Good bye

[ciberpy]

Okay, here's something I don't get. Maybe someone smarter than me can explain it slooooowwwly.
If we know the people we are talking to are "programmed" or "conditioned" and that they probably will, by virtue of their hard wiring be insulted or offended if we push the right buttons, and we do so with impunity... what does that say about us?

I am not sure that intelligence has much to do with it. To learn many of the things discussed requires more than intelligence. A person can lie to themselves regardless of intelligence. Overcoming an addiction, or a 'programmed' or 'conditioned' behavior, is not really a matter of intelligence. Placing faith in someone is not exactly a matter of intelligence.

Your claim is that people are 'programmed' or 'conditioned' to do what exactly... to uncontrollably get angry and decide to react, to say something or do something as a result of it? With that belief a person has justified every criminal act, and made every victim a criminal. Domestic violence cases: She drove him to it. Rape: She should have known his 'programming' and 'conditioning'. Theft: The victim should have hidden their valuables better, and not tempted the 'programming' and 'conditioning' of the perpetrator. Murder: The victim should not have pissed him off. The simple rule: Do unto others as you would that they do unto you, has effectively been thrown out the window for being uncivil, because all 'do' has been replaced with a knee jerk, socially programmed or conditioned reaction. It is hypocrisy, because the 'button pusher' could plead the same escape: he was 'programmed' or 'conditioned' to push buttons, and because everyone who posts is truly a 'button pusher' putting words on display in front of the world. Innocent, and guilty: both, depending on one's hypocrite point of view. A person naturally decides for themselves that they are innocent, and decides that everyone else is an ass. 'Naturally', right? You have a case: people with a strong sense of self preservation, I suppose. Intelligence really has nothing to do with it.

There are other ways to try to show it: How rational is it to claim to know the 'programming' and 'conditioning' of another person? I don't think anyone here has the foresight of having walked in another person's shoes. Do you suggest otherwise... do you truly know someone who has walked in someone else's shoes? Or, is that an assumption or a projection onto another person. If it is programming or conditioning that is claimed as the culprit for a person's behavior, then walking in another's shoes is what it would take to really know someone else's programming and conditioning... unless of course you are God.

Yet another avenue to try to expose it: I could write a computer program that cries, 'ouch, bloody murder', and 'oooh, thank you' every time that certain keys are pressed. A video game. Do you think that a person who presses the keys is just trying to be the center of attention by pressing them? A 'button pusher', right? You going to try to convince me that I am guilty of hurting the computer when it says 'ouch, bloody murder' and of seducing it when it says, 'oooh, thank you'?

I just wrote some words down on a piece of paper sitting next to me. Well over half of the people here, I believe, will get angry if and when they see the words. I'd prefer that they not get angry, but many rest assuredly will. You can claim that it is my preference that the people get angry, but that is your conjecture. You have no proof. You don't even know what I wrote. If it is the words that cause a person to react, then know that somewhere in the world and in the minds of people those words do exist, and so this world and the internet is really just a minefield for them.

A person is responsible for what they say... I would say that a person is responsible for every single word. Most people I know favor honesty, and disfavor deception. How exactly though, Paladin, did you come to believe and claim that a person is not responsible for reacting to what they hear? Blame it on society? You throw out that responsibility, then you have thrown out the responsibility for speech too. You keep the one and not the other, then I see the gears of double standard. Any person could easily say that their words have a good intent, and someone elses had another.

 

[Nick_A]

Did you interpret that as an insult? Would you interpret this question and the one before in this paragraph as an insult? Am I being aggressive? Am I being sarcastic? Do you think I am poking and prodding you, experimenting with you, studying you to obtain a reaction? Am I serious?



I'm a bit behind in replying to some of the posts in that thread, and instead chose to post here first, choosing a less time-consuming topic. It's a time management issue. I tend to defer some replies to the next day, but when it comes, I postpone it again. Sometimes I end up not replying at all.

I must thus ask you to pardon me for stating my reactions prematurely without a full and proper explanation.



It's just that it seems people are saying that it's the only thing you ever discuss: people's rationality in their beliefs and behaviour. It seems like you're relentless at doing it or it's the only thing you ever do.

Maybe that's your religion. If so, then it's a question of whether the people here can accept a person who only ever discusses the rationality of beliefs and behaviour, rather than the beliefs themselves. Can they get used to a person who comments on the rationality of people's beliefs and behaviour?

I recall a rather comical skit where there is this woman taking a lone voyage of some sort on ship/boat. But she isn't alone, even though, in theory, she's supposed to be. There's a cameraman/commentator following her around doing some kind of "documentary" on her experiences. As it is with documentaries, the person supplying the commentary is supposed to be just an observer. He isn't supposed to be part of the subject being documented.

The woman complains of seasickness and depression and complains about how horrible the experience is, in a way that makes it look like she's all alone. Out of the blue, the commentator/cameraman appears and starts supplying commentary on her situation. Apparently, he isn't suffering from seasickness or depression and is largely unaffected by the events of the journey. We see a few more scenes where the woman complains about the troubles she is having. The commentator/cameraman, whom we thought wasn't there, again appears out of nowhere, supplies more commentary and she starts getting annoyed.

In one scene, she's in a toilet, the most private place you could ever be and he's squeezed in somewhere behind her like he's commenting on absolutely everything. She gets really annoyed and starts yelling "Shut up! I don't want any more of this commentary!"

That must be one of your peculiarities.

Am I behaving irrationally? It was just an observation.

Salty

Did you interpret that as an insult? Would you interpret this question and the one before in this paragraph as an insult? Am I being aggressive? Am I being sarcastic? Do you think I am poking and prodding you, experimenting with you, studying you to obtain a reaction? Am I serious?

I don't know your intent but I'm not insulted. I try an assume good will unless I know another has an axe to grind. I wouldn't want to label you as "aggressive" but would rather try and get beyond this to understand what you mean. If you are just putting me on I don't feel any worse for ware. I presume you are serious, if not, so be it.

I'm a bit behind in replying to some of the posts in that thread, and instead chose to post here first, choosing a less time-consuming topic. It's a time management issue. I tend to defer some replies to the next day, but when it comes, I postpone it again. Sometimes I end up not replying at all.

I must thus ask you to pardon me for stating my reactions prematurely without a full and proper explanation.

No harm, no foul.

It's just that it seems people are saying that it's the only thing you ever discuss: people's rationality in their beliefs and behaviour. It seems like you're relentless at doing it or it's the only thing you ever do.

Maybe that's your religion. If so, then it's a question of whether the people here can accept a person who only ever discusses the rationality of beliefs and behaviour, rather than the beliefs themselves. Can they get used to a person who comments on the rationality of people's beliefs and behaviour?

Perhaps you are right. It is true that arguing beliefs really isn't as interesting as pondering their source. I'm interested in why there is such a diversity of beliefs that creates the human condition as we know it and the contradictory expressions of compassion and atrocity it produces. So I discuss from that perspective.

That is not to say that I am not willing to discuss, Chess, the Mets, Giants, Knicks, or Jennifer Anniston's behind. They are fun worldly interests. However the human condition which IMO is the main concern of the religious traditions has to be included when discussing religion or else Jennifer's behind is more interesting. Why should it be a concern for me to comment on a Buddhist practice without a concern for the inner man it refers to? If it is just a means to teach people to think nice thoughts, it is the same as any other tradition. The beauty and worth of the ancient traditions for me is that they give access to "wisdom" which is something I am drawn to rather than arguing accepted worldly practices.

So the bottom line is if it is a choice of discussing Jennifer's behind or debating if playing bingo on Friday night is a good church practice, I'd rather consider Jen's assets. If however the choice is between Jen's assets and sharing on human meaning and purpose as it relates to wisdom, why we are no longer called to it, and what the paths can do collectively to better serve as an instrument for psychological awakening, then Jen will have to wait.

 

[Paladin]

I am not sure that intelligence has much to do with it. To learn many of the things discussed requires more than intelligence. A person can lie to themselves regardless of intelligence. Overcoming an addiction, or a 'programmed' or 'conditioned' behavior, is not really a matter of intelligence. Placing faith in someone is not exactly a matter of intelligence.

Your claim is that people are 'programmed' or 'conditioned' to do what exactly... to uncontrollably get angry and decide to react, to say something or do something as a result of it? With that belief a person has justified every criminal act, and made every victim a criminal. Domestic violence cases: She drove him to it. Rape: She should have known his 'programming' and 'conditioning'. Theft: The victim should have hidden their valuables better, and not tempted the 'programming' and 'conditioning' of the perpetrator. Murder: The victim should not have pissed him off. The simple rule: Do unto others as you would that they do unto you, has effectively been thrown out the window for being uncivil, because all 'do' has been replaced with a knee jerk, socially programmed or conditioned reaction. It is hypocrisy, because the 'button pusher' could plead the same escape: he was 'programmed' or 'conditioned' to push buttons, and because everyone who posts is truly a 'button pusher' putting words on display in front of the world. Innocent, and guilty: both, depending on one's hypocrite point of view. A person naturally decides for themselves that they are innocent, and decides that everyone else is an ass. 'Naturally', right? You have a case: people with a strong sense of self preservation, I suppose. Intelligence really has nothing to do with it.

There are other ways to try to show it: How rational is it to claim to know the 'programming' and 'conditioning' of another person? I don't think anyone here has the foresight of having walked in another person's shoes. Do you suggest otherwise... do you truly know someone who has walked in someone else's shoes? Or, is that an assumption or a projection onto another person. If it is programming or conditioning that is claimed as the culprit for a person's behavior, then walking in another's shoes is what it would take to really know someone else's programming and conditioning... unless of course you are God.

Yet another avenue to try to expose it: I could write a computer program that cries, 'ouch, bloody murder', and 'oooh, thank you' every time that certain keys are pressed. A video game. Do you think that a person who presses the keys is just trying to be the center of attention by pressing them? A 'button pusher', right? You going to try to convince me that I am guilty of hurting the computer when it says 'ouch, bloody murder' and of seducing it when it says, 'oooh, thank you'?

I just wrote some words down on a piece of paper sitting next to me. Well over half of the people here, I believe, will get angry if and when they see the words. I'd prefer that they not get angry, but many rest assuredly will. You can claim that it is my preference that the people get angry, but that is your conjecture. You have no proof. You don't even know what I wrote. If it is the words that cause a person to react, then know that somewhere in the world and in the minds of people those words do exist, and so this world and the internet is really just a minefield for them.

A person is responsible for what they say... I would say that a person is responsible for every single word. Most people I know favor honesty, and disfavor deception. How exactly though, Paladin, did you come to believe and claim that a person is not responsible for reacting to what they hear? Blame it on society? You throw out that responsibility, then you have thrown out the responsibility for speech too. You keep the one and not the other, then I see the gears of double standard. Any person could easily say that their words have a good intent, and someone elses had another.

Not sure I really believe that, just pondering a hypothetical condition based on a post Nick has made. Pure enquiry really.

 

[ciberpy]

Not sure I really believe that, just pondering a hypothetical condition based on a post Nick has made. Pure enquiry really.

You have stated this belief many times: NLP, anchoring, linguistic control. Here in this thread you were more direct with it:

You know damn well what I was talking about so don't try any of your manipulative narcissistic bull**** with me you coward. This is exactly the kind of control mechanism I was describing all along.
By going on and on about how saintly you are in allowing all on your doorstep and those who don't are selfish and rude you allude in a sly way to what was being said by me without directly doing so.
So cut the crap you pencil necked geek and If you want to go head to head with me do so and cut the passive aggressive schtick.

Control, manipulation, narcissism, aggression, ... by what? Words.

Yes I am angry and it is my choice to be so. The kind of behavior you exhibit is controlling, and manipulative and believe me whenever I see you using it on someone I'm going to be all over you like a cheap suit.
I've seen you do it to others and don't say much because people like Chris and Tao can take care of themselves, but when you start in on people like Dondi I take it personally. You feel like picking on someone you look me up and I'll be happy to oblige.

From mere words, my behavior judged, and found to be controlling and manipulative. What exactly were you controlled and manipulated into by my words? Answering the door? I find that somehow it seems that a moderator thinks another person will be susceptible, controlled and manipulated by words... but certainly not themselves. Did Dondi somehow request your protection from my words?

I'm sorry Dondi, but I would have to agree with Bob X on this one. If I were to justify doing something unpopular, a story like this would suit me fine. I get stories like this in my e-mail from my Dad all the time each with a similar plot line.
It's similar to Cyberpi dredging up "What If" scenarios to justify shaming people into allowing themselves to be imposed upon. I find the whole approach to be manipulative and controlling. The real advantage of using this kind of linguistic strategy is to keep anyone from objecting, for who could object to saving an old lonely lady's life?
Of course no one would object! but that is why it is so insidious, using peoples sense of fairness and compassion in order to further another agenda.

Here is a hypothetical, in exchange for the one you provided. What would happen if you confront a moderator here in the way that you confronted me?

Would you suggest that my words somehow control and manipulate, but that a moderator's threats and actions do not? Tao_Equus, a long time member here, was asked by some to believe that he is intolerant and uncivil by his words, but that a moderator is tolerant and civil by their action. I find it is the same belief: people are a victim of his words, right? As you believe, the advantage of my linguistic strategy is to keep anyone from objecting. I do debate, and you did object. What of a moderator's strategy to keep anyone from objecting? Which would you prefer to be done to you? I have not lied to you, threatened, closed a thread, moved a thread, or banned anyone, but I can and will open a can of words. I will even knock on anyone's door, and anyone here can knock on mine.

You are in good company with that belief Paladin, if that is still your belief. A person can state their belief, and I will state mine. Sorry if that still bothers you.

 

[citizenzen]

I got an infraction for posting the Seven Words in response to George Carlin's demise.

I'm amazed that I haven't gotten any infractions. I must have posted while folks were napping.

And now I've mellowed.

So it should be clear, [DELETED] sailing from here on.

*Phew!* Just caught that last one!

 

[ciberpy]

*i* agree with brian. so do a lot of other people, even if you are not among them.

I disagree with Brian. So do a lot of other people, even if you are not among them.

are you trying to get a rise out of me? because i advise you not to try.

If you are going to advise or threaten me, then what exactly is a rise? Educate me. If it is an erection, then my answer is immediately no. If you can not control a bodily part, then go see your wife. Is a 'rise' something induced by a drug, like an upper or a downer? I have never done any illicit drugs, so I can not relate. My advice there would be to not take the drugs. Or, do you mean that a person's words can make you rise up in the morning when you'd really rather sleep?

I have the sense that I have the power to not respond uncontrollably. If I wish to, then I choose to. I take responsibility for my actions. I would ask you to have that same sense... maybe that will help your 'rise' condition. Whatever a 'rise' is, you seem to not want one, and so my hope is that you not get one. It almost sounds like uncontrollable vomit.

 

[Paladin]

You have stated this belief many times: NLP, anchoring, linguistic control. Here in this thread you were more direct with it:

Control, manipulation, narcissism, aggression, ... by what? Words.

From mere words, my behavior judged, and found to be controlling and manipulative. What exactly were you controlled and manipulated into by my words? Answering the door? I find that somehow it seems that a moderator thinks another person will be susceptible, controlled and manipulated by words... but certainly not themselves. Did Dondi somehow request your protection from my words?

Here is a hypothetical, in exchange for the one you provided. What would happen if you confront a moderator here in the way that you confronted me?

Would you suggest that my words somehow control and manipulate, but that a moderator's threats and actions do not? Tao_Equus, a long time member here, was asked by some to believe that he is intolerant and uncivil by his words, but that a moderator is tolerant and civil by their action. I find it is the same belief: people are a victim of his words, right? As you believe, the advantage of my linguistic strategy is to keep anyone from objecting. I do debate, and you did object. What of a moderator's strategy to keep anyone from objecting? Which would you prefer to be done to you? I have not lied to you, threatened, closed a thread, moved a thread, or banned anyone, but I can and will open a can of words. I will even knock on anyone's door, and anyone here can knock on mine.

You are in good company with that belief Paladin, if that is still your belief. A person can state their belief, and I will state mine. Sorry if that still bothers you.

It sounds like you have some strong feelings about all this.

 

[ciberpy]

It sounds like you have some strong feelings about all this.

Do you like it when people place faith in you: to listen to you, trust you, work with you, and be honest with you?

If yes, then yes, I care about all that with you. If not, then no. I'll invest time with people who value people, and speak counter to those who don't. My choice, and I give it to you... should I care?

 

[Paladin]

Well, what sort of outcome do you see happening here?

 

[Nick_A]

Well, what sort of outcome do you see happening here?

The usual. What else is possible when righteous indignation rules the day?

 

[citizenzen]

The usual. What else is possible when righteous indignation rules the day?

You mean yours?