Sign In

Post Praetorian

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
15-Dec-2013
Last activity
2-Mar-2019
Posts
1,103

Post History

Post
#1253009
Topic
Ask the trans woman (aka interrogate the trans woman)
Time

Do you believe there should be minimum age requirements for transitioning?

What are your feelings with regards to the concept of researching the psychology behind an individual’s desire to transition? Would you prefer a greater, or lesser, amount of such research be conducted?

What might you consider your views to be as to the benefits of requiring individuals undergo psychiatric evaluations prior to transitioning? Is this discriminatory or rather a measure in prudent caution?

Do you believe any further such psychiatric evaluations should be undertaken post-operation?

What might be your greatest hopes and fears upon achieving a successful transition?

Do you believe such transitioning surgeries should be privately or publicly funded? Do you believe the same as to regards de-transitioning surgeries?

Do you have any thoughts with regards to the following article?

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the-new-taboo-more-people-regret-sex-change-and-want-to-detransition-surgeon-says

What is your view of the following statement:

A 2011 study found that after sex reassignment surgery, more than 300 Swedish transsexuals faced a higher risk for mortality, suicide ideation, and psychiatric issues compared to the rest of the population. The researchers concluded, “Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.”

Do you have a comment with regards to the differences between dysphoria and transsexualism?

Further, what might be the proper reaction to the following:

The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham’s aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.

Research from the US and Holland suggests that up to a fifth of patients regret changing sex. A 1998 review by the Research and Development Directorate of the NHS Executive found attempted suicide rates of up to 18% noted in some medical studies of gender reassignment.

To what extent should the above be potentially discredited due to the use of 20-year old review given the likely differing views and societal pressures as compared to modern sentiments? To what extent should it be accepted given the previously quoted 2011 Swedish study?

To what degree might you concur with the following statements as a means of potentially further addressing the above?

Transgender psychiatrists, who assess whether patients should change sex, agree that more scientific research is needed. But Kevan Wylie, chairman of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ working party on gender identity disorders, said that all of his patients’ lives have drastically improved following gender reassignment surgery.

Dr Wylie added that it was difficult to conduct research on the outcome of gender reassignment, or to compare its effects with alternative treatments, because transsexualism was such a “rare experience”. Urological surgeon James Bellringer, who has performed more than 200 sex changes over the past four years, claimed that trying to carry out research that involves studying a control group of transsexual patients who were denied hormones and surgery would be unethical.

Mr Bellringer, who works at the main NHS gender identity clinic at Charing Cross hospital in west London, said: “I don’t think that any research that denied transsexual patients treatment would get past an ethics committee. There’s no other treatment that works. You either have an operation or suffer a miserable life. A fifth of those who don’t get treatment commit suicide.”

Do you have any reservations with regards to the above statements?

Do you have any comments with regards to the following article?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/16/transition-caused-more-problems-than-it-solved

Specifically, to what extent might one consider it possible that some gender dysphoria might have a connection to a failure to feel safe in the role of one’s previous gender?

How, in general, do those in the trans community view those who have chosen to de-transition?

Post
#1251510
Topic
The deletion of the political threads.
Time

I would simply recommend members be given a specific command they can use to pause an exchange they are having with a moderator in which they feel their understanding of the rules is being disrupted. For instance, when I was in public office we could always command a point of order if the rules underlining a discussion had the appearance of being broken.

https://masterofmeetings.com/index2/articles/point-of-order-what-why-when-and-how

A similar balance of power might be considered in this arena so that your role as Admin does not need to be abandoned, Jay, but instead strictly respected within the confines of its proper mandate. If individuals feel they have a reasonable countermand to your power they would/should not be able to use the fact that you are the Admin as an automatic rebuff against you or your opinions for they would have no real cause to do so.

My preference is that your leadership remain intact. This is your site and it lives or dies at your command. Disenfranchising you is to no one’s net benefit. All that remains is for a reasonable means for you to be flagged if you might cross a boundary a member considers sacred. Awareness is 90% of the solution.

As for other members who might occasionally lapse into vexatiousness, I wish to stress that it is quite possible to discuss differing opinions without using the crassest possible means of gaining ascendancy in an engagement. A truly meaningful political discussion is not at all about winning an argument by emotionally exhausting one’s opponent…rather the general purpose of a proper engagement is to attempt to sway the readers who are not necessarily directly participating–the jury, as it were. A reasonably thought out argument that remains honorable in intent will serve this purpose far better than a proof of pettiness or irritability. I have been swayed by more than one discussion because of even tones and fair dialogue, but have never been convinced by one who has simply been able to land the greatest insults.

Further, one simply cannot bully one’s opponent towards a paradigm shift: it is necessary to be as willing and open to change as one is expecting of one’s adversary…anything less is fairly hypocritical at best.

Post
#1251293
Topic
open letter by Collipso
Time

Though I would welcome back all of those banned over this discussion, I suspect they have become too deeply entrenched in their positions to appreciate the offer. Of those involved I am most surprised and disappointed with Collipso’s reaction…I had previously considered him to be much more sympathetic and thoughtful.

Frink has long been a catalyst to this site–sometimes to positive, while other times to negative, effect. Without his wit we shall lose some array of humour…and without Possessed we shall lack his acerbic charm, but I have marveled at Jay’s restraint for many months and am truly not surprised he has reached the conclusion he has. The attacks against his character have been disproportionate to his typical handling of disagreements and required some form of response. For an individual who subsidizes the cost of this site both financially and through a great deal of time, he deserves far more respect than he has been receiving…simple decorum alone should recommend all here to appreciate that we all have been given the privilege to interact here solely due to his largess…we are guests and so should acknowledge that at the very least.

Further, his responses in the politics thread have generally been fairly reasonable and thought-out. They have not been baiting so as to draw an opponent into a crossfire and have not been unsupportable rants of pure emotion…they have been considerate, calm, focused, consistent, and mature.

Even if one might not agree with all or any of his comments or arguments there is absolutely no justification for reducing debate to personal insults or attacks. I would strongly encourage a return of the politics thread, but would equally imagine it might need frequent periods of temporary lock-down. Further, I would encourage a very strict deletion of any posts that slide into personal attacks of any fashion. All here are perfectly capable of discussing topics without attempting to undermine the person against whom they disagree. We are a long way from primary school, ladies and gentlemen…

Post
#1242487
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

Warbler said:

ChainsawAsh said:

And yet people still whine about the ST being “SJW” this and “Feminazi” that. Just like people are bitching about DW having an “agenda” now.

and I am sure that every single person that is upset with the ST is upset for only one reason: a female lead. Yeah, right.

Also, neither Leia nor Padme were the leads in their trilogies.

come on, both were major stars in their trilogies. One can argue that Leia outranked both Luke and Han in the Rebellion. Padme was the leader of a whole planet and a Senator.

Similarly to how DW has had strong female characters for decades in companions like Barbara, Liz Shaw, Sarah Jane, Ace, Amy Pond, and so on and so forth, but God forbid you cast a woman in the lead role…

They didn’t just cast a women, they turned a character that had been make for over 50 years into a female. They didn’t do it for the sake of the show, they did it for PC reasons

Likely it was done for both reasons simultaneously…it appears the newest obsession is the temptation to rewrite much of history (pardon, herstory 😉) so as to be ritualistically inclusive of the modern narrative…though this is not all negative, it does have a tendency to becomes particularly grating when it appears to be overtly obvious.

A female lead is refreshing in many instances and can be quite satisfying to watch, but it can also be remarkably distasteful when the reason for it coming about appears to be the result of a cynical attempt to woo a modern audience with the now dully expected gender-reversal reveal. This is not novel–it was preordained…and in being so it loses its effect. It appears more of a trite pandering and devalued attempt to ride the subset of a particular sentiment rather than a truly insightful opportunity to portray a woman in a dominant role.

It would have been a vastly improved position to have given a more realistic phasing out of the old male doctor in favour of this new preeminent character rather than this sudden forced overtaking of another’s position. This is because it would then have allowed the woman in question to have shown her proper qualifications for being so chosen and respected…it would have allowed her to essentially arrive as her own person, with as strong and independent a stride and mannerism as she should desire…whereas currently it appears merely as though she might have been placed in full force through an obvious propping up, as though affirmative action might be considered the only possible means of providing a proper central role for a woman in these circumstances…unnecessarily cheapening the experience for many, rather than providing a healthy and welcome change…

Post
#1242484
Topic
The Place to Go for Emotional Support
Time

MWilson said:

My life hasn’t gone too well. I’ve been afraid to tell people but my anxiety has been hurting my everyday life. I was bullied in school to the point that I wound up homeschooled in eighth grade. I’ve tried to do things and failed more often than not. I haven’t been able to talk or make eye contact with people for the longest time. I know now that my scripts were stupid. I’ve been breaking down more and more. I’m starting to think things can get better now. I’m getting help. I want to apologize for bothering anyone, that’s a gigantic fear of mine. I want to let you all know I’m sorry.

I am quite certain you have not been any sort of bother…regardless it is good to know you are seeking help for other hardships you might be experiencing…this life is certainly rife with difficulties, particularly for those who might be more sensitive in nature. Self-awareness comes with a very real vulnerability to those who might be less so…the natural inclination of the latter being to tear down others. I wish you well and hope you will have the opportunity to allow your spirit to settle…school is at times a harsh environment from which it might take a few years to properly recover, but do have hope that maturity (of both yourself and your peers) definitely will bring about more peaceful interactions and fewer conflicts.

You may certainly message me personally if you would like to talk further.

Post
#1231677
Topic
Religion
Time

chyron8472 said:

Praetorian, I think your points would be better understood if your used simpler or more common language. You “translated” one confusingly verbose post by following up with another very-sightly-less confusingly verbose one.

Quite certainly that would logically be the case…but the amalgam of my thoughts do not necessarily run quite so readily downstream…or, to clarify, in trimming substance from verbosity it would seem necessary to curtail a great deal of said considerations to mere fragments…or, perhaps to clarify further still:

“What might be the fun in that?” 😉

Also, it occurs to me that just because someone identifies as nihilist, that doesn’t mean they must adhere to every facet of it.

That is most certainly debatable (which is, essentially, what I have been essaying with MFM)…for what had reasonably occurred to me was that his identification with nihilism appeared sufficiently different from my own to warrant an inquiry…and possibly an entry into the aforementioned debate…for if the definition of nihilism might be the rejection of morality’s underlying stricture, is not every accedence to said morality necessarily an admission and/or acceptance of that which they purport to regard as merely the construct of human convenience?

Or, to clarify, given my own nihilistic tendencies I simply failed to have an instinctive reaction in the same vein as that experienced by MFM and so I was mildly curious as to why…

Post
#1231676
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah, to put it less politely, some of your posts border on word salad to me. I don’t say that to be mean, I just genuinely don’t quite know if I’m interpreting your posts correctly they’re just so complexly worded. Perhaps that makes me a simpleton, but it’s the truth. I think I get your recent response so I’ll give it a shot.

No offense taken…I genuinely appreciate your efforts…

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Disgusting.

I find it ironic that a Nihilist would truly care…for what are sexual organs apart from regions of the body with a high concentration of nerve endings…? What are said nerves other than conduits capable of transmitting signals to the mass of organic matter known as the brain…? What is the brain apart from a concentration of neurons capable of translating such signals in order to determine the appropriate related chemical releases…?

So for what purpose might a Nihilist be concerned that an immature human specimen might have been subjected to a premature excitation of said nerve endings, which in turn may have resulted in a series of unexpected mental experiences brought about by chemical release?

For while certainly the Humanist might be concerned as to the consequences of such a situation due to a concern for the welfare of the psyche of the child…and certainly the Religious might be concerned as the welfare of the spirit or soul of the child…and surely the Legalist might merely be dissatisfied that an entity, who in former times had little in the way of legal protection, might have had certain basic rights offended…and perhaps even the Economist might be taken to fret about the possible cost to society in terms of a potential future drain on the collective’s productivity brought about by the child’s considered detachment from a normative upbringing translating into a future dividend of costly antisocial behavior…but clearly the Nihilist has little logical concern for any of these…so how might such a lack devolve so readily into substantive disgust?

I think it’s disgusting because when people do things that I wouldn’t want done to me I get disgusted. It’s basic human empathy, which is a biological trait. I have been told that I lack empathy because I don’t like the Mormon religion and didn’t understand Warbler’s reasoning for leaving the forum. I don’t know what any of that shit has to do with empathy, but disgust at child rape is a healthy reaction to such a crime. It doesn’t mean that I accept any kind of intrinsic meaning in life, and my thoughts on the subject are also consistent with the nihilistic notion that morality is a human construct.

Why might disgust be considered a ‘healthy’ reaction to anything given nothing has within it an intrinsic value?

By what standards is it considered healthy? To what standards is it reacting against or towards?

I already addressed that. Empathy is the ability of a conscious organism to recognize the feelings of another, which is critical to the survival of the species because otherwise it would likely destroy itself either through violence or the inability to cooperate. My natural paternal instincts are probably kicking in too, which is an evolutionary construct. Even though I thankfully haven’t been irresponsible enough to create a child, I still feel compelled to protect kids or see them protected from dangerous things or people. These responses are healthy because it’s what human beings without severe mental disorders do, just like it’s healthy to feel hunger if you haven’t eaten in a long time and it’s healthy to feel pain when your hair gets pulled out. I never said that I chose to feel disgusted or anything like that. As I nihilist I don’t demand that all “moral” (and again, people disagree on what constitutes morality) behavior be rejected, I just acknowledge that morality is a human construct, which it is. That doesn’t mean that it’s “bad” or whatever. It just means that it lacks intrinsic value or meaning, which it also does. Everything is irrelevant or meaningless to something somewhere.

Also, just because something is valuable to me, that doesn’t mean it has intrinsic value.

I commend you for your well considered response…it was more than I had hoped to receive when first I had asked the questions and it truly speaks highly of you as a properly grounded individual…

When considering one’s proper nihilism, there certainly appears to be something of a variable distance between some of those qualities offered as normative or indigenous to nature and the more rational world view brought about purely by purposeful reflection…but might one truly accept the belief that one may so alter one’s nihilism so as to at times accept an arbitrary standard without intrinsic value?

Perhaps. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with doing something or even appreciating something that has no intrinsic value, so long as you acknowledge that it’s devoid of any intrinsic value.

Fair enough…

For little appears to come to the nihilist by way of reflex without also having an attached explanation and understanding of its base causes–the lack of which must needs surely reduce the views of said nihilist to some form of composite belief in a greater perspective outside that of his own deep well, while, alternately, the understanding of which must plausibly reduce the former (that is to say, the reflex as stated) to something which may either be accepted willingly or deliberately avoided…

I’m just going to be honest and admit that I don’t understand this paragraph.

Translation: Given that the nihilist tends to generally favor reason over reflex, or, perhaps more properly, given that few reflex actions might be undertaken without also sparking a reasoned explanation for same within the mind of the nihilist, would it not appear, at least on the surface, that a nihilist who might feel reflexive responses to any crossing of social mores must needs be subscribing to some sort of underlying morality–which event must, in turn, necessarily distance the nihilist from his purported stated stance of categorizing morality as merely a human construct?

To further clarify: is not the nihilist’s claim to his stated view manifestly compromised with the acceptance of any level of arbitrary morality?

There are plenty of things that go against a worldview that people go along with regardless. Christians support Donald Trump, militant atheists still use money (that says “In God We Trust” on it). Just because morality is a human construct doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a bad thing. Houses are a human construct; I still live in one.

I suspect a level of parity might better be reached if one might consider Christians willing to see Trump as a messiah, or atheists being somehow agreeable to offering a tithe to the nearest church, or an avowed anti-capitalist who might happily accept to make millions through the sale of his biography, or a proponent for climate change action using a private jet to transport themselves to discussions of the topic, or one allowing themselves to reside in a home whose rental proceeds might make possible the strengthening of a political adversary…for the consideration put forth was that in both subscribing to a nihilist worldview (which is one in which nothing of substance truly and sincerely matters and that all ascribed morality was done largely for materialistic purposes) while at the same time allowing for the expression of outrage/disgust at the exposition of one willing to transgress one of such very arbitrary concepts as previously stated, a contradiction in terms as clear as those above outlined appeared to come to light…

For how can one logically express outrage that a member of a religion (to which said one does not subscribe and gives no particular substance) transgressed a moral principle (whose value one does not consider larger than a cultural norm) that that very religion was largely responsible for establishing as taboo in the first place (given its strong focus on expressly forbidding any form of sexuality outside that of wedlock)…?

Clearly would not a true nihilist merely regard the entire parade of events as little more than a mild distraction in an otherwise uneventful day?

If not, what substance might said nihilist use to hang his helping of disgust upon?

Please note that this was merely to add clarity to a previously ambiguous statement to which I feel you have already adequately supplied a later answer so feel free to dismiss this as repetitive.

For in comprehending morality to be little aside from a human construct, what over-arching demand requires one to accept it entirely without alternative or alteration…? If no such demand, is it not then acceptable to rationalize and then dismiss by degree…or perhaps even by whole measure?

Yet if one is capable of choosing whether or not to dismiss such impulses, what might drive one to fully (or even partially) embrace some whilst rejecting others? For how can the same individual be crowned a humanitarian in one setting and a devil in another, well all the while maintaining a sporadic moral code that he knows to be arbitrary? For even if some such acceptance might be made based upon the claim that so doing might merely be in answer to a natural impulse or order, why obey either of such?

For is not nihilism, by its very definition, the acceptance of all morality (impulsive or created) as meaningless? If so, how might one willingly abstain from some ‘meaninglessness’ whilst enjoining a serious acceptance of any of the rest?

A lot of people do pick and choose which morals they care about. There are plenty of adulterers that don’t kill anyone, and there are plenty of murderers that never hurt children, and there are plenty of thieves that are otherwise kindhearted. What ultimately keeps people from doing the exact opposite of everything that society deems moral is a combination of empathy and the selfish realization that you won’t be accepted in society (and you might even face serious physical consequences including death) if you don’t play by the rules. I don’t want to commit crimes against other people because I can see how it would hurt them and I wouldn’t want that happening to me or anyone that I care about. The nonviolent crimes that I do want to commit, I abstain from because I understand that it wouldn’t be worth going to jail, or going to court, or being ostracized, or having to do community service. There are totally rational explanations for this kind of behavior.

Is it to be considered possible that some emotions might yet be expected to be entirely more powerful than the pure mental rationalizations of the deep nihilist…?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. The human brain is a very powerful organ and for that reason emotions are already extremely powerful.

Is the avowed nihilist capable of overriding his empathy should he so choose? If so, does his conscience truly bother him? If further so, why might such [his unsettled conscience] be true or even possible?

Of course. Guilt is natural but also not always rational. In high school and college I felt really guilty about having sex because I had been conditioned to find it immoral or dangerous. I felt guilty even though I had no rational reason to do so, but I still did what was against my unsettled conscience anyway and eventually I didn’t feel guilty anymore. Anyone’s capable of overriding their empathy. That’s how people are able to fight in wars or hurt people for whatever justification they have.

Alternately, if the nihilist is incapable of overriding his empathy–which he must certainly view as merely an acquired emotion–why might he lack this apparent control over his mere chemical impulses?

No one can control their chemical impulses directly. I could be a really lazy fuck and still get a burst of adrenaline when someone tries to rob me.

Would said burst then require a specific action, or could it be controlled and reasoned into passivity?

Or, alternately, is it possible that a nihilist might choose to accept certain arbitrary impulses in order to better conform with the normative view so as to avoid unnecessary conflict…?

Sure. Why not? I avoid saying things in some situations, not because I care about offending the people I’m around, but because I know that I’ll be given shit for it if I do say it.

Fair enough…

Yet, by so doing, is it truly possible or appropriate for him to share in the outrage when such arbitrary mores might be offended?

I’m a very angry person and I’m not capable of just opting out of being pissed off at something. It’s a gut reaction that I largely can’t control and was probably a result of some combination of genetics and upbringing. The best I could do is pretend not to be angry, but that’s not honest at all.

I sense in many respects our methods of thinking are fairly compatible…certainly our overall world-view does not appear to overly diverge…though anger is an emotion I largely jettisoned long ago (along with several others of an equally distracting nature), I suspect to have met me in my youth would have revealed little by which to denote notable contrast…

I’m an angry guy, and I doubt that’ll change with age. I was brought up by angry people, I was constantly around anger, berating, insults, and violence from infancy to adolescence and I can’t even imagine life without anger.

Please accept my sincere condolences for your past misfortune…as well as my understanding for your accepted current state…but I offer nothing in the way of sympathy for your purported future failure to imagine a means by which to overcome your admittedly excessive negative passion…for while I readily respect your intellect, your lassitude as to its ability to escape its own self-constraints is at the very least unfortunate…

This is said with all sincerity, as I view you to hold a great deal of potential…even if possibly obfuscated by anger instead of sharpened by reason for the time being…

Post
#1231513
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Disgusting.

I find it ironic that a Nihilist would truly care…for what are sexual organs apart from regions of the body with a high concentration of nerve endings…? What are said nerves other than conduits capable of transmitting signals to the mass of organic matter known as the brain…? What is the brain apart from a concentration of neurons capable of translating such signals in order to determine the appropriate related chemical releases…?

So for what purpose might a Nihilist be concerned that an immature human specimen might have been subjected to a premature excitation of said nerve endings, which in turn may have resulted in a series of unexpected mental experiences brought about by chemical release?

For while certainly the Humanist might be concerned as to the consequences of such a situation due to a concern for the welfare of the psyche of the child…and certainly the Religious might be concerned as the welfare of the spirit or soul of the child…and surely the Legalist might merely be dissatisfied that an entity, who in former times had little in the way of legal protection, might have had certain basic rights offended…and perhaps even the Economist might be taken to fret about the possible cost to society in terms of a potential future drain on the collective’s productivity brought about by the child’s considered detachment from a normative upbringing translating into a future dividend of costly antisocial behavior…but clearly the Nihilist has little logical concern for any of these…so how might such a lack devolve so readily into substantive disgust?

I think it’s disgusting because when people do things that I wouldn’t want done to me I get disgusted. It’s basic human empathy, which is a biological trait. I have been told that I lack empathy because I don’t like the Mormon religion and didn’t understand Warbler’s reasoning for leaving the forum. I don’t know what any of that shit has to do with empathy, but disgust at child rape is a healthy reaction to such a crime. It doesn’t mean that I accept any kind of intrinsic meaning in life, and my thoughts on the subject are also consistent with the nihilistic notion that morality is a human construct.

Why might disgust be considered a ‘healthy’ reaction to anything given nothing has within it an intrinsic value?

By what standards is it considered healthy? To what standards is it reacting against or towards?

I already addressed that. Empathy is the ability of a conscious organism to recognize the feelings of another, which is critical to the survival of the species because otherwise it would likely destroy itself either through violence or the inability to cooperate. My natural paternal instincts are probably kicking in too, which is an evolutionary construct. Even though I thankfully haven’t been irresponsible enough to create a child, I still feel compelled to protect kids or see them protected from dangerous things or people. These responses are healthy because it’s what human beings without severe mental disorders do, just like it’s healthy to feel hunger if you haven’t eaten in a long time and it’s healthy to feel pain when your hair gets pulled out. I never said that I chose to feel disgusted or anything like that. As I nihilist I don’t demand that all “moral” (and again, people disagree on what constitutes morality) behavior be rejected, I just acknowledge that morality is a human construct, which it is. That doesn’t mean that it’s “bad” or whatever. It just means that it lacks intrinsic value or meaning, which it also does. Everything is irrelevant or meaningless to something somewhere.

Also, just because something is valuable to me, that doesn’t mean it has intrinsic value.

I commend you for your well considered response…it was more than I had hoped to receive when first I had asked the questions and it truly speaks highly of you as a properly grounded individual…

When considering one’s proper nihilism, there certainly appears to be something of a variable distance between some of those qualities offered as normative or indigenous to nature and the more rational world view brought about purely by purposeful reflection…but might one truly accept the belief that one may so alter one’s nihilism so as to at times accept an arbitrary standard without intrinsic value?

Perhaps. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with doing something or even appreciating something that has no intrinsic value, so long as you acknowledge that it’s devoid of any intrinsic value.

Fair enough…

For little appears to come to the nihilist by way of reflex without also having an attached explanation and understanding of its base causes–the lack of which must needs surely reduce the views of said nihilist to some form of composite belief in a greater perspective outside that of his own deep well, while, alternately, the understanding of which must plausibly reduce the former (that is to say, the reflex as stated) to something which may either be accepted willingly or deliberately avoided…

I’m just going to be honest and admit that I don’t understand this paragraph.

Translation: Given that the nihilist tends to generally favor reason over reflex, or, perhaps more properly, given that few reflex actions might be undertaken without also sparking a reasoned explanation for same within the mind of the nihilist, would it not appear, at least on the surface, that a nihilist who might feel reflexive responses to any crossing of social mores must needs be subscribing to some sort of underlying morality–which event must, in turn, necessarily distance the nihilist from his purported stated stance of categorizing morality as merely a human construct?

To further clarify: is not the nihilist’s claim to his stated view manifestly compromised with the acceptance of any level of arbitrary morality?

Please note that this was merely to add clarity to a previously ambiguous statement to which I feel you have already adequately supplied a later answer so feel free to dismiss this as repetitive.

For in comprehending morality to be little aside from a human construct, what over-arching demand requires one to accept it entirely without alternative or alteration…? If no such demand, is it not then acceptable to rationalize and then dismiss by degree…or perhaps even by whole measure?

Yet if one is capable of choosing whether or not to dismiss such impulses, what might drive one to fully (or even partially) embrace some whilst rejecting others? For how can the same individual be crowned a humanitarian in one setting and a devil in another, well all the while maintaining a sporadic moral code that he knows to be arbitrary? For even if some such acceptance might be made based upon the claim that so doing might merely be in answer to a natural impulse or order, why obey either of such?

For is not nihilism, by its very definition, the acceptance of all morality (impulsive or created) as meaningless? If so, how might one willingly abstain from some ‘meaninglessness’ whilst enjoining a serious acceptance of any of the rest?

A lot of people do pick and choose which morals they care about. There are plenty of adulterers that don’t kill anyone, and there are plenty of murderers that never hurt children, and there are plenty of thieves that are otherwise kindhearted. What ultimately keeps people from doing the exact opposite of everything that society deems moral is a combination of empathy and the selfish realization that you won’t be accepted in society (and you might even face serious physical consequences including death) if you don’t play by the rules. I don’t want to commit crimes against other people because I can see how it would hurt them and I wouldn’t want that happening to me or anyone that I care about. The nonviolent crimes that I do want to commit, I abstain from because I understand that it wouldn’t be worth going to jail, or going to court, or being ostracized, or having to do community service. There are totally rational explanations for this kind of behavior.

Is it to be considered possible that some emotions might yet be expected to be entirely more powerful than the pure mental rationalizations of the deep nihilist…?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. The human brain is a very powerful organ and for that reason emotions are already extremely powerful.

Is the avowed nihilist capable of overriding his empathy should he so choose? If so, does his conscience truly bother him? If further so, why might such [his unsettled conscience] be true or even possible?

Alternately, if the nihilist is incapable of overriding his empathy–which he must certainly view as merely an acquired emotion–why might he lack this apparent control over his mere chemical impulses?

Or, alternately, is it possible that a nihilist might choose to accept certain arbitrary impulses in order to better conform with the normative view so as to avoid unnecessary conflict…?

Sure. Why not? I avoid saying things in some situations, not because I care about offending the people I’m around, but because I know that I’ll be given shit for it if I do say it.

Fair enough…

Yet, by so doing, is it truly possible or appropriate for him to share in the outrage when such arbitrary mores might be offended?

I’m a very angry person and I’m not capable of just opting out of being pissed off at something. It’s a gut reaction that I largely can’t control and was probably a result of some combination of genetics and upbringing. The best I could do is pretend not to be angry, but that’s not honest at all.

I sense in many respects our methods of thinking are fairly compatible…certainly our overall world-view does not appear to overly diverge…though anger is an emotion I largely jettisoned long ago (along with several others of an equally distracting nature), I suspect to have met me in my youth would have revealed little by which to denote notable contrast…

Post
#1228949
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Disgusting.

I find it ironic that a Nihilist would truly care…for what are sexual organs apart from regions of the body with a high concentration of nerve endings…? What are said nerves other than conduits capable of transmitting signals to the mass of organic matter known as the brain…? What is the brain apart from a concentration of neurons capable of translating such signals in order to determine the appropriate related chemical releases…?

So for what purpose might a Nihilist be concerned that an immature human specimen might have been subjected to a premature excitation of said nerve endings, which in turn may have resulted in a series of unexpected mental experiences brought about by chemical release?

For while certainly the Humanist might be concerned as to the consequences of such a situation due to a concern for the welfare of the psyche of the child…and certainly the Religious might be concerned as the welfare of the spirit or soul of the child…and surely the Legalist might merely be dissatisfied that an entity, who in former times had little in the way of legal protection, might have had certain basic rights offended…and perhaps even the Economist might be taken to fret about the possible cost to society in terms of a potential future drain on the collective’s productivity brought about by the child’s considered detachment from a normative upbringing translating into a future dividend of costly antisocial behavior…but clearly the Nihilist has little logical concern for any of these…so how might such a lack devolve so readily into substantive disgust?

I think it’s disgusting because when people do things that I wouldn’t want done to me I get disgusted. It’s basic human empathy, which is a biological trait. I have been told that I lack empathy because I don’t like the Mormon religion and didn’t understand Warbler’s reasoning for leaving the forum. I don’t know what any of that shit has to do with empathy, but disgust at child rape is a healthy reaction to such a crime. It doesn’t mean that I accept any kind of intrinsic meaning in life, and my thoughts on the subject are also consistent with the nihilistic notion that morality is a human construct.

Why might disgust be considered a ‘healthy’ reaction to anything given nothing has within it an intrinsic value?

By what standards is it considered healthy? To what standards is it reacting against or towards?

I already addressed that. Empathy is the ability of a conscious organism to recognize the feelings of another, which is critical to the survival of the species because otherwise it would likely destroy itself either through violence or the inability to cooperate. My natural paternal instincts are probably kicking in too, which is an evolutionary construct. Even though I thankfully haven’t been irresponsible enough to create a child, I still feel compelled to protect kids or see them protected from dangerous things or people. These responses are healthy because it’s what human beings without severe mental disorders do, just like it’s healthy to feel hunger if you haven’t eaten in a long time and it’s healthy to feel pain when your hair gets pulled out. I never said that I chose to feel disgusted or anything like that. As I nihilist I don’t demand that all “moral” (and again, people disagree on what constitutes morality) behavior be rejected, I just acknowledge that morality is a human construct, which it is. That doesn’t mean that it’s “bad” or whatever. It just means that it lacks intrinsic value or meaning, which it also does. Everything is irrelevant or meaningless to something somewhere.

Also, just because something is valuable to me, that doesn’t mean it has intrinsic value.

I commend you for your well considered response…it was more than I had hoped to receive when first I had asked the questions and it truly speaks highly of you as a properly grounded individual…

When considering one’s proper nihilism, there certainly appears to be something of a variable distance between some of those qualities offered as normative or indigenous to nature and the more rational world view brought about purely by purposeful reflection…but might one truly accept the belief that one may so alter one’s nihilism so as to at times accept an arbitrary standard without intrinsic value?

For little appears to come to the nihilist by way of reflex without also having an attached explanation and understanding of its base causes–the lack of which must needs surely reduce the views of said nihilist to some form of composite belief in a greater perspective outside that of his own deep well, while, alternately, the understanding of which must plausibly reduce the former (that is to say, the reflex as stated) to something which may either be accepted willingly or deliberately avoided…

For in comprehending morality to be little aside from a human construct, what over-arching demand requires one to accept it entirely without alternative or alteration…? If no such demand, is it not then acceptable to rationalize and then dismiss by degree…or perhaps even by whole measure?

Yet if one is capable of choosing whether or not to dismiss such impulses, what might drive one to fully (or even partially) embrace some whilst rejecting others? For how can the same individual be crowned a humanitarian in one setting and a devil in another, well all the while maintaining a sporadic moral code that he knows to be arbitrary? For even if some such acceptance might be made based upon the claim that so doing might merely be in answer to a natural impulse or order, why obey either of such?

For is not nihilism, by its very definition, the acceptance of all morality (impulsive or created) as meaningless? If so, how might one willingly abstain from some ‘meaninglessness’ whilst enjoining a serious acceptance of any of the rest?

Is it to be considered possible that some emotions might yet be expected to be entirely more powerful than the pure mental rationalizations of the deep nihilist…?

Or, alternately, is it possible that a nihilist might choose to accept certain arbitrary impulses in order to better conform with the normative view so as to avoid unnecessary conflict…?

Yet, by so doing, is it truly possible or appropriate for him to share in the outrage when such arbitrary mores might be offended?

Post
#1228935
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

I really hope Post Praetorian responds to this. One of my pet peeves is when I thoroughly respond to someone’s criticism of me and then they never acknowledge it or address it.

That certainly would be frustrating…allow me to alleviate your suffering 😉

(I have limited time to spend on this site so please forgive my lengthy absences as best as you might be able…)

Post
#1227904
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Disgusting.

I find it ironic that a Nihilist would truly care…for what are sexual organs apart from regions of the body with a high concentration of nerve endings…? What are said nerves other than conduits capable of transmitting signals to the mass of organic matter known as the brain…? What is the brain apart from a concentration of neurons capable of translating such signals in order to determine the appropriate related chemical releases…?

So for what purpose might a Nihilist be concerned that an immature human specimen might have been subjected to a premature excitation of said nerve endings, which in turn may have resulted in a series of unexpected mental experiences brought about by chemical release?

For while certainly the Humanist might be concerned as to the consequences of such a situation due to a concern for the welfare of the psyche of the child…and certainly the Religious might be concerned as the welfare of the spirit or soul of the child…and surely the Legalist might merely be dissatisfied that an entity, who in former times had little in the way of legal protection, might have had certain basic rights offended…and perhaps even the Economist might be taken to fret about the possible cost to society in terms of a potential future drain on the collective’s productivity brought about by the child’s considered detachment from a normative upbringing translating into a future dividend of costly antisocial behavior…but clearly the Nihilist has little logical concern for any of these…so how might such a lack devolve so readily into substantive disgust?

I think it’s disgusting because when people do things that I wouldn’t want done to me I get disgusted. It’s basic human empathy, which is a biological trait. I have been told that I lack empathy because I don’t like the Mormon religion and didn’t understand Warbler’s reasoning for leaving the forum. I don’t know what any of that shit has to do with empathy, but disgust at child rape is a healthy reaction to such a crime. It doesn’t mean that I accept any kind of intrinsic meaning in life, and my thoughts on the subject are also consistent with the nihilistic notion that morality is a human construct.

Why might disgust be considered a ‘healthy’ reaction to anything given nothing has within it an intrinsic value?

By what standards is it considered healthy? To what standards is it reacting against or towards?

Post
#1227902
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Disgusting.

I find it ironic that a Nihilist would truly care…for what are sexual organs apart from regions of the body with a high concentration of nerve endings…? What are said nerves other than conduits capable of transmitting signals to the mass of organic matter known as the brain…? What is the brain apart from a concentration of neurons capable of translating such signals in order to determine the appropriate related chemical releases…?

So for what purpose might a Nihilist be concerned that an immature human specimen might have been subjected to a premature excitation of said nerve endings, which in turn may have resulted in a series of unexpected mental experiences brought about by chemical release?

For while certainly the Humanist might be concerned as to the consequences of such a situation due to a concern for the welfare of the psyche of the child…and certainly the Religious might be concerned as the welfare of the spirit or soul of the child…and surely the Legalist might merely be dissatisfied that an entity, who in former times had little in the way of legal protection, might have had certain basic rights offended…and perhaps even the Economist might be taken to fret about the possible cost to society in terms of a potential future drain on the collective’s productivity brought about by the child’s considered detachment from a normative upbringing translating into a future dividend of costly antisocial behavior…but clearly the Nihilist has little logical concern for any of these…so how might such a lack devolve so readily into substantive disgust?

Post
#1227897
Topic
The Nihilism Thread
Time

This certainly meets with my own world view in many respects…yet I do somehow manage to at times even go so far as to enjoy this brief pause between birth and death…although often it is quite challenging to find a purpose in allowing one day to follow the next…for one day I shall depart and very few will have noticed the difference…

Post
#1220062
Topic
Random Thoughts
Time

suspiciouscoffee said:

I logged into my dad’s computer looking for a specific file (long story). I didn’t find it, but here are some highlights of names of the files I did find.

“Islam vs infidels.docx”

“SATAN’s meeting and plans.docx”

“Second Coming of Jesus.html”

“Iraqui war.docx”

“SPAMMED:I Nearly Sold Your Son For.docx”

I would like to request further information on that last entry if you do not mind… 😉

Post
#1219832
Topic
Socialism vs Libertarianism
Time

pittrek said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

The state should own and operate everything short of small businesses/organizations, homes, and IPs (intellectual properties). Megacorporations/conglomerates should not exist. Everyone should receive free health care, basic incomes, and adequate housing by right of being human. There should be complete separation of church and state, and complete freedom of religion (so definitely no state religion/atheism).

But how would you achieve that? The non-existence of megacorporations. Isn’t it the goal of every small business to be huge one day?

Not entirely…many a company may feel the absolute pressure towards increased size primarily and principally in order to keep pace with the heaviest or most urgent of competitors…I certainly recall regretting the need to increase our factory’s size simply in order to remain relevant…

My own policy suggestion would merely be to enforce a regulation whereby an individual (or corporation) might be able only to own a single store (or corporation) within a specific geographical region. The lack of diverse product offerings in modern times most certainly has at its root the fact that much of the available retail space is in the hands of a select few.

Also if everybody would receive a basic income (I guess you’re talking about the idea of paying people for NOT working), why would people work? I heard that there are people who work because they love their work, but I never met anybody like that. I feel safe to assume that a significantly huge part of the population would simply sit on their butts doing nothing. I know I probably would. In other words these two things take away the motivations of companies to grow and people to work. Meaning that the state would have much smaller tax incomes. I agree with the religious bits

Basic income is certainly a concept with interesting potential…although one strong negative aspect appears to be its deleterious effect when a similar such undertaking was applied to the citizens of Rome during that empire’s guaranteed rice quotas…yet on a more positive level it could potentially free individuals to pursue higher educations or to delve more deeply into the arts…

Most probably, however, an uncomfortably large percentage of individuals might simply become habituated to spending copious amounts of time gaming or in following other similarly unproductive pursuits…

Post
#1219831
Topic
Socialism vs Libertarianism
Time

pittrek said:

TV’s Frink said:

So is it just fake news that Libertarians tend to be men and aren’t fond of women’s rights, broad brush notwithstanding?

Hard to say. According to a few political tests I found online I should call myself a libertarian, and I know two women who identify themselves as such. I know it’s just anecdotal evidence but in my case I know more female libertarians than male. And I don’t know anybody who wouldn’t be fond of women’s rights, so yes, as the best president in the galaxy, and a “very stable genius” says, it’s “fake news”

Indeed, among the true Libertarians I know personally, 75% of them are women…

Post
#1219460
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

Post Praetorian said:

Warbler said:

Post Praetorian said:

It would seem, on the whole, that the longer one allows words to retain negative power, the less progress society seemingly has made in overcoming its past…or, from another view, is not the continued giving to an opponent the absolute power of knowing precisely which words will reduce one to emotional ruin necessarily providing said rival unnecessary strength and credibility at each outcry of its usage? For imagine an instance in which an American at large might be considered to be so emotionally slain by use of some specific epithet (Yankee, or perhaps more considerately phrased as the “Y” word, for instance) that it assumes an overwhelming and unjustifiable weight: would such a society truly be ameliorated by encouraging each successive generation to yet quail at the very nearness of the word so that an opposing nation might use it with impunity and redundancy to detrimental effect? Or might it not be an improved situation to teach, instead of fear, horror, and outrage of the word, the patent absurdity of reacting in any given fashion to any mere arrangement of letters…? For most certainly a word may retain emotional weight, but how is it best to deprive it of same? Is it to encourage all to view it at its greatest weight…consistently and repeatedly underlining its ability to wound and cause irreparable harm…? Or is it perhaps an improvement to strive at all turns to instead merely trivialize those who might consider it to be yet potent in light of today’s more reasonable era?

I’d be interested in hearing you say this to the NAACP and the ensuing conversation.

If said organization is comprised of reasonable individuals with a true aim of overcoming perpetual victim-hood, then would not any such possible conversation be received in a generally positive light?

I don’t think it would be received in a positive light by the NAACP.

To clarify, if a word were to be used against my children that appeared to cause them abject misery due to its ability to recall to them their cultural suffering at the hands of some previous power, it would seem to me to be bad policy to encourage them to feel outrage and to stagger into the field of battle,

If you ask me, it is bad policy for someone to deliberately use a word with the intent of causing them abject misery due the word’s ability to recall cultural suffering.

Is it not equally bad policy for one to steal…?

yes.

And yet who among us would then consider the individual who has left his key in his front door on successive evenings in order to save time to be truly wise?

Somehow, I can’t equate leaving the key in the door with considering the n-word insulting.

Words hurt. We can pretend they don’t, sometimes that may be a good strategy(and some aren’t as good playing it as others), but words can still hurt.

For while it is fair to condemn the aggressor, do not forget that the one over whom one actually has reasonable control is oneself in a general sense. The advice is provided in order to alleviate the potential for shots fired to find their mark…for is not a soldier who is given armour in a better position to resist the piercing of an arrow than is one given only the advice to shout repeatedly at the enemy to cease firing…?

One can condemn the aggressor and give the advice you suggest.

One can give the soldier armor and give the soldier a gun to shoot the guy firing at him.

already so wounded, demanding an apology (thereby greatly exaggerating the hurt being afflicted and thereby delivering themselves directly into the power of the bully at hand)

I see nothing wrong with demanding an apology from someone that tries to insult you(to be clear, I am not saying that is was the guy from netflix did).

Which is the stronger position:

  1. To demand an apology by admitting what was said was indeed hurtful, explaining both the depth of the wound and its long-lasting effect?

  2. Or to look up in amusement/surprise/disappointment at the would-be assailant and shake one’s head at the futility of the attack?

I don’t know, maybe #2 but I still think the person is entitled to an apology.

In which instance has the assailant most properly landed his attack? In which instance does the victim remain so? In which instance has the assailant been affirmed in his/her position of strength? In which instance have all other would-be assailants learned any form of lesson?

Sometimes assailants can learn from being punished.

…it would seem instead a more plausible escape from the past to derail the significance of the word itself and to teach my children to laugh at each and every instance of same…stripping it of its power, removing any desire for an opponent to use it for fear that they will merely be laughed at and labeled a fool rather than being labeled a victor over another’s emotional stability…

I also think the bully/name caller should be taught a lesson too.

Agreed…yet what should that lesson properly contain? Is the bully to be affirmed in his position of dominance?

If I had had the ability, I would have kicked the bullies’ asses. If I had been able to do, I don’t think they would have been able to maintain a position of dominance afterwards.

Or is he to be instead ridiculed for his provable lack of power?

I sucked at trying the strategy you suggest.

For in an instance in which a bully might truly hate enough to call out a racial slur, expecting a given reaction and thereby reaffirming his sense of dominance, in which instance is his supposed superiority more clearly underlined? In a situation in which his words wound, or in one in which they fall flat?

What about a situation where the bully gets his teeth broken? What about a situation where those in the authority properly punish the bully?

I get kind of upset when we concentrate on how the bullied should react to the bully and as opposed to how the bully should have acted in the first place. To be clear I get upset, because I was once the bullied and instead of just simply stopping the bullies the punishing them, it seems like they wanted to concentrate more on how I reacted to them.

It is understood that those who have been bullied would have the experience and qualification to offer true empathy to any other perceived victims…yet if one knew that a bully thrived on achieving a given reaction from his victims, would one not at least caution them to avoid providing that off which their oppressor is logically feeding?

Sure one could caution the bullied, but one can all punish the bully(or kick his ass)

For even though a response from all by-standers to act in support of the victims by turning bully to the bully at each perceived instance is indeed one measure of a solution, is not an improved version one in which the victims themselves simply cease to be so permanently…?

Like I said, I sucked at ceasing on my own. And again words hurt.

For me the only way the bullying would have stopped if the adults around me had stopped the bullies.

For in which instance is the lie of the bully more glaring and obvious? The one in which the victims might yet act wounded and defeated, whilst outwardly protected by their allies…or the one in which they might find the bully to be merely an object of pity rather than that of oppression?

  1. I was never able to pity those that bullied me. I just couldn’t.
  2. I don’t know which would have made the lie of the bully more glaring and obvious. I just know the bully shouldn’t be bullying and when he does he should be punished(or have his ass kicked).

Far be it for one to convene upon another a style of defense with which they (the other) have had personal experience attempting and with which they have tasted failure…ultimately experience will color any consideration against the veracity of the initial statement made, and subsequently expanded upon, which was primarily that words have only the power they have–including the potential to cause harm–solely if both sides agree to same. Should the aggrieved party cease to believe in such a power, any usage of said word necessarily falls short of its goal of causing harm.

If such may be agreed to be the case, it certainly seems justifiable to encourage would-be victims to reject further victim-hood by simply denying the word its power…rather than by ramping up the same word’s potential for harm by further attaching to it any credible level of severity and seriousness by generating a societal furor at each and every use.

For it is certainly true that an individual calling his neighbour a word not yet in the common vernacular will achieve little more than a curious stare at present…yet were the result of him so doing a media circus and loss of livelihood at every possible utterance of same (as well as a total and complete public shaming accompanied with outraged demands for an apology) what would society itself have taught both the perpetrator and the intended victim with regards to the power of such a word? Has it become more powerful or less so? Has society advanced towards a goal of growing beyond petty insults or has it further entrenched itself towards their accepted credibility? Has it assisted in dissuading others that such an insult may only be considered mindlessly petty, or has it shown them the power they might yet wield over any potential neighbours who may be considered to fit the profile…?

I shall leave to you the last word on this subject, as your thoughtful responses generally provide some fairly interesting insights which bear reasonable consideration…

Post
#1219451
Topic
Random Thoughts
Time

Fair enough…the appeal or pull towards the benefiting of others is, at times, a difficult reach for any who may hardly yet be capable of gathering to themselves any potential or possible excess benefits in any sufficient quantity to render them available to share. My own experience requires that I not attempt to place before anyone mere platitudes, but to instead offer an honest acceptance that the position being advanced is actually being honestly expressed. Further, it is not the place of any to encourage others to take on aims foreign to their purpose…regardless of how well meaning…though truthfully were your sleep schedule to be increased to 24 hours circular your absence from this site would be noted and many of us would confess to being the poorer for it…

Post
#1219444
Topic
Random Thoughts
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t really try to make myself feel better or worse on anything. I’ve kind of given up on being a productive member of society at this point.

I understand this sentiment…it can be difficult to meld with a society whose aims often seem so foreign to one’s own…but further still, it can also be very taxing to attempt to put in a solid effort when all returns seemingly amount to very little of substance…yet understand that one has an impact even in the smallest possible circles…it is important not to surrender completely to despair least those who might rely upon us even in the smallest ways be made to suffer…but even more importantly it is necessary to comprehend that there are those who have not even yet met us who may yet benefit from such an encounter.

Post
#1219367
Topic
Going away? Post so here!
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Post Praetorian said:

TV’s Frink said:

Hi! 😃

Hello, my friend! How have you been lately?

All things considered, very well! Hope the same for you and Ric.

I am glad…and thank you for your kind wishes…I have been finding this year to be somewhat challenging, but it is a great improvement over the past handful…and it is always good to have Ric home again…!