.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

AGENTROUKA

Saturday, January 17, 2009 8:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Political correctness IS common courtesy and tolerance. It's just a different name for it. Or what is the difference you perceive?
Hence, redundant social norm (at best).

I'm not sure I understand. If it is the same thing, it is merely a synonym. Or do you consider common courtesy and tolerance redundant social norms?

Quote:

The difference is that political correctness is used to control people. It is a way of shaming people into a accepting a certain view point.

Or faking it, yes. How is the expectation of common courtesy not the same thing? Do you consider the expectation of common courtesy wrong in the first place?

Quote:

Yet many people on this board and in other circles label me a bigot, in the name of political correctness, because I criticize a political movement they agree with, not because I am.

I think this is a miscommunication issue. If you are politely disagreeing with their strategies - not their goal - then you shouldn't be criticised. This would only be an example of misunderstood or exaggerated political correctness, not of political correctness itself.

Quote:

If common courtesy and tolerance is what we want, then I’m okay with that, but there is often an ulterior motive to political correctness. So let’s just simplify the world and do away with it altogether.

As I said, the ulterior motive - or not ulterior, but obvious - of political correctness/common courtesy is to manipulate discourse through language. To make it neutral and less biased.

Unless you were violating common courtesy in your criticism or actually exhibited narrow-mindedness, the people who attacked you were not arguing for political correctness but out of intolerance themselves.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, January 17, 2009 8:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'm not sure I understand. If it is the same thing, it is merely a synonym.

If it is the same thing, then that’s true.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I think this is a miscommunication issue. If you are politely disagreeing with their strategies - not their goal - then you shouldn't be criticised. This would only be an example of misunderstood or exaggerated political correctness, not of political correctness itself.

Or it is political correctness.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
As I said, the ulterior motive - or not ulterior, but obvious - of political correctness/common courtesy is to manipulate discourse through language. To make it neutral and less biased.

But I have a bias. I’m biased against the use to “in your face” tactics. Political correctness does not stop at common courtesy and tolerance it continues to shape point of view and opinion. But why should I be called intolerant or discourteous for not accepting a certain view point or having a certain view point myself?

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Unless you were violating common courtesy in your criticism or actually exhibited narrow-mindedness, the people who attacked you were not arguing for political correctness but out of intolerance themselves.

According to whose definition of political correctness?

If we accept that political correctness is indeed just a synonym for courtesy and tolerance, then it is redundant. However, not everyone believes that’s all political correctness is. I’m not interested in entertaining the intolerant ulterior motives of political correctness so getting rid of it doesn’t hurt anything.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

PREV PAGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT PAGE