Are there thoughts which you don't allow your mind to go through? Have you ever thought that it's possible to improve oneself simply by thinking?
I'll give an example. I guess religious people do not want to think blasphemous thoughts. If you're christian, you might not want to think "fuck the christ". When I was a child, I was raised in a religious environment. My parents are religious but open-minded. I remember that this thought came up to me as a kid, because I knew that was something bad. Then, due to an effect of the brain, I couldn't stop thinking about it, this thought repeated more and more no matter how much I struggled to keep it out of my mind.
As time passed, I became more skeptical. I doubted religions and slowly started doubting more things taken for granted. Not only that, but I also realized there's not a single thought that is bad to think (what does it mean for a thought to be bad anyway?); because if it were, it would drive me insane, if I ever knew I was making one. To many, another thought that would be avoided, would be "Am I wrong about this?", for something they have for granted.
Did I pass off as a complete weirdo?
you better not start thinking 8-year-olds are hot, you disgusting pedo.
>>3
That's not where I wanted to get this discussion going. Did you know famous philosophers such as the cynics accepted pedophilia and cannibalism too?
There's some really stupid views on education, sex, politics and life today that most people adopt. Can you have an honest discussion about pedophilia (or any other subject, if you like) or do you think that you're too fucked up in your mind that you can't do even that?
> really stupid views
> Can you have an honest discussion ... or do you think that you're too fucked up in your mind that you can't do even that?
It seems to me that you may be under the impression that anyone who doesn't agree with you is 'fucked up in (the) mind' and their views are 'really stupid'.
One is not capable of having an honest discussion with anyone if they dismiss the opinions of others in this way.
And just because 'most people adopt' a view does not mean that none will ever re-evaluate said view and come back to the same conclusion.
> That's not where I wanted to get this discussion going
Then why did you immediately turn around and start steering it in that direction?
> It seems to me that you may be under the impression that anyone who doesn't agree with you is 'fucked up in (the) mind' and their views are 'really stupid'.
Not really, but sometimes I am disappointed if they bring up something I've considered and found out to be inferior to what I'm saying. It takes a lot of explaining for people to change opinion while I merely consider them, and I don't think I have an opinion of my own.
But, since you're playing devils advocate (or is it me who's doing that?), let me know, don't you find anything wrong with education, for instance? Before we go into that, what do you think education is about anyway? How should it be done?
> One is not capable of having an honest discussion with anyone if they dismiss the opinions of others in this way.
I haven't dismissed anything, I simply labeled a group of ideas and opinions as "stupid views". Well, only because they're vastly inferior to other solutions and thoughts available. I'm not looking to help you (if I think you're in need of help), but merely to offer my thoughts here, and if you could do the same, that'd be what I want this thread to be about.
Here's an example so I'm not misunderstood. If I talk to someone and I'm saying that all humans are equal, and he's racist and says something about citizens of X country, I really don't want to spend time to make him admit humans are equal and it's merely circumstances that make them do what they're doing. I don't want to tell him that circumstances can be, to a degree, controlled by others (for instance governments), and it is so, and that they benefit from racism. I don't want to get caught up in this silly game where I'm the teacher and he's the student that fights back with his ignorance, because my time might be wasted, and more importantly, who am I to know if others need teaching or not?
> Then why did you immediately turn around and start steering it in that direction?
>>3 brought it up, and I think it's quite an interesting subject because the majority won't even stop and think about it, it'll just accept & adopt what it has been told, and that's it. It also has an interesting history, which is ignored. Could be a way to figure out who's thinking and who's farting here. I'll steer in any direction you bring up and we'll see where that gets us.
>>6
OK, I'll bite. But you should request this thread moved to /debate/.
> since you're playing devils advocate (or is it me who's doing that?)
Maybe both of us... perhaps we'll both learn something.
> anything wrong with education...?
This is too general a question to address. Is there anything wrong with bananas? (Yes! As it turns out... but not in an everyday context)
> what do you think education is about anyway?
Education is, in most cases, the one-way sharing of ideas and methods, usually from teacher to pupil.
> How should it be done?
Ideally, education should be training, instruction, independent study or open dialog depending on the intelligence and character of the student(s) and the nature of the subject. Some subjects, like mathematics and how to operate a power saw or fire=hot, are not conductive to discussion. Most (K12) students do not have the desire and/or mental faculty to pursue knowledge for it's own sake.
> Here's an example so I'm not misunderstood.
Maybe I might need a more clear example, but in this case I'd argue that both of you have simple views (even if one is more complicated than the other), when my version of reality is more complex. If I wanted to be crude, I'd call them both 'stupid views', but belittling the opinions of another is insulting and so counter-productive. Not only because it infuriates the unwilling 'student' and so makes them unreceptive, but reveals that the self-designated 'teacher' is riding on an intellectual high-horse.
> I'm the teacher and he's the student that fights back with his ignorance
> who am I to know if others need teaching or not?
A good point, who are any of us to know? And who really is the teacher in this game? I'd expound more, but my higher brain functions have been temporarily disabled
I'm in. I like your thinking OP, but if you want to go into philosophy, then the word "bad" is going to be a problem.
So, assuming no thought is bad, then how about "wrong?" If someone is a fool because they disacknowledge that they could be wrong, then isn't that bad? Perhaps an obstinate way of thinking is "bad."
If we assume no thought is bad, then how about the intent of the thought? Is something only wrong when it happens, or is will for such an even to happen just as evil?
However, if thinking some thoughts become considered wrong all the more, then thought-crime can become punishable in your nation. I don't think anyone sane wants that.
>Education is, in most cases, the one-way sharing of ideas and methods, usually from teacher to pupil.
Sure, but to get understanding, to "grok" as they say, you must be capable of applying the concepts. What better way than to debate their nature?
Well, ok, concept should be deconstructed and debated to properly cognate with them. I do understand the difference between practical, technical and conceptual knowledge.
>>6, I get the feeling that your thoughts are superior, but that's largely survival instinct--in some ways it's an act of faith in yourself. But considering the evidence that you can be wrong (you're posting on a human board, aye?)you need to better acknowledge that confidence and correctness are entirely unrelated.
Despite your veiws, how is your certainty in anything defensible or worth insulting another? Any step in a mental process after the fact "I exist" (assuming you do) can be flawed.
This is a debate, but the personal issue seems to be that we're all wrong. To quote Benjamin Franklin: "But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said 'I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison.' "
> OK, I'll bite. But you should request this thread moved to /debate/.
I'll do that.
> Education is, in most cases, the one-way sharing of ideas and methods, usually from teacher to pupil.
I don't think that is accurate. It'd be accurate only if the teacher is not a human.
> Maybe I might need a more clear example, but in this case I'd argue that both of you have simple views (even if one is more complicated than the other), when my version of reality is more complex.
But we're not talking that generally (about reality). We're talking about humans. When I further talked about the origins of racism and/or its reason to exist, I was pointing out that current governments and other parties would do anything for more power; as a consequence, here's racism. That has to do more with politics than reality.
> If I wanted to be crude, I'd call them both 'stupid views', but belittling the opinions of another is insulting and so counter-productive. Not only because it infuriates the unwilling 'student' and so makes them unreceptive, but reveals that the self-designated 'teacher' is riding on an intellectual high-horse.
You can call them both stupid sure. But please, also let me know your thoughts on this. Actually, since you thought I was talking about reality when I was trying to point out the fallacies of racism as an example of what you might not be able to explain to someone else. I don't agree with you that insulting is counter-productive. I don't care about insults, they're valueless. You can add all sorts of insults in your message, but if you're saying something I want to hear (for instance, if you continue our discussion too), then all I need is there. When I'm going for gold-digging in a mine, I don't expect to find gold only, there's bound to be dirt there. Plus, I don't really think a thought can be stupid. Like I said to >>8, thoughts are equally valueless to me. However, when someone suggests something I've already considered, I consider my current view "better or equal" to his. That is because I've either adopted his opinion for lack of a better one or I've found a better one. Knowing that he missed such a thing I can imagine things equally or more subtle than this which could also be eluded. I don't consider my time important but I'd rather not waste it.
> I'm in. I like your thinking OP, but if you want to go into philosophy, then the word "bad" is going to be a problem.
Great. I used that word to tell a story and to explain my thoughts long time ago, when I was a kid. Nowadays, I'd be described as an amoralist. I understand good and bad in a relative sense only. For instance, eating apples is good for humans, eating rocks is bad, if we care for their survival.
> If we assume no thought is bad, then how about the intent of the thought? Is something only wrong when it happens, or is will for such an even to happen just as evil?
My opinion is that nor the intent nor the action (thought) is what makes it bad or good, instead I don't see value at all. Every thought is equally valuable (or rather, value is not one of its properties), therefore everyone is a philosopher, in the strictest sense.
> >>6, I get the feeling that your thoughts are superior, but that's largely survival instinct--in some ways it's an act of faith in yourself. But considering the evidence that you can be wrong (you're posting on a human board, aye?)you need to better acknowledge that confidence and correctness are entirely unrelated.
Like I said to >>7, it is only because I've already "crossed that stream" that I'd rather not waste time with views I find "boring". Like, for instance, mathematics where you learn that a(x + y) = ax + ay, you don't want to waste any more time with that - you want to learn other things.
> Despite your veiws, how is your certainty in anything defensible or worth insulting another? Any step in a mental process after the fact "I exist" (assuming you do) can be flawed.
I exist, therefore something defines me. Which is that? You're on safer ground to claim "something is".
> ...let me know your thoughts on this...since you thought I was talking about reality when I was trying to point out the fallacies of racism as an example of what you might not be able to explain to someone else.
No I was not, I was displaying that you may appear as foolish in the eyes of others as the bigot, and further that insulting the bigot (as it is an act of hostility) only closes his ears while you attempt to evangelize.
But I will tell you my opinion although I won't seek to back it up:
Racism can be justified. I can show a particular group of humans are stronger or weaker than another (ignoring all arguments about flaws in testing, lets assume the results are perfect). If any randomly selected group of people can differ in any area of ability, so can an isolated group. It would be up to one with the means to prove this gap, but in western society anyone who attempts this will be shouted down by those like yourself and end up losing his professorship or senate seat or what-have-you. This is anti-racism being used as a political tool as effectively as racism.
Racism is not purely manufactured, by those seeking power or as a means to an end, but has it's roots in human behavior. Grouping, and so judging, people by their skin, features, dress or language was not a sinister plot of a political strategist but a means for survival in a tribal environment. In most cases it's merely instinct and has only the justification of one's own unique experience. I would say the best argument against racism is one that falls more in line with natural selection: promoting genetic diversity is good for the species as a whole, even if one group seems to have many shortcomings, it could turn out they are immune to the next pandemic.
I close this thought by reminding all I will not back it up or argue, simply because I don't wish to participate in a flamewar.
> When I'm going for gold-digging in a mine, I don't expect to find gold only, there's bound to be dirt there.
I find that to be a poor analogy. It's more like a man on the street just gave you a delicious and nutritious rhubarb pie for free... with a sixteen-inch long piece of human feces on top of it. Sure you could safely eat around it, but you will sooner recoil in horror. While you may be an intellectual superman, you must understand that human people have instincts and feelings. Please keep your turds to yourself.
> No I was not, I was displaying that you may appear as foolish in the eyes of others as the bigot, and further that insulting the bigot (as it is an act of hostility) only closes his ears while you attempt to evangelize.
Why should I care about them when they don't care enough for themselves to listen more carefully? Why should I be interested in chatting with someone who is stupid enough (for a lack of a better epithet) to be unable to extract the actual content of a message?
> Racism can be justified. I can show a particular group of humans are stronger or weaker than another (ignoring all arguments about flaws in testing, lets assume the results are perfect). If any randomly selected group of people can differ in any area of ability, so can an isolated group. It would be up to one with the means to prove this gap, but in western society anyone who attempts this will be shouted down by those like yourself and end up losing his professorship or senate seat or what-have-you. This is anti-racism being used as a political tool as effectively as racism.
Showing that a group is better than another in something is not an argument for racism. Blacks can clearly withstand the beams of sun for much longer time than whites. It's not racist to say that. I don't know why you mentioned the western world as if there's a better place that we're all not aware of but you are. Anti-racism is used and that's something expected. It's merely lawyers protecting their minority group, and I doubt a professor would lose his job that easily. You could initially be labeled racist but there's credibility in the court -- they won't listen to a lawyer instead of an academic who's doing research of some sort easily. It's much more usual that one (or ones work) gets shunned instead.
> Racism is not purely manufactured, by those seeking power or as a means to an end, but has it's roots in human behavior. Grouping, and so judging, people by their skin, features, dress or language was not a sinister plot of a political strategist but a means for survival in a tribal environment. In most cases it's merely instinct and has only the justification of one's own unique experience. I would say the best argument against racism is one that falls more in line with natural selection: promoting genetic diversity is good for the species as a whole, even if one group seems to have many shortcomings, it could turn out they are immune to the next pandemic.
How naive you sound. Religions were used to dress people by the same code to avoid the spreading of a disease, to enhance the feeling of unity, et cetera. So, yes, there were actually sinister plots and there might still be. Racism is not instict in most cases, that's also something you made up. In most cases, it's something taught or experienced. Instict has little to do with this, and you don't have an argument for racism. It's also an instict to be afraid of the dark/unknown. Shouldn't we get past such fears? Regardless, if you want a history chit-chat, you better be specific from now on and mention the age and environment we're making speculations about. Natural selection has nothing to do with it either; we're intelligent creatures. We're beyond surviving -- humanity matters more than that. It's hard to find the link (if there's one) between natural selection and racism or its justification, by the way, so if you get time to explain that, please do. Promoting genetic diversity has nothing to do with racism either. You've got everything mixed up.
> I close this thought by reminding all I will not back it up or argue, simply because I don't wish to participate in a flamewar.
Back up what? Your zero arguments for/against racism? All you did was mention a couple of things that are not related to racism, like statistical selection, natural selection and genetic diversity.
>> When I'm going for gold-digging in a mine, I don't expect to find gold only, there's bound to be dirt there.
> I find that to be a poor analogy. It's more like a man on the street just gave you a delicious and nutritious rhubarb pie for free... with a sixteen-inch long piece of human feces on top of it. Sure you could safely eat around it, but you will sooner recoil in horror. While you may be an intellectual superman, you must understand that human people have instincts and feelings. Please keep your turds to yourself.
Why is my analogy poor? The point is that you can't find gold only, you have to search for it, like you have to search for something you might be interested in, in things that might be of no interest, ie the content of the message which appeals to you, in contrast with everything else in that message. In particular, if Nietzsche started every sentence of his with 'Fuck you, ...', he'd still be the same important philosopher he is now (I'm not comparing myself to Nietzsche, I'm merely making a point here). Do you still think that the analogy is poor, after it's been explained to you? How does your analogy compare? That last bit about human insticts/feelings & my turds really got me wondering whether you're a troll or something worse.
Racism can't be justified because it is by definition unjustified: it's the unjustified racial discrimination. Because you mixed all those things like natural selection and genetics I was wondering if you had a very different idea of what is racism than mine when I was writing my post.
Anonymous: Herr Freud, I notice you smoke a lot of cigars and so therefore it's obvious to me you have an oral fixation.
Sigmund Freud: FUCK YOU
> Why should I care about them when they don't care enough for themselves to listen more carefully?
Ditto
> DIRT DIRT DIRT TURD DIRT TURD DIRT DIRT DIRT GOLD TURD
You asked for my opinion, I gave it to you, and I get this back. I see now I should have either wrote a long-winded dissertation or just not responded at all.
> Why is my analogy poor?
Because dirt is common and merely unwanted. It prompts no reaction or even acknowledgment of it's existence.
Feces is filthy, carries disease, and prompts the dry heaves in large quantities.
It's not that the insult is just 'not interesting' or 'valueless'; It's downright offensive, it has negative value, it causes other to return fire or walk away. To use your own analogy, which you still prefer, the insult is not the gold or the dirt, it's methane gas. We do not stay in the mine when it's filling up with methane.
> Racism ... it's the unjustified racial discrimination.
Racism and racial discrimination are two different but not mutually exclusive things.
> you had a very different idea of what is racism than mine when I was writing my post.
This much is now obvious.
I'm reading between the lines here, and sensing hostility. As such discussing anything further with you could only be a masturbatory exercise.
> Racism and racial discrimination are two different but not mutually exclusive things.
Which are different and mutually exclusive?
>>16
I admit that everything was my fault. I hope we can still chat over something else, if you like. In the meantime I'll read some more about what racism is (I admit I haven't done much reading on that subject because I always thought the concept is obvious).
I'm glad you can take something away from this.
I should be more clear though that when I refer to the roots of racism I mean stereotyping/prejudice, mostly unconscious thought processes that all people share regardless of personal conviction.