Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2014, 09:54 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 09:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 09:30 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Shall we put that one down to poetic licence?

I think you know what he meant. Tongue

No, really, I don't know what he means. Consider

Most people yes, Luminon nope no idea cause it could be anything.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
22-08-2014, 10:22 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 04:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
Yesterday? Wow, congratulations, you're lucky Thumbsup It's unexpected for me too, I'm a bit stunned. I hope you knew how to respond and all is going well! I hope it works for you both!
...

Laugh out load

Let's just say that 'good-bye-sex' is highly recommended Wink

It's a little sad that a 2.5 year relationship is coming to an end but having pre-established the limits / boundaries of that relationship, no one is surprised and no one is hurt.

(22-08-2014 04:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  So it's the solid skill of work, experience and years under the belt (I tend to forget that) and having many other people around.

Yup. None of it innate... all learned behaviour. I think it's learned behaviour for neuro-typicals too but for us Aspies, it takes a lot more 'conscious' work.

(22-08-2014 04:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Family is a great idea too.
...
I don't have the luxury of belonging anywhere. I don't know how this belonging thing works, or rather I get jolts of pain if I try to think about it.

Ooooh! I can sooooo relate. I gave up on that strange 'belonging' notion in my early teens. I see others doing it but I realise that I'm just not capable.

Those jolts get easier to manage with time but they don't entirely go away.

(22-08-2014 04:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What do you mean by transactions? I can imagine the idea, relationships are like trading money,
...

Kinda. I meant it in the sense of TA (transactional analysis)... y'know the parent-child, adult-adult thing ... but also, to a degree, in the financial sense.

It's about tuning your analytical skills to be able to quickly be aware of intent (the intentional stance).

Ask yourself, what is it that all parties want from the relationship?

With some of my friends, for example, it's very simple... they want security... I want availability/capacity. I provide a a rent-free room (a place to hide from whatever horrors their life has thrown at them) and they offer whatever services they are willing to provide (ironing, cleaning, other).

If it is well-managed, value is created for all concerned.

Kinda like this:

[Image: service_transition_ch4_fig_4_29.jpg]

For the non-neuro-typicals, we can adopt models like this to help us.

How the 'normals' do it so effortlessly is something that I know that I will never understand... so I have stopped trying. I will never become like that so I will just have to go with the tools that are available to me.

The unintentional and intentional abuse that I received as a child was and is part of who I am now.

I realise now that it was only ever a two-way transaction.

When I see a parent getting embarrassed / frustrated / angry / violent with an ADHD child in a supermarket, I can see both sides of the equation now. I understand the mis-communication that is happening.

I understand the suffering I caused my parents when I had a freak-out when I was in the barber's chair (my son did the same).
My parents now understand it too... they now know that it was real pain. Not that that changes anything much, other than the ability to cope with the past and the future.

It is a journey, my friend. You trip up or are tripped... you stand up and keep walking.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 10:24 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 09:59 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I now have relationship boundaries very well established by, for example, treating all relationships as transactions and appropriately categorising the relationship type (strategic, tactical, operational or commodity). And importantly, ensuring that the other parties are aware of this. .... In fact, I think that's kinda how I ended up accidentally married all those years ago. See what I mean about being better with the design stance than the intention stance?

Sounds fucking emotionally sterile.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 10:26 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 10:24 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 09:59 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I now have relationship boundaries very well established by, for example, treating all relationships as transactions and appropriately categorising the relationship type (strategic, tactical, operational or commodity). And importantly, ensuring that the other parties are aware of this. .... In fact, I think that's kinda how I ended up accidentally married all those years ago. See what I mean about being better with the design stance than the intention stance?

Sounds fucking emotionally sterile.

Welcome to my world.

Hug

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
22-08-2014, 11:57 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
I don't mean to disparage anyone. But I feel this thread just took a left at crazy town.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 12:03 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 11:57 PM)PKJoe Wrote:  I don't mean to disparage anyone. But I feel this thread just took a left at crazy town.

Whenever DLJ and Girly sync up in a thread, things have a tendency to go bohemian... Tongue

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-08-2014, 01:00 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 06:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 05:36 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Congrats, after at least 4 times of being asked to prior, you've admitted you could be wrong. At least that's a reasonable remark that you claim it now. If you were honestly considering it, you wouldn't feel the need to simply judge other concepts, but could actually perceive and understand them reasonable. Which doesn't equate to accepting them.
I could be wrong, but for years, when I specifically saw where and how I could be wrong, I actually did something about that, I changed my position. After a few years I have run out of ideas where specifically I could be wrong. Sorry Blush You surely deserve the great pleasure of finding errors and debunking them. But what you need is a dose of masochism, seeking out opposition by yourself, not confronting it passively on your home turf. That's how I got where I am.
If you think liberal social democracy is the only true and just system, great, go to the dark and scary libertarian boards and brace yourself. Either you show them the true way, or they will correct yours, you have nothing to lose but your chains! Big Grin That's how I learned atheism and skepticism about 8 years ago...and most of other things I know.

(22-08-2014 05:36 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Still the issue goes on that I've mentioned before. You don't seem willing or able to expound outside of the boxes you've already convinced. And you definitely show an affinity for boxing in ideas in different areas.

If you willingly go into discussions knowing you're equally as capable of bring mislead and open as the other side could be, your points may actually become impactful. When you resist such concepts, you unravel a conversation that'd more manic and unbeneficial to all.
Well, I ended up in these boxes after oscillating for years from the most conventional to the most radical stances. I left no stone unturned. Now I trust myself to recognize the true principle when I see it and even arrive at it myself if I get enough instances. I trust myself to see if there is any out of the box information.
This work and similar works changed me, re-wired my brain. I am literally a different person than back when I graduated high school and believed in welfare state political economy.
I have just one claim. If you do your own independent investigation and keenly discriminate the less consistent ideas from the more consistent, you will end up exactly where I did, no matter your starting position. If not, we can go over your steps and find where we started diverging and why. But please don't ask me to do the work for you. It's not a piece of information, it's a journey that changes what you are, you will not understand things the same way afterwards, you will value different kinds of evidence differently. This is what independent self-education does to people.
Maybe it does not matter what position people have, it matters how much effort and work did they put into getting there. Do not trust people disinterested in the subject itself, they are not willing to take on any responsibility for self-learning or risk non-conformity. This I have thought since the start years ago and I still think it now.

Computers mislead us to think that just because the brain is a computer, we can upload new knowledge into it. That is a dangerous lie. The school system will damage your brain with useless fragmented non-indexed tidbits of info, which will make you barely competent at a job, but you will never understand the big political picture. Teaching at school without personal interest, referencing and usage is a scam. This is why I study on the side as much as I study at school.

The way you are now, I would have to ask, what do you consider evidence? What is your current position? Then I could put forward a case, within your own worldview, that would get you a little closer to my worldview. Just a little, as much as your worldview allows. If you are pro-government, I could make a case for a bit smaller government, something like that. But that is an ineffectual thing to do, which is why I would rather talk about why it is immoral, useless and extremely harmful to spank and yell at children. Raise children peacefully and voluntarily and they will see involuntary (collectivist) social institutions as barbaric.



I have made efforts to get closer to your worldview, and every time you either frighten me with some absolute stance such as your moral stance for good or you proclaim superiority to others. Such comments like you stating nobody believes in subjective morality, but then after being disagreed with, you further stated, if they do then they deserve to be in straight-jackets. It really makes me question how well you actually know the realm of other peoples ideas and the world outside of your already conceived notions.

If you want my current positions, I don't believe there is such a thing as the true answer. It seems pretty foolish to me for anyone to think they have amassed such a knowledge of how things are when human minds are knowingly so limited. What do I consider as evidence? Generally actually supported claims that have devoted multiple angles of field testing and outside observation. That's why apart from the last few steps back in, I walked away from these threads of yours because I didn't see any lingering that you accepted the possibility of human fallibility of ones ideas because you dismissed that and opposed it by discussing morality.

I do not think government is moral or immoral, but I understand your desire to view it that way from you position. You frequently make out governed as this force that is extorting humanity. It may be to an extend, but I don't get how or why you draw the line on government as this force. I've not followed every argument you make deeply, but you seem to arbitrarily make the distinction on that level. I for one think the issues unfold deeper than that. I think that power or presumed convictions of the right path are themselves destructive and get abused. I think evidence does back that up which is why I disagree with the idea that was floated on this board a bunch of months ago that, "Governments have a monopoly on violence." There's constant control by force manners used by other groups even today. There's clearly religious organizations (Isis being a undoubtable current one) and it's not something that societal organizations or enterprises have been exempt from. History shows you can have the same behavior of manipulation from non government sources in aggressive ways. From rising social group upheaval, feudal warlord control, and again of course religious movements throughout the world have shown that when power is unmanaged and groups have leaders convinced they have the true answers, there is more negative consequences than positive. It runs along those lines as why I think actually being skeptical and open to being wrong is an intellectually necessity.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like ClydeLee's post
23-08-2014, 02:47 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-08-2014 09:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 09:30 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Shall we put that one down to poetic licence?

I think you know what he meant. Tongue

No, really, I don't know what he means. Consider
It's a scientific thing. A long term neurosis caused by short term suppression of an emotional mechanism, or emotional deprivation. If someone beats you up or yells at you, what do you do? Fight or flight. But if that someone are your primary care givers on which you are vitally dependent, fight or flight is a certain death, as far as evolution is concerned. Suppression allows children to survive and act around the attackers as if the assault didn't happen, but the brain is incapable of suppressing healthy stress response without actually blocking a part of itself and spending energy on hypervigilance which it needs on normal healthy learning in childhood. Also, the cortisol levels are huge.

It is sometimes associated with repressed memory, but not that I know. I know only repressed memory about an emotion and then inability to recall that emotion or experience it. It is very difficult to dig it up. It never heals by itself, because the brain is in constant use. Conscious intentional therapy is needed to rewire the trauma. A brain in deep relaxation allows better access to the memory. If the memory is too deep and powerful, the brain tries rather ineptly to process it on its own and it's known as PTSD.

That's what I mean by peaceful parenting. "Spanking" is worse than regular assault, slavery and domestic violence. It literally de-sensitizes us against authorities who use force, which is the basis of political legitimity, we have a rule that authorities are allowed and supposed to use force. Might makes right, argumentum ad baculum.

(23-08-2014 01:00 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I have made efforts to get closer to your worldview, and every time you either frighten me with some absolute stance such as your moral stance for good or you proclaim superiority to others. Such comments like you stating nobody believes in subjective morality, but then after being disagreed with, you further stated, if they do then they deserve to be in straight-jackets. It really makes me question how well you actually know the realm of other peoples ideas and the world outside of your already conceived notions.
I don't know about proclaiming superiority. But I do reserve the right to disregard people's claims, if they do not live up to them in practice.

The thing is, nobody ever lets you have a free pass if they are more powerful than you, just because you or they say that morality is subjective. You have to look empirically at how people behave, not just what they say.
By definition, morality is interpersonal, so it can't be subjective. There is no essence or molecule of morality, it's not a thing, it's a connection, a relationship, like language. But every single natural language has exactly the same basic function, to relate to people and the world.
Rationality is accepting that the natural world isn't relative, it behaves consistently.
Morality is accepting that people are not relative either and should behave consistently. Does that make sense to you?
People are the part of the natural world that has capacity to behave inconsistently. Morality is the brain software of consistency in our relations. Consistency is natural and universally accepted and expected from natural world.

I have a theory: people who do not expect consistency from other people, but they expect it everywhere else, were exposed to early violence. I can only ask, how were you disciplined as a child? Can you calculate your ACE score?
http://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/

(23-08-2014 01:00 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  If you want my current positions, I don't believe there is such a thing as the true answer. It seems pretty foolish to me for anyone to think they have amassed such a knowledge of how things are when human minds are knowingly so limited.
Did anyone ever give you a free pass in a school test because there is no such thing as a true answer? Have you ever given anyone a free pass because of that?

(23-08-2014 01:00 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  What do I consider as evidence? Generally actually supported claims that have devoted multiple angles of field testing and outside observation. That's why apart from the last few steps back in, I walked away from these threads of yours because I didn't see any lingering that you accepted the possibility of human fallibility of ones ideas because you dismissed that and opposed it by discussing morality.
Again, I have to be empirical. I can't just take what you say, I have to verify that. So I'll give you a link to the ACE study on 17,000 mostly white college educated people from San Diego middle class, and a link to other studies.
http://www.fdrurl.com/tn_abuse1
http://www.acestudy.org

(23-08-2014 01:00 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I do not think government is moral or immoral, but I understand your desire to view it that way from you position. You frequently make out governed as this force that is extorting humanity. It may be to an extend, but I don't get how or why you draw the line on government as this force. I've not followed every argument you make deeply, but you seem to arbitrarily make the distinction on that level. I for one think the issues unfold deeper than that. I think that power or presumed convictions of the right path are themselves destructive and get abused.
You have a right to your stance. But I have duty to empirically verify things. One way to verify what you say is to ask if you ever gave a free pass to someone or were given a free pass because "there is no such thing as a right path". I don't mean you thought of that when you watched TV one day, you actually might, but I ask about practical human relations, was there a harm or damage or failure of duty and then did you get or did you give a free pass to someone? If yes, how were you disciplined as a child? What is your ACE score?

All that is possible. But the test may point to an alternate explanation, which I think is good. The theory that people who were exposed to violence early are de-sensitized to violence, they either make excuses for it, or they give up on desiring consistency and reciprocity in human relations in general - or so they say. (what they say may have no influence in practice, which is why I ask you, to verify that theory).

(23-08-2014 01:00 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I think evidence does back that up which is why I disagree with the idea that was floated on this board a bunch of months ago that, "Governments have a monopoly on violence." There's constant control by force manners used by other groups even today. There's clearly religious organizations (Isis being a undoubtable current one) and it's not something that societal organizations or enterprises have been exempt from. History shows you can have the same behavior of manipulation from non government sources in aggressive ways. From rising social group upheaval, feudal warlord control, and again of course religious movements throughout the world have shown that when power is unmanaged and groups have leaders convinced they have the true answers, there is more negative consequences than positive. It runs along those lines as why I think actually being skeptical and open to being wrong is an intellectually necessity.
The monopoly on violence thing is Max Weber's definition, it's official. There are so many forms of government, that this is the only thing they have in common. Sociology? *it's science, I ain't got to explain shit!*
My theory of violence, which is also shared by Holy Moly and Plato in the words of Socrates is, social violence is extension of early childhood family violence.

From my official studies I learned that the king and government originated from oikos. Oikos was a traditional self-sufficient Greek household with family, extended family, servants, slaves and livestock. This is where oikos nomos, or economy comes from, rules of the household management.
The king was always regarded as a father and head of the kingdom and for centuries or millenia, there was no difference between the king's oikos and the kingdom. The taxes went directly into king's hands. Kingdom, or government is family for adults. King has the right to punish and it is wrong to disobey him, just like a father. People who grew up around violent parents are either anxious without them and seek power, or they fall into moral apathy and are unable to confront douchebags for non-reciprocal (inconsistent) behavior. This is my theory. And so far, I have seen nothing but evidence for it. A contrary evidence would be if people gave free pass to others when harmed (because relativism) and yet they did not experience violence or deprivation in childhood.
Does that seem like a fair enough falsification criteria to you?
Calculate your ACE score.
http://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 03:36 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(23-08-2014 02:47 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 09:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, really, I don't know what he means. Consider
It's a scientific thing. A long term neurosis caused by short term suppression of an emotional mechanism, or emotional deprivation. If someone beats you up or yells at you, what do you do? Fight or flight. But if that someone are your primary care givers on which you are vitally dependent, fight or flight is a certain death, as far as evolution is concerned. Suppression allows children to survive and act around the attackers as if the assault didn't happen, but the brain is incapable of suppressing healthy stress response without actually blocking a part of itself and spending energy on hypervigilance which it needs on normal healthy learning in childhood. Also, the cortisol levels are huge.

It is sometimes associated with repressed memory, but not that I know. I know only repressed memory about an emotion and then inability to recall that emotion or experience it. It is very difficult to dig it up. It never heals by itself, because the brain is in constant use. Conscious intentional therapy is needed to rewire the trauma. A brain in deep relaxation allows better access to the memory. If the memory is too deep and powerful, the brain tries rather ineptly to process it on its own and it's known as PTSD.

That's what I mean by peaceful parenting. "Spanking" is worse than regular assault, slavery and domestic violence. It literally de-sensitizes us against authorities who use force, which is the basis of political legitimity, we have a rule that authorities are allowed and supposed to use force. Might makes right, argumentum ad baculum.

(23-08-2014 01:00 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I have made efforts to get closer to your worldview, and every time you either frighten me with some absolute stance such as your moral stance for good or you proclaim superiority to others. Such comments like you stating nobody believes in subjective morality, but then after being disagreed with, you further stated, if they do then they deserve to be in straight-jackets. It really makes me question how well you actually know the realm of other peoples ideas and the world outside of your already conceived notions.
I don't know about proclaiming superiority. But I do reserve the right to disregard people's claims, if they do not live up to them in practice.

The thing is, nobody ever lets you have a free pass if they are more powerful than you, just because you or they say that morality is subjective. You have to look empirically at how people behave, not just what they say.
By definition, morality is interpersonal, so it can't be subjective. There is no essence or molecule of morality, it's not a thing, it's a connection, a relationship, like language. But every single natural language has exactly the same basic function, to relate to people and the world.
Rationality is accepting that the natural world isn't relative, it behaves consistently.
Morality is accepting that people are not relative either and should behave consistently. Does that make sense to you?
People are the part of the natural world that has capacity to behave inconsistently. Morality is the brain software of consistency in our relations. Consistency is natural and universally accepted and expected from natural world.

I have a theory: people who do not expect consistency from other people, but they expect it everywhere else, were exposed to early violence. I can only ask, how were you disciplined as a child? Can you calculate your ACE score?
http://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/

(23-08-2014 01:00 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  If you want my current positions, I don't believe there is such a thing as the true answer. It seems pretty foolish to me for anyone to think they have amassed such a knowledge of how things are when human minds are knowingly so limited.
Did anyone ever give you a free pass in a school test because there is no such thing as a true answer? Have you ever given anyone a free pass because of that?

(23-08-2014 01:00 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  What do I consider as evidence? Generally actually supported claims that have devoted multiple angles of field testing and outside observation. That's why apart from the last few steps back in, I walked away from these threads of yours because I didn't see any lingering that you accepted the possibility of human fallibility of ones ideas because you dismissed that and opposed it by discussing morality.
Again, I have to be empirical. I can't just take what you say, I have to verify that. So I'll give you a link to the ACE study on 17,000 mostly white college educated people from San Diego middle class, and a link to other studies.
http://www.fdrurl.com/tn_abuse1
http://www.acestudy.org

(23-08-2014 01:00 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I do not think government is moral or immoral, but I understand your desire to view it that way from you position. You frequently make out governed as this force that is extorting humanity. It may be to an extend, but I don't get how or why you draw the line on government as this force. I've not followed every argument you make deeply, but you seem to arbitrarily make the distinction on that level. I for one think the issues unfold deeper than that. I think that power or presumed convictions of the right path are themselves destructive and get abused.
You have a right to your stance. But I have duty to empirically verify things. One way to verify what you say is to ask if you ever gave a free pass to someone or were given a free pass because "there is no such thing as a right path". I don't mean you thought of that when you watched TV one day, you actually might, but I ask about practical human relations, was there a harm or damage or failure of duty and then did you get or did you give a free pass to someone? If yes, how were you disciplined as a child? What is your ACE score?

All that is possible. But the test may point to an alternate explanation, which I think is good. The theory that people who were exposed to violence early are de-sensitized to violence, they either make excuses for it, or they give up on desiring consistency and reciprocity in human relations in general - or so they say. (what they say may have no influence in practice, which is why I ask you, to verify that theory).

(23-08-2014 01:00 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I think evidence does back that up which is why I disagree with the idea that was floated on this board a bunch of months ago that, "Governments have a monopoly on violence." There's constant control by force manners used by other groups even today. There's clearly religious organizations (Isis being a undoubtable current one) and it's not something that societal organizations or enterprises have been exempt from. History shows you can have the same behavior of manipulation from non government sources in aggressive ways. From rising social group upheaval, feudal warlord control, and again of course religious movements throughout the world have shown that when power is unmanaged and groups have leaders convinced they have the true answers, there is more negative consequences than positive. It runs along those lines as why I think actually being skeptical and open to being wrong is an intellectually necessity.
The monopoly on violence thing is Max Weber's definition, it's official. There are so many forms of government, that this is the only thing they have in common. Sociology? *it's science, I ain't got to explain shit!*
My theory of violence, which is also shared by Holy Moly and Plato in the words of Socrates is, social violence is extension of early childhood family violence.

From my official studies I learned that the king and government originated from oikos. Oikos was a traditional self-sufficient Greek household with family, extended family, servants, slaves and livestock. This is where oikos nomos, or economy comes from, rules of the household management.
The king was always regarded as a father and head of the kingdom and for centuries or millenia, there was no difference between the king's oikos and the kingdom. The taxes went directly into king's hands. Kingdom, or government is family for adults. King has the right to punish and it is wrong to disobey him, just like a father. People who grew up around violent parents are either anxious without them and seek power, or they fall into moral apathy and are unable to confront douchebags for non-reciprocal (inconsistent) behavior. This is my theory. And so far, I have seen nothing but evidence for it. A contrary evidence would be if people gave free pass to others when harmed (because relativism) and yet they did not experience violence or deprivation in childhood.
Does that seem like a fair enough falsification criteria to you?
Calculate your ACE score.
http://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/

I fukcing love this. Don't agree with Lumi? Must be you were abused as a child... Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-08-2014, 03:41 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(23-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(23-08-2014 02:47 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It's a scientific thing. A long term neurosis caused by short term suppression of an emotional mechanism, or emotional deprivation. If someone beats you up or yells at you, what do you do? Fight or flight. But if that someone are your primary care givers on which you are vitally dependent, fight or flight is a certain death, as far as evolution is concerned. Suppression allows children to survive and act around the attackers as if the assault didn't happen, but the brain is incapable of suppressing healthy stress response without actually blocking a part of itself and spending energy on hypervigilance which it needs on normal healthy learning in childhood. Also, the cortisol levels are huge.

It is sometimes associated with repressed memory, but not that I know. I know only repressed memory about an emotion and then inability to recall that emotion or experience it. It is very difficult to dig it up. It never heals by itself, because the brain is in constant use. Conscious intentional therapy is needed to rewire the trauma. A brain in deep relaxation allows better access to the memory. If the memory is too deep and powerful, the brain tries rather ineptly to process it on its own and it's known as PTSD.

That's what I mean by peaceful parenting. "Spanking" is worse than regular assault, slavery and domestic violence. It literally de-sensitizes us against authorities who use force, which is the basis of political legitimity, we have a rule that authorities are allowed and supposed to use force. Might makes right, argumentum ad baculum.

I don't know about proclaiming superiority. But I do reserve the right to disregard people's claims, if they do not live up to them in practice.

The thing is, nobody ever lets you have a free pass if they are more powerful than you, just because you or they say that morality is subjective. You have to look empirically at how people behave, not just what they say.
By definition, morality is interpersonal, so it can't be subjective. There is no essence or molecule of morality, it's not a thing, it's a connection, a relationship, like language. But every single natural language has exactly the same basic function, to relate to people and the world.
Rationality is accepting that the natural world isn't relative, it behaves consistently.
Morality is accepting that people are not relative either and should behave consistently. Does that make sense to you?
People are the part of the natural world that has capacity to behave inconsistently. Morality is the brain software of consistency in our relations. Consistency is natural and universally accepted and expected from natural world.

I have a theory: people who do not expect consistency from other people, but they expect it everywhere else, were exposed to early violence. I can only ask, how were you disciplined as a child? Can you calculate your ACE score?
http://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/

Did anyone ever give you a free pass in a school test because there is no such thing as a true answer? Have you ever given anyone a free pass because of that?

Again, I have to be empirical. I can't just take what you say, I have to verify that. So I'll give you a link to the ACE study on 17,000 mostly white college educated people from San Diego middle class, and a link to other studies.
http://www.fdrurl.com/tn_abuse1
http://www.acestudy.org

You have a right to your stance. But I have duty to empirically verify things. One way to verify what you say is to ask if you ever gave a free pass to someone or were given a free pass because "there is no such thing as a right path". I don't mean you thought of that when you watched TV one day, you actually might, but I ask about practical human relations, was there a harm or damage or failure of duty and then did you get or did you give a free pass to someone? If yes, how were you disciplined as a child? What is your ACE score?

All that is possible. But the test may point to an alternate explanation, which I think is good. The theory that people who were exposed to violence early are de-sensitized to violence, they either make excuses for it, or they give up on desiring consistency and reciprocity in human relations in general - or so they say. (what they say may have no influence in practice, which is why I ask you, to verify that theory).

The monopoly on violence thing is Max Weber's definition, it's official. There are so many forms of government, that this is the only thing they have in common. Sociology? *it's science, I ain't got to explain shit!*
My theory of violence, which is also shared by Holy Moly and Plato in the words of Socrates is, social violence is extension of early childhood family violence.

From my official studies I learned that the king and government originated from oikos. Oikos was a traditional self-sufficient Greek household with family, extended family, servants, slaves and livestock. This is where oikos nomos, or economy comes from, rules of the household management.
The king was always regarded as a father and head of the kingdom and for centuries or millenia, there was no difference between the king's oikos and the kingdom. The taxes went directly into king's hands. Kingdom, or government is family for adults. King has the right to punish and it is wrong to disobey him, just like a father. People who grew up around violent parents are either anxious without them and seek power, or they fall into moral apathy and are unable to confront douchebags for non-reciprocal (inconsistent) behavior. This is my theory. And so far, I have seen nothing but evidence for it. A contrary evidence would be if people gave free pass to others when harmed (because relativism) and yet they did not experience violence or deprivation in childhood.
Does that seem like a fair enough falsification criteria to you?
Calculate your ACE score.
http://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/

I fukcing love this. Don't agree with Lumi? Must be you were abused as a child... Facepalm

What other reason could there be, what with Lumy being infallibly right all the time. He studied philosophy ya know... well he read some books... a book... he skimmed a book... he liked the cover.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: