A question about opinion

whiteypoker · Junior Otaku Gender: Joined: 30 Nov 2004

First off, I have a college degree from a liberal arts school. I have my major in business and a minor in psychology and a minor in philosophy. I don't make lasting snap judgements, although there is quite a bit of research that suggest your should go with that instinct because your brain is a pattern analyzer. Anywho...

As to your apologizing for your implication that emotions were illogical I quote

Excel Zero · Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:24 am Post subject:

Graillik Tur · Renaissancetaku Gender: Joined: 09 Jul 2004

Oh jesus and it was going so well.

I believe what whitey is trying to get across is, he's had the academic schooling in subjects that make him very formidable at these kinds of discussions. I know, I have had many with him. I don't win, I just hold my own.

Now...emotions pure or not. In the model so built there can be nothing as named a 'pure emotion'. Why? You automatically with each new situation conitate it with an emotion. Children do not feel emtions purely, merely they do not have the words necessary to express these emotions.

2. Pain is not an emotion, it is a physical response to a stimulus. That is the definition. When you say 'it hurts' and your talking about an emotion what your saying is 'there is a physical as well as emtional imbalance'. When your 'heart hurts' when you lose a loved one, what your experiancing an emotion called sadness. This emotion is accompanied by a slew of physical problems, launched again by your logical brain that is designed to give these results based off of a slew of things.

Now as the mind is a logical machine, it can be made to react in a variety of different ways. This is also why we can use drugs to induce all kinds of 'emotions' like with extacy, speed, cocain, while we can also program the mind to not respond in ways that are considered normal. Like those that run at bunkers with bombs strapped to themselves. All logic says dying is bad. Well, you convince the mind differently you have a great soldier.

I'm tired, I've been drinking, and I'll form more documented responses later.

Salut.

Silver Adept · Otaku Lord Age: 42 Gender: Joined: 20 May 2003

Permit the unenlightened to make a barb.

Doot is correct - those who debate in matters out of their knowledge will be sunk.

However, there's a coping mechanism that nobody seems to have noticed yet - intimidation. If you can convince your opponent that you know more than they do, then the battle is won without actually having to test the theory.

Both Whitey and Graillik have used the technique - either by belittling others' intelligence and reasoning capabilities or promoting their own. Others have done the same, but you guys are noticeable, again, and so you're being singled out for an example.

This would naturally give rise to a swift and nasty response, probably several savage ad hominem attacks, and the moderators wisely closing the topic because it had degenerated.

History will repeat itself if someone doesn't learn from it. (Admittedly, my conservative upbringing and liberal education make me a very good fence-sitter, and I've managed to make that appear like I'm impartial. So far, anyway...) This is the way of topic closure - I'd really prefer that things return to their original state - opinions stated and discussed not in terms of "right" and "wrong", but of how they relate (or don't) to the question at hand.

You guys are dragging this off-topic, even though it appears you're still discussing the same thing. The matter of logical mind and emotional mind are ultimately irrelevant, because in both cases, it's what happens to those minds that produce the associations. Some people will shred you using perfect logic if you should happen to misstepon one of their pet peeves, and others will flame with emotion and passion.

So, in a very Ha, ha, only Serious way, quit your alpha-male posturing and answer my question. (You see, you've annoyed me. Because you're too busy establishing dominance - this results in my logical (and emotional) frustration that you're ultimately using my question for your own self-serving ends, instead of providing knowledge to the group as a whole. So I've lashed out personally as an attempt to shock you back into a more productive mindset.

What'll really fry your brains is whether or not that's the same sort of personal attack as the other ones I've been describing.)

shadokastur · Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 2:04 am Post subject:

And so, I gracefully bow out of this thread and let whomever wants to take it further do so. Silver Adept, I'm sorry for any agitation I've caused you personally.

REY

whiteypoker · Junior Otaku Gender: Joined: 30 Nov 2004

There is also another coping mechanism that people haven't noticed yet. Its called confusion. If you can't win a debate with your skill alone, you throw up a smoke screen as though you appear to know what you're talking about, attempting to call a bluff. You don't know what you're talking about but you believe that your opponent may not either. So you say something along the lines of

Silver Adept · Otaku Lord Age: 42 Gender: Joined: 20 May 2003

I'm sorry that shadokastur's withdrawing (I try not to induce those sorts of things. Aoplogies that I came across in such a way)

Whitey, misinterpretation is the bane of a debater's existence. I do not appreciate your implication that I'm "inept", and that I'm bluffing, somehow. I fail to see where I did not make a point.

Using examples is a valid way of calling attention to something - after all, if everyone had to start at the beginning, deducing the theories that were applicable to the example, and then using the example - conversation, and debate, would get nowhere. Instead, we say, "Oh, that's an example of X" and the necessary theory is implied. To those that understand, they can begin talking about whether it really is an example of X or not.

I didn't mind it when you were arguing things in the context of the question I asked, but when you started debating those things outside the context, it became superfluous to the topic's design. It's still valid debate, but it should probably be discussed in a separate context.

I did not ask the mods to do anything. I merely noted that the path that involves intimidation as a regular feature is very likely to cause things to unravel, and thus bring their attention. The moderators have not flamed in this topic as best I can tell.

Beware of thinking that "English Professors" are somehow not debating things like right and wrong. After all, it is "English Professors" who attach the meanings to the symbols that you use to debate right and wrong. They are "Thinkers" as well, and they are no less occupied in discussing right and wrong - they have to create the words and meanings of those words. You are dependent on them to get your ideas across.

In typing this response, I may have answered the question I posed.

People get hot about these topics when they feel intimidated by someone, that somehow their intelligence is being insulted or their free range to explore ideas is being restricted.

Now, in asking you guys to get back on-topic, I am restricting your range of idea exploring, in favor of trying to make productive work on the question posed. My thesis is teaching me about that - there's a lot of good material, but for it to convey the idea I want, I have to focus and trim the extraneous parts away.

I still think we can have civil discussion - in fact, we've had civil discussion for the majority of words so far. All I ask is that you respect your fellow forum-goers by not trying to intimidate them, and that you keep the focus on the topic at hand. If you feel the need to go somewhere apparently off-topic, explain why you feel the need, so that we can decide for ourselves whether or not it's worth bringing into the discussion.

I've made a statement about the topic above - perhaps your opinion differs? Let us continue our dialogue.

whiteypoker · Junior Otaku Gender: Joined: 30 Nov 2004

I like fluffy bunnies and flowers. I hug trees and save dolphins from tuna nets. I can't kill a fly without feeling as though I have commited a major sin. Sometimes, when I have nothing to do I feel bad because I know I could be feeding the homeless.

Taking into account my back ground, I think people get out of line because they don't have enough love in their life. It really has nothing to do with intelligence, research, maturity, and acedemia just like peachy silver said. Its all about those gosh darn people who seem like they have something to prove. You know...having a large ego, and a degree, and a business, and investments, and a future really mean nothing if you don't have enough love. You see, I think that Freud was right when he said that if a child didn't get enough anal pleasure in the development stages, he would grow to seek to fill a hole of sorts in his feelings. Thats why we all get out of hand, not enough love to fill the gap the lack of anal pleasure as a child left.

Very Happy

Graillik Tur · Renaissancetaku Gender: Joined: 09 Jul 2004

Off topic...some topics that may need to be looked into:
Perfect Logic, mind association, willingness to learn, openess to being wrong, slighted attack, bluffing, Links vs right and wrong, group vs the individual, sportsmanship, implied threory, context, foundation of meaning, dependancy of meaning, intellectual attack, range of free thought, restriction of topic by topic poster, disassociation of theory.

All of these points have come up in the past vew posts.

Now onto mine.

Wow, there is a lot of material to go through here. We will go step by step as to not leave anyone behind.

Coping Mechanism - intimidation. This is not a "coping" mechanism. It is a tatctic, and a good one. ANyone that can be "bullied" in a mental exchange should not enter the exchange. 2. Anyone that is not a little intimidated by what they are doing here, is a fool. I state this because everyone here can look at past posts and see what they are up against. This is not an egotistical idea, every time I see Tobs post, I get a little intimidated. Being intimidated also keep you alert, and alive.
Belittling or posturing - I don't believe I have postured, but perhaps I have. And again, anyone that feels belittled either a) thinks they know more then they do. or b) is not so "open-minded" about the fact they may not have it right. I'll state it right now, I may be wrong. I'm just waiting for someone to bring a reasonable argument to prove me wrong.
Ad hominem - this is a posturing. Spouting a dead language that we all may or may not know. Ex nihil, nihil sit. Veni, vidi, vinci. Semper ubi, sub ubi. I do and neither the usage nor knowledge of such "helps" the debate. Just say personal attach and save us time.
History repeating itself - save for another topic. You "appearing" impartial - I'm not going into.
Alpha male and establishing dominance - room for another topic, but since you brought it up. In a debate there is a winner and a loser. There can only be one alpha. and you attempting to "constrain" the evolution of the topic is an attempt at limiting the "free roam" of my knowledge. So your also a hypocirt and are attempting to re-establish your own personal dominance over an idea that is no more yours than mine. Sorry for the ad hominem but perhaps it will "shock" you into seeing what it is I"m attempting to show you. Perhaps you'll have a "Eureka" moment while you sit in your tub. Do you know that story? It's a Roman Legend.
All the infor I am using for this response is from one post. A post that jumps topics a lot. This in debate is called a "shotgun" tactic. You blurt as many new ideas as you can in an attempt to draw your opponent into an area you are more educated in. Whether you did it on purpose or not, you used it. It's a confusion tactic and I applaud you for it.
Now, implied theory. There again you expect everyone to know the theories we are using. As whitey said, some basic ground work must be laid so that we are sure everyone is starting on the same footing. Whitey and I are attempting to ensure everyone knows the basis for our atguments. So it seems to be leading away from the original topic, but it is necessary. In your plan it would take several seperate theread to get to one idea. This is fine, but I was trying to avoid that by placing the needed info here. Gomen.
Ensligh professors as thinkers. Professors do not apply terms to our words. We as a people apply them. English professors merely keep track and use themmore apporpriately than most. While I am sure they do think, more than likely not in the same context we are discussing using these same words.

Now for a portion on opinion and fact. Fact is an occurance that happens so regularly we as a people expect the outcome. We will use a light switch as an example. If anyone does not know what a light switch is pm me and I will explain it and how it works. When you flip a light on, you fully expect the light to come on. Now the first time the light does not come one your "fact" becomes an "opinion" because it is fallable. This could lead top seperate conclusions. Two are: a) if fact is the polar oppisite of opinion no fact can exist because nothing is 100% or b) because everyone perceives the world differently fact can only be stated theoretically because enough people accept it as fact. Therefore, only opinion can turly exist and no fact is viable as by the individual. So how are we to discuss something that we all view fundamentally different?

That's Socratic method of teaching. Asking questions to get your students to think for themselves. Hey, you just got a free history and philosophy lessong. Mull it over, see what you get. Post. And as always, bring the emotion but leave your feelings at the door.

Salut.

Oh, and Silver the:

[quote]
What'll reallyy fry your brains is whether or not that's the same sort of personnal attack as the othere ones I've been describing.
[/qoute]

That was just a low blow. And while it does upset me, I'm not going to let that sway my calm, as it would lead to flaming and I don't debate well in that state.

"Do not demand what you can not take by force."