Just MORE Chatting
The Blind Eternities forum
Posted on Feb. 27, 2015, 12:54 p.m. by PreZchoICE1
fresh start. GO
JexInfinite, Agreed. Helping others does them little good.
In a Darwinistic world, Id still be picked off right off the bat. :P I can accept that though..
Def agree that thats the best way to be religious.
March 31, 2015 2:06 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #3
While I am physically weak, I would still survive because I could use and abuse the strength of others, and my strategic skills set me above the average.
Think of it as the zombie apocalypse. Kindness will get you nowhere. Smart thinking and zombie killing will.
March 31, 2015 2:10 a.m.
In Z Apoc scenario, Id make it as long as I can find/grow food lasts and my sanity.. Honestly dont think Im that sane though.. so.. :3
Personally would setup a perimeter and pick off anyone who gets near, indiscriminately.
March 31, 2015 2:14 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #5
I would find a strong group in the first month, and adopt the nomad lifestyle. I'm skilled enough with swords that I could live for a decent while, but without a trustworthy group, I'm screwed.
March 31, 2015 2:20 a.m.
Same issue, which is exactely why I would opt to forgo the group entirely. If it ends me sooner, so be it..
Hate being powerless to stop my peers from inflicting pain and betrayal on me.. Had it happen all my life. Cant say its done anything but make me the bad person I claim to be. :P
March 31, 2015 2:22 a.m.
There's a lot to say here, but I don't have time at the moment (stupid work). But I feel like there is a lot to say here. So I'll post something later on the issue (not the zombie stuff, the stuff before that).
March 31, 2015 2:32 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #8
I've got to write 2000 words on the ethics of censoring or restricting scientific knowledge, and I really don't think 2000 is enough. There is a lot to say.
March 31, 2015 2:38 a.m.
GoldGhost012 says... #9
Goddammit, it's 2 am and I'm feeling slightly lightheaded, but apparently I'm also very hungry. Why now, I need to sleep, not eat.
March 31, 2015 2:39 a.m.
Concerned about enpc has to say that takes a large explanation.
March 31, 2015 2:51 a.m.
Ryotenchi: currently I have a bunch of work stuff I have to sort out and I don't have time to sit down and type out a long explanation.
March 31, 2015 2:59 a.m.
enpc Just worried about what it is your trying to explain..
My apologies though, I dont always choose my words wisely. Not even sure what I mean up there.. o.O
March 31, 2015 3:31 a.m.
Ok, so here goes.
First and foremost, I'll give you a bit of background. I'm 24 (well 25 in like a fortnight), Currently hold a graduate degree (engineering) and work full time. I have had multiple relationships, all of which have lasted over 1 year, got engaged, got un-engaged (that's a whole story in and of itself) and currently am in another relationship which is just shy of 2 years. I am a christian and have been for many years, but I will say that it's not just because I was "dragged along" or anything, thats a personal choice for me. I also understand that not everybody believes what I do, so I will try to leave out the religious stuff and work on a common ground.
Now that you can see where I'm coming from lets get to the meat and potatoes.
So. lets talk about empathy. You're wired for it after all. Emathy is the concpet of putting yourself in other's shoes. And we all do it. It comes naturally to us.
Second, morals. The two are interlinked. as much as we talk about having our own set of morals, most of us would agree that there are something things which are "objectively" right and wrong. Don't kill other people for example. Why? because we are wired to feel other people's pain. And from a selfish reason, we don't want the same done to us.
Now I'm not saying that these things can't be repressed. Or dulled. And similarly, neurological imbalances or the influences of drugs can affect this, but as a common concept, we all feel about the same. Thats why if I took a child and shot them in cold blood in front of 1000 people, I'm pretty sure close to, if not 100% of poeple would have some serious problems with me doing it.
And I see a lot of people trying to sum all of it up in some "intellectual statement". To make them seem really smart. To show they are above emotions, that they think logically. And this is what I want to address.
Its bullshit. Utter bullshit.
Here's the thing right, I work with a bunch of engineers. Where its about cold hard facts. And 5 metric craptonnes of ego. But I can tell you right now that beneath that, everybody feels. Everybody hurts.
So lets talk about the 2 wolves. I said that most people fit into a grey wolf. This is a combination of things. We all feel a need for empathy, but we also feel a need for self preservation. we are selfish. we want things. we want to make our life better. Well, we percieve it as better at least. But we also care. And I can tell you right now that NOBODY here doesn't care. Nobody here doesn't feel emotion, feel love, feel empathy. And yes, people feel hate, people feel hurt and people feel damaged, Goodness knows I do, so I'm no different.
But my big concern is that poeple try to alienate themselves. That people try to sum it all up with logic and reason. Guess what, you can't. People are emotion beings. And most of the time people trying to sum everything up with just logic and reason are trying to separate themselves for fear of something. Insecurity usually.
And I've been there. I actually know what it's like to go through a large chunk of my life feeling completely numb. to repress feelings. And for me it was a matte rof survival more than guarding myself from the possibility of being hurt.
But I don't want to see others go through that. I am sick to death of seeing people doing that to themselves. I see it enough. And I can tell you how stupidly damaging it is long term.
So thus the epic rant. And I understnad what years of conditioning does to people. But at the end of the day we are actually made to feel. I hope that was coherent enough for people. there was a lot to say and i'm not the greatest with words.
But I will say this - we need to start tearing down walls we build up. It's hard and it hurts, but long term its the best thing we can do. And by walls, it can be an intellectual mask, it can be antisocial behaviour for fear of people not liking you, the list goes on.
So I hope you could take something constructive from this. And to anybody out there who feels like they need to talk, I'm happy to listen.
end rant.
March 31, 2015 4:29 a.m.
None of that changes my oppinion that morality is a hindrance.. I never said I act like it doesnt exist..
I am just as governed by morality as anyone else.. Many times though, I choose to ignore it..
So what if pain can be inflicted on me.. Did I not say I am one inside another out?
I dont let society reign in my ambition. At all.. Maybe thats why Im a scrub without a job.
March 31, 2015 4:44 a.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #18
The whorish prostitute inside me would like to say something about morality but ... I decide to stay out of this. It's far too much about opinion than anything else and doesn't really get you anywhere.
March 31, 2015 5:15 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #19
Ryotenchi enpcTo begin, this is not hate speech. This is not to be read in an angry tone. I say this respectfully, and wish to be responded to respectfully. I will listen to your response.
You're making the assumptions that we are doing something wrong by choosing logic, efficiency, and personal gain over what society says is moral.
I'm not above emotion, I still feel it, but I value reason and logic over emotion. Another assumption made is that we see morality as something that can hold someone back for reasons of insecurity, or out of fear of something.
For some reason, probably personality or mentally related, I do not care about anything I cannot form an emotional tie with. I do not care about how many people commit suicide every year, because I don't know them. I haven't met, or formed friendships with those people, so I do not feel for them. Now, don't misinterpret this and think I'm ignoring suicides, or saying it's good, because it's not good; it's awful. I just cannot feel emotion towards people I have no attachment to.
The reason I say that we should stop helping people is because, in the big picture, free from emotion, it is illogical. Evolution, to be summed up quickly, is 'survival of the fittest'. If your legs are cut off, you should die, because you are not fit enough to survive. This is what evolution says. Why are we trying to cure all these diseases? If they cannot live with the disease, we should let everyone with it die out, so the strain is dead for good.
I'm going off topic. I'll have to go over this again and revise what I am saying. Too hard to go over stuff in this tiny box.
March 31, 2015 5:16 a.m.
Just cause I use the wrong words doesnt mean I dont understand.. but otherwise.. I dont think anyone is understanding me, and I doubt Im fully understanding yeh..
Its either im ignorant and unintelegent and I cant comprehend what your saying.. which is possible.. or... aspergers strikes again and I fail to communicate and am trapped inside the husk unable to truly connect in any way shape or form.. :(
March 31, 2015 5:37 a.m.
You know there's such things as objective morality right? Go have a Google.
March 31, 2015 5:41 a.m.
Agreed.
Trying to get out of this conversation though.. No matter how yeh look at it, Im not in college taking courses for all this and Im unemployed playing magic the gathering..
Im just not as intelligent as y'all are.
March 31, 2015 5:48 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #24
I disagree with Plato, but I respect what he was saying.
He said that if you believe something is true, and can justify it, it is knowledge.
But how about this situation:Spike believes that everyone who has the letter e in their name is a lizard.
Peter has the letter e in his name, and is incidentally a lizard. Spike has the letter e in his name, and also happens to be a lizard.
Peter and Spike are not lizards because they have the letter in there name, but Spike has observed this, and believes it to be true. Does this mean it is knowledge? The conclusion was correct, but the method was illogical and stupid. Plato would say that this is knowledge.
March 31, 2015 6:16 a.m.
That's confirmation bias. It's not a valid justification process. You've made multiple scientific errors in this conversation.
I also think it's absolutely incredibe that you feel you have the experience and knowledge to question teachings that are so accepted they've existed for thousands of years. That level of arrogance is simply astounding.
Also for reference, that's not just what Plato said. And no he wouldn't say that's knowledge.
March 31, 2015 6:24 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #26
I think it's called the fallacy fallacy. But yeah, I completely forgot the names of basically everything.
You're approaching science in the completely wrong direction, though. Science isn't unquestionably true. It is there to be challenged. We should be trying to disprove science, rather than keep backing up what we think we know. There is no guarantee that tomorrow, nickel will stop being magnetic. No way to know. Prove it as much as you want for the present and past, but you cannot prove what will happen in the future, because it hasn't happened yet, unless, of course, you take the path of fate/destiny.
I will challenge science as much as I want to, because that is what we should be doing. Further confirming gravity is pointless, so we should try and disprove it.
Plato said something along the lines of that. How were there scientific errors in anything other than that previous comment. It was more about ethics and morality, rather than (natural) science.
March 31, 2015 6:40 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #27
But what if Spike is not trying to prove that Peter is a lizard, but just observes it? He has observed that he has the letter e in his name, and that he himself has the letter e in his name, and both are lizards. He has made an observation which he believes, and claims truth.
March 31, 2015 6:42 a.m.
That above paragraph has literally no bearing on morality whatsoever. You've also constructed a magnificent straw man where apparently I claimed we shouldn't challenge the status quo - I didn't.
Your errors are numerous:
You misunderstand Plato's conception of knowledge. It's not purely about belief. Knowledge can be disbelieved. In fact, you're a case in point here.
You misunderstand Plato's method for exploring knowledge and proof. The example you gave is not sufficient.
You misunderstand what Plato would conclude in the above situation. Again, because the above example isn't sufficient.
You misunderstand the error you made (it's not the fallacy fallacy - the fallacy fallacy is where you believe the conclusion of an argument to be false because it contains some flawed reasoning).
You misunderstood how evolution works (selection pressures don't include cutting people's legs off). This one particularly made me smile because it's not even closely related to natural selection.
You misunderstood how microbial life works (leaving them to feed on humans is exactly the wrong thing to do). Saving the weak is exactly the correct thing to do.
You misunderstand how morals works (they exist outside of society 0 they're close to biological).
You misunderstand how emotion works (it's no a societal impulse, it's a biological one).
I get really frustrated with individuals who assert things but have insufficient knowledge to do so. It's endlessly tedious.
Also I KIND OF get the feeling you haven't read such things as Republic or The Meno, have you? Which just makes me smile when you argue with me because you know, you're going against your own supposed creed in the purity of 'science'. Ie. I've read the texts and explored the evidence, I get the feeling you haven'g and yet you argue with me and assert the scientific process (wrongly, may I add).
March 31, 2015 6:54 a.m.
Typos. I'm tired.
But seriously. More reading, less talking please. If you're going to be such a maverick and challenge everything then at least know what you're talking about.
So you can argue for philosophy either way (re: Plato), although it must be said that Socratic verses on this are essentially taken as fact. However your assertions about microbial life (re: disease) are just objectively wrong.
March 31, 2015 6:57 a.m.
If zoo,.. then COC!!. Break that theorem shitburdz. I fart at logic. waft waft
March 31, 2015 7:11 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #31
Morals can be driven by society. Looks how morals have changed over time.
I really can't remember exactly what Plato said, so a quote would probably be really helpful, but whoever said the example I gave can be fought against.
You're misunderstanding that I misunderstand the example of logical fallacy I gave. I couldn't remember the name, and fallacy fallacy came to mind, hence my saying I thought it was called that.
If your issues are solely with the Plato paragraph, then that makes this a whole lot easier, because I have to scroll up less.
It is my understanding that with a virus, for example, you leave the affected people to die in a quarantined, perhaps, area. All the people with the virus/disease have now died, and so nobody else can get it (necessary precautions are a given). But dood, if you don't have legs, you are not fit to survive. This is definitely not the intended use of natural selection, or survival of the fittest, but by twisting the words to a particular definition, it can work.
I'm pretty sure I was getting disease and virus mixed up, but if it's the same with both, then I've just been living a lie.
But all this is good. This is good discussion. Except you getting fed up. Not a good attitude. Any good (preferably objective) books on matters?
(And I also have no creed of knowledge, except that knowledge is power. That is the only truth I believe in.)
March 31, 2015 7:12 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #32
I found some gems:
Smith has applied for a job, but has a justified belief that "Jones will get the job." He also has a justified belief that "Jones has 10 coins in his pocket". Smith therefore (justifiably) concludes that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket."
In fact, Jones does not get the job. Instead, Smith does. However, as it happens, Smith also had 10 coins in his pocket. So his belief that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket" was justified and true. But it does not appear to be knowledge.
Smith walks into a room and seems to see Jones in it; he immediately forms the justified belief, "Jones is in the room." But in fact, it is not Jones that Smith saw; it was a life-size replica propped in Jones's chair. Nevertheless, Jones is in the room; he is just hiding under the desk reading comic books while his replica makes it seem as though he is in. So Smith's belief is not only justified but also true.
March 31, 2015 7:14 a.m.
bijschjdbcd says... #35
NOTHING is definitive, Ever.
I would engage in this conversation but for the first time in a very long time I couldn't be bothered.
March 31, 2015 7:17 a.m.
What even happened? I didn't know anyone here was into philosophy and stuffs. Oh well. I'm not really into that stuff.
Btw good morning.
March 31, 2015 7:24 a.m.
Here are something to remember:
Morality can be driven by society but it is equally a biological survival mechanism. We believe in right and wrong because we're herd animals. All herd animals have habits and whilst they might not have consciousness (and therefore aren't aware of their own actions) they all behave in similar ways because it's advantageous to survival. It is not biologically advantageous to murder, for example. Not ALL law and morality falls into this category but what I'm doing is giving examples of how morality CAN BE separated from the environment and seen directly in our genetic material.
Second. Emotion is again a biologically driven phenomena. We have certain cells in the brain that are responsible for empathy (as one example). The reason we have this (and again all herd animals do, to some extent) is because it is advantageous for us to have empathy. Nature wants us to care when others get hurt because this teaches us that a) what happened was bad (this encourages us to not do it ourselves) and b) we should care for that person (because we want them to get better and carry on reproducing). So again, this isn't something you should be ignoring or think as some hindrance - it's very, very important. Feeling sorry for people etc is a really important emotional stage to go through. I can't be bothered to go through every single individual emotion but I want you to get the idea that there is some basis for this outside of our man made laws and societies and countries etc.
Thirdly, to understand Plato more in depth I would thoroughly recommend you read his teachings. Sure, they're not scientific but they give very good examples about why certain things ought to be the case. He does though experiments, which are interesting. The Meno is good (it's about knowledge), Republic is a large collection of works. I haven't read a lot of Socrates but what I have read is very good. I don't have specific references for him. It's important to realise that beliefs can also be facts (I can believe something that happens to be true). This makes philosophy really important.
Fourthly, it's almost universally true that a virus or bacteria that spends time in a host human will mutate to become MORE THREATENING. Can a virus or bacteria live in a dead person? Yes, for many months! Can a virus or bacteria live OUTSIDE a host human? Some can, again for months or even years. Quarantining and ignoring is not effective. You'll just end up with a pathogen that gets really, really good at killing people and can probably live in air. Then we truly are fucked as a species. It is also almost universally true that a human that survives pathogenic infection will start to produce their own natural immune response. By saving as many as we can we give them the chance to have children and pass on their own immunity. It is worth noting that vaccines and antibiotics DO NOT inhibit your own immune system. We are not creating "weaker people" - their natural immune system is just as strong as a normal person, they just happen to be able to survive diseases that others would die from. When they have kids and the kids breast feed, their immunity is passed on. It is vitally important therefore that we try to keep people alive who have had a virus or bacteria.
March 31, 2015 7:30 a.m.
I keep typoing, which is bad but in my defense I am super tired.
March 31, 2015 7:32 a.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #41
ChiefBell "You'll just end up with a pathogen that gets really, really good at killing people and can probably live in air. Then we truly are fucked as a species."
Not if we manage to kill each other beforehand. Humanity seems to be quite good at that.
March 31, 2015 7:33 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #44
You keep typoing, but in your defense, barely anyone would care when it's a wall of text.
Maybe gathering all medical facts from the dark ages was not a good idea, but in my defense, they believed it, and it happened to work for them. Even if it had a false premise, and was completely coincidental, they can claim belief of it.
Even so, the specific examples given (save the knowledge ones) are not the important thing. The important bit is how a similar type of situation comes into the field of morality.
I'm going to take the scummy way out and say that, with the exception of philosophy, in the morality paragraphs, the specific details of the example are not important, nor the nature, just that fact that there are examples.
March 31, 2015 7:40 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #45
Ryotenchi It is worth noting that a significant number of major scientific breakthroughs came about for the purpose of killing people, or in a time of war.
So for the next question: Is war actually bad?
March 31, 2015 7:41 a.m.
Yo, complete change of topic, but about how much is an acceptable amount to budget for a casual EDH deck? Like, super casual. If nothing else, I'll just by On Nixilis, The Fallen and 99 Swamps.
March 31, 2015 7:43 a.m.
JexInfinite I was gone from commenting, not reading, for like 45 minutes.. I cant debate this like you guys can.
I can tell yeh my stupid irrelevant, unbacked and un-researced views.. and all itll do is make me look like a fool..
Wouldnt it be better if I just told yeh Im a fool and I went to bed? :P
Night.
March 31, 2015 7:45 a.m.
just do the Maralen of the Mornsong mostly swamps technique :>found here
JexInfinite says... #1
If we keep trying to cure diseases, we're doing the opposite of what nature wants us to do. There's a video of a tiger having to leave it's wounded babby to die because it got trampled and would never survive. The tiger is devastated, but it must be done.
Humans fight this, because they have to power to, and that is wrong. Don't save people because you can. Don't save people because it is 'right'. You save people when their life can bring actual good.
March 31, 2015 2:06 a.m.