But isn't it the case that women are generally far more honest and sincere than men?
Men tend to project a gruff exterior, a kind of frozen mask behind which they conceal their innermost thoughts and emotions. Women, on the other hand, are far more open and free with their feelings and thoughts. They are far more willing to share their inner fears and vulnerabilities. They don't feel a need to put on a pretence of being capable and strong.
You probably observed the mass outpouring of grief over the death of Steve Irwin recently. One of the things that was often said about him was that he was a "genuine character" and that "what you saw was what you got". Irwin wasn't one to hide his inner thoughts and feelings. Like a child, he expressed whatever was on his mind and went at everything with great energy and spontaneity. Duplicity was almost entirely absent in him.
This is what honesty and sincerity is really all about, isn't it? And if so, then it must follow that women are far more honest and sincere than men.
-
A MAN NEVER ARGUES WITH A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN - OH BUT I INSIST
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
nick
but have you ever thought that the problem with honesty and sincerity in men vs women has to do with perspective in a man seeing women and a woman seeing a man
the men i meet are honest and sincere that they want something from me
and women who want something from men are honest and sincere in their wanting something from men
if what i see in the men i encounter is either those that want me or want not to want me
maybe that is what you see in women
my point being that it is not masculine or feminine
it is only the opposites
whichever is other from whatever 'you are'
and it is far more simple than plumbing
it is in the XX chromosome
and the XY chromosome
so are you trying to say that in the y chromosome lie honesty and sincerity
is that not ridiculous
i find sincerity in men and women but only very occasionally and wonderful it is
i agree that these are the most desirable qualitieshonesty and sincerity
but have you ever thought that the problem with honesty and sincerity in men vs women has to do with perspective in a man seeing women and a woman seeing a man
the men i meet are honest and sincere that they want something from me
and women who want something from men are honest and sincere in their wanting something from men
if what i see in the men i encounter is either those that want me or want not to want me
maybe that is what you see in women
my point being that it is not masculine or feminine
it is only the opposites
whichever is other from whatever 'you are'
and it is far more simple than plumbing
it is in the XX chromosome
and the XY chromosome
so are you trying to say that in the y chromosome lie honesty and sincerity
is that not ridiculous
i find sincerity in men and women but only very occasionally and wonderful it is
If fulfulling their own agenda can benefit from them being honest and sincere then yes, they are infinitely more honest than men, but this is just superficial honesty. Her conscience isn't involved in this, there is no guilt, there is no sense of responsibility. In any sense, she probably thinks she's doing the other person a favor by being a little dishonest.DavidQuinn000 wrote:But isn't it the case that women are generally far more honest and sincere than men?
Men tend to project a gruff exterior, a kind of frozen mask behind which they conceal their innermost thoughts and emotions. Women, on the other hand, are far more open and free with their feelings and thoughts. They are far more willing to share their inner fears and vulnerabilities. They don't feel a need to put on a pretence of being capable and strong.
You probably observed the mass outpouring of grief over the death of Steve Irwin recently. One of the things that was often said about him was that he was a "genuine character" and that "what you saw was what you got". Irwin wasn't one to hide his inner thoughts and feelings. Like a child, he expressed whatever was on his mind and went at everything with great energy and spontaneity. Duplicity was almost entirely absent in him.
This is what honesty and sincerity is really all about, isn't it? And if so, then it must follow that women are far more honest and sincere than men.
-
I think the reason men hide their feelings, making them appear dishonest, is that most men are ashamed of their feelings, and know they would be looked at as a bad person if they were exposed. But this is exactly what makes him more honest, because he has a conscience, and does feel guilty about them, and would be affraid if they were exposed.
In a woman's case her feelings are what guides her, and she has no problems letting them be known or acting on them. No shame, no conscience, just pure innocence.
What I'm getting at is, at least, deep down, men know they're evil. Although this is an extremely poor way to exemplify honesty and sincerity on the part of man, it exemplifies it none the less.
.
Nick writes:
For these very reasons I am not onboard with such intellectual projects as s_e's, wherein he attempts to tell David what is wrong with him, implies all of these "you're-only-trying-to's --" "you're just a --" etc. etc. , particularly as pressed through any normative sieve belonging to normative or deviant psychology and presented as the ultimate word.
I'm watching David's words, his rationale, or anyone's for that matter, right here manifesting in the present, because I am conscious enough not to be in danger of succumbing to something stupid. If reason appears in the words of a madman, a woman, or a child, shall I go ahead and do the postmodern thing and make the medium [more important than] the message? I'd think you (Nick) wouldn't want to do that either.
And as a final aside on this, if I had a choice where my taxdollars were distributed, I'd blow entirely past every governmental and military agency and give every last cent of it to an unemployed philosopher in a newyorkminute. This is where my values reside.
Nick again:
How long shall we point fingers and neener-neener at all the unconscious people? -- present example after example that we assume has naught to do with us, sit back on self-congratulatory haunches and feed our ever-inflating senses of self with a hefty dose of ridicule of them? David has explained the teaching purpose he sees in this; I completely disagree. However, I wouldn't be spending too much time, Nick, on a notion of superior consciousness that depends upon inferior consciousness to hold it in place. Eventually, you will have to cease paying attention to everybody else's cluelessness and turn and (re)face your own.
and finally:
.
Nick writes:
Foul ball, Nick. We cannot dialogue rationally when we do this "you're-only-trying-to --" or "you-just-want-to-be --" or "you-only-think-that-you're --" or "you're-just-scared-that -- " etc. etc. All bad faith. You are not in my head; do not occupy my immanence. If you want to show me where you see this fright, start your sentence with "I think that you" and why, and I'll address it. Yet to save you some time, I fully occupy my own immanence and deal with the issues attendant to it as consciously as possible, as every of us might. You needn't be concerned. Just watch my words, my rationale. Respond to that.If you weren't so scared of your femininity you would understand that what I've said complies with this perfectly.
For these very reasons I am not onboard with such intellectual projects as s_e's, wherein he attempts to tell David what is wrong with him, implies all of these "you're-only-trying-to's --" "you're just a --" etc. etc. , particularly as pressed through any normative sieve belonging to normative or deviant psychology and presented as the ultimate word.
I'm watching David's words, his rationale, or anyone's for that matter, right here manifesting in the present, because I am conscious enough not to be in danger of succumbing to something stupid. If reason appears in the words of a madman, a woman, or a child, shall I go ahead and do the postmodern thing and make the medium [more important than] the message? I'd think you (Nick) wouldn't want to do that either.
And as a final aside on this, if I had a choice where my taxdollars were distributed, I'd blow entirely past every governmental and military agency and give every last cent of it to an unemployed philosopher in a newyorkminute. This is where my values reside.
Nick again:
Nick, I have looked, am looking. How long do you want to me focus there? (and I don't just look; I do. I'm in the trenches with them everyday). Perhaps I see even more than you with this looking -- masses of unconscious men, that for all the social, scientific, governmental, philosophical, religious, technological products of their rationale, still cannot see even the toes of their higher consciousness. Not a single person, that at least I've seen writing here, is entirely happy with the present configuration of the world, or the ideologies upon which they are based. If you claim that world was built by women -- as opposed to men's desire and need for them -- then we are back to remedial lessons in bad faith.As far as women being unconscious, please, just look at the world around you.
How long shall we point fingers and neener-neener at all the unconscious people? -- present example after example that we assume has naught to do with us, sit back on self-congratulatory haunches and feed our ever-inflating senses of self with a hefty dose of ridicule of them? David has explained the teaching purpose he sees in this; I completely disagree. However, I wouldn't be spending too much time, Nick, on a notion of superior consciousness that depends upon inferior consciousness to hold it in place. Eventually, you will have to cease paying attention to everybody else's cluelessness and turn and (re)face your own.
and finally:
If you want a competition and a winner, make it between yourself and yourself; your own immanence and your own transcendence. You wouldn't be here if there wasn't at least an inkling of what it is you ultimately wish to "win."Go talk to some women, then talk to some men, tell me who you think is the more conscious and human of the two sexes.
.
-
Steven Coyle
Jungian Psychology
As se described, when men project their anima, attraction (understanding, or blind emotion) is felt. If there's suppression, misunderstanding or prejudice results. The act of raising consciousness, in both sexes, is a result of integrating the individual soul-image. In women it's the animus (latin for animating spirit).
Not at all, it's all about character.sky wrote:so are you trying to say that in the y chromosome lie honesty and sincerity
Rare it is, indeed. Although what I am focussing more on is that women tend to be less conscious of their dishonesty, and men more conscious of it. This might explain why men do hide their feelings more, and are not as open as women.sky wrote:i find sincerity in men and women but only very occasionally and wonderful it is
[/color]
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Nick wrote:
A person usually feels "guilt" if he acts against what society deems to be acceptable or good. It is like a little warning bell in his head which tells him that he has misbehaved in this way - almost as though he has internalized the warnings given by his parents and teachers as he was growing up.
If males are governed by a sense of guilt and a sense of their own evil, this can only serve to restrict their consciousness, don't you think? If a person is hamstrung by fears over crossing society, then how can his mind expand beyond the conventional and open up to greater forms of consciousness? Wouldn't a lack of guilt be a far more useful trait for this purpose?
If women really are more innocent, spontaneous and unshackled by feelings of guilt, then you'd think they would be free to make all sorts of mental connections that men would be far more hesitant to make. Their minds would be free to wander all over the place and experience all sorts of different perspectives and forms of knowledge. Men, on the other hand, would be far more inclined to stay within a single framework and remain blinkered therein. That is, they would remain less conscious.
-
I wonder about this "guilt" you speak of, though. Isn't it really just an expression of wanting to be part of the herd?If fulfulling their own agenda can benefit from them being honest and sincere then yes, they are infinitely more honest than men, but this is just superficial honesty. Her conscience isn't involved in this, there is no guilt, there is no sense of responsibility. In any sense, she probably thinks she's doing the other person a favor by being a little dishonest.
I think the reason men hide their feelings, making them appear dishonest, is that most men are ashamed of their feelings, and know they would be looked at as a bad person if they were exposed. But this is exactly what makes him more honest, because he has a conscience, and does feel guilty about them, and would be affraid if they were exposed.
In a woman's case her feelings are what guides her, and she has no problems letting them be known or acting on them. No shame, no conscience, just pure innocence.
What I'm getting at is, at least, deep down, men know they're evil. Although this is an extremely poor way to exemplify honesty and sincerity on the part of man, it exemplifies it none the less.
A person usually feels "guilt" if he acts against what society deems to be acceptable or good. It is like a little warning bell in his head which tells him that he has misbehaved in this way - almost as though he has internalized the warnings given by his parents and teachers as he was growing up.
If males are governed by a sense of guilt and a sense of their own evil, this can only serve to restrict their consciousness, don't you think? If a person is hamstrung by fears over crossing society, then how can his mind expand beyond the conventional and open up to greater forms of consciousness? Wouldn't a lack of guilt be a far more useful trait for this purpose?
If women really are more innocent, spontaneous and unshackled by feelings of guilt, then you'd think they would be free to make all sorts of mental connections that men would be far more hesitant to make. Their minds would be free to wander all over the place and experience all sorts of different perspectives and forms of knowledge. Men, on the other hand, would be far more inclined to stay within a single framework and remain blinkered therein. That is, they would remain less conscious.
-
Pye,
Trust me on this, in no way do I put someone down, or make claims that a certain group of people appear to be less conscious than others to make myself feel good, or boost my ego. I am disgusted when a person does demonstrate this behavior. In some instances where I do critisize characteristics of others, often times I am critisizing myself as well. Although I never feel the need to point that out, because I am simply being open and honest in my opinions. When people begin to personally critisize me for what I have said, it's pretty obvious they felt personally critisized as well. Meaning they need to get over themselves.
I read someone else on here say, it is sometimes easier to see your faults in others, than it is to see them in yourself. In the end the purpose of my thoughts and actions is about perfecting myself, if I offend or piss of a few people on the way, it is no hair of my nose. Thankfully I live in a part of the world that is fairly tolerant in this aspect, though there are times when I doubt the tolerance will last, as well as the tolerance of each individual, especially in these times of extreme paranoia.
Trust me on this, in no way do I put someone down, or make claims that a certain group of people appear to be less conscious than others to make myself feel good, or boost my ego. I am disgusted when a person does demonstrate this behavior. In some instances where I do critisize characteristics of others, often times I am critisizing myself as well. Although I never feel the need to point that out, because I am simply being open and honest in my opinions. When people begin to personally critisize me for what I have said, it's pretty obvious they felt personally critisized as well. Meaning they need to get over themselves.
I read someone else on here say, it is sometimes easier to see your faults in others, than it is to see them in yourself. In the end the purpose of my thoughts and actions is about perfecting myself, if I offend or piss of a few people on the way, it is no hair of my nose. Thankfully I live in a part of the world that is fairly tolerant in this aspect, though there are times when I doubt the tolerance will last, as well as the tolerance of each individual, especially in these times of extreme paranoia.
-
Steven Coyle
I think they realize how selfish they are, and they don't know for sure whether anyone is quite as selfish as them, so they keep their deepest feelings and thoughts to themselves. Often times you see these inhibitions go out the window when they get drunk, and they reveal their true colors (evil). It might be that at times they know society might not take too kindly to they inner-most feelings and thoughts. At other times I think that they are judging themselves in accordance with what they see as "their divine self", and since they are too lazy or too attached to worldly pleasures to live up to it, they hide their feelings instead of confronting them. What you are speaking of demonstrates man's insecurity, more so than his guilt.DavidQuinn000 wrote:I wonder about this "guilt" you speak of, though. Isn't it really just an expression of wanting to be part of the herd?
Again I think what you are talking about has more to do with insecurity rather than guilt. I think guilt stems more from lazyness and being too attached to something, to try and reach their potential. For instance a drug abuser feels guilt because he can't overcome his desire to continue his use, regardless of the fact that it is killing him, and hurting those around him. In the case of insecurity, yes, he is simply too cowardly to risk expressing himself at the expense of being rejected by the herd.DavidQuinn000 wrote:A person usually feels "guilt" if he acts against what society deems to be acceptable or good. It is like a little warning bell in his head which tells him that he has misbehaved in this way - almost as though he has internalized the warnings given by his parents and teachers as he was growing up.
A lack of cowardice would be more useful for this purpose.DavidQuinn000 wrote:If males are governed by a sense of guilt and a sense of their own evil, this can only serve to restrict their consciousness, don't you think? If a person is hamstrung by fears over crossing society, then how can his mind expand beyond the conventional and open up to greater forms of consciousness? Wouldn't a lack of guilt be a far more useful trait for this purpose?
I think women display this all the time, but it doesn't mean they are more conscious. It just means they rarely percieve things beyond a superficial nature. For instance, a child never feels guilty or stupid for asking questions, making statements, or taking actions that an adult would normally shy away from. This doesn't mean the child is more conscious.DavidQuinn000 wrote:If women really are more innocent, spontaneous and unshackled by feelings of guilt, then you'd think they would be free to make all sorts of mental connections that men would be far more hesitant to make. Their minds would be free to wander all over the place and experience all sorts of different perspectives and forms of knowledge.
Indeed they do remain less conscious, but not because of their guilt, it is because they are too attached to power and pleasure to bother with developing their "divine self". This is why men are evil, and women are innocent.DavidQuinn000 wrote:Men on the other hand, would be far more inclined to stay within a single framework and remain blinkered therein. That is, they would remain less conscious.
-
.
Nick writes:
Ta for the follow-up, Nick, not to mention the palpable opening of your voice and reason in these subsequent posts.
.
Nick writes:
As with Shardrol, offense to reason moved me to respond to you/this. I'm hopeful you won't sweep that beneath the carpet and assume the case was only as you put it above.When people begin to personally critisize me for what I have said, it's pretty obvious they felt personally critisized as well. Meaning they need to get over themselves.
Ta for the follow-up, Nick, not to mention the palpable opening of your voice and reason in these subsequent posts.
.
mookstinke: s_e, your post is entirely different than the one I read a few hours ago. You even pasted a completely different article from a different website.
Some possible reasons...
a.) You're sober now.
b.) You read a similar post in a different thread and have confused them. Rather than logically retrace your steps you let your knees lead the way by unconsciously jerking them.
c.) I possess the magical ability to edit my posts without any trace.
Kevin: It is a generalization to say that all women are, say, unconscious - in the same way that it is a generalization to say something like "all men are bastards".
Generally speaking, generalizations are formed via limited personal experience and the assimiliation of cultural stereotypes and prejudices. If you feel comfortable stating that, in general, "all men are bastards", I'd suggest you become a little more discriminating in your companionship for although it is far from the truth to state that "all men are bastards," it is certainly spot-on to note that "some" are.
This forum is run by David Quinn, Dan Rowden, and myself. So I'm interested to know who you think the leader is.
Relax Kevin, given the way you scurry after David and rush in to protect him, it's not you. Meanwhile, Mr. Rowden seems to be kept pretty busy fixing this and fixing that... I guess he's off the hook too.
Some possible reasons...
a.) You're sober now.
b.) You read a similar post in a different thread and have confused them. Rather than logically retrace your steps you let your knees lead the way by unconsciously jerking them.
c.) I possess the magical ability to edit my posts without any trace.
Kevin: It is a generalization to say that all women are, say, unconscious - in the same way that it is a generalization to say something like "all men are bastards".
Generally speaking, generalizations are formed via limited personal experience and the assimiliation of cultural stereotypes and prejudices. If you feel comfortable stating that, in general, "all men are bastards", I'd suggest you become a little more discriminating in your companionship for although it is far from the truth to state that "all men are bastards," it is certainly spot-on to note that "some" are.
This forum is run by David Quinn, Dan Rowden, and myself. So I'm interested to know who you think the leader is.
Relax Kevin, given the way you scurry after David and rush in to protect him, it's not you. Meanwhile, Mr. Rowden seems to be kept pretty busy fixing this and fixing that... I guess he's off the hook too.
-
Evan Tucker
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:06 am
this realy got me
DavidQuinn000
DavidQuinn000
I wouldn't say that they don't put up a mask. Many women i know especaily ones with bad pasts have a way of letting you know them but not knowing them. You can talk to them for hours on hours and never realy get to know them. Ive only found this out through my own lack of trust. Upon letting myself be known and allowing myself to trust some one else i noticed that she seemed to let her own gaurd down. She changed and we had conversations more deep and personal than before. This has happend many times. I would say that we share more emotionsa and are far more easy to read. A man may never say he is sad but he may express it every time. A woman on the other hand shares things that can never put her in a vulnarble postion. In fact i would say both sexes are equal in that the people who conceal their feelings are those with lets say not posotive and the most favourable of pasts.Men tend to project a gruff exterior, a kind of frozen mask behind which they conceal their innermost thoughts and emotions. Women, on the other hand, are far more open and free with their feelings and thoughts. They are far more willing to share their inner fears and vulnerabilities. They don't feel a need to put on a pretence of being capable and strong.
As se described, when men project their anima, attraction (understanding, or blind emotion) is felt. If there's suppression, misunderstanding or prejudice results. The act of raising consciousness, in both sexes, is a result of integrating the individual soul-image. In women it's the animus (latin for animating spirit).
The Anima
"There is in the unconscious of each man an inherent image of woman who helps him to understand her being."
...
The dark aspect will most likely appear when a man has suppressed or underestimated his female nature, treating women with contempt or carelessness.
Source: The Individuation Process
[Edited to comply with Kevin's demand that I not post large blocks of text.]
.
The Anima
"There is in the unconscious of each man an inherent image of woman who helps him to understand her being."
...
The dark aspect will most likely appear when a man has suppressed or underestimated his female nature, treating women with contempt or carelessness.
Source: The Individuation Process
[Edited to comply with Kevin's demand that I not post large blocks of text.]
.
Last edited by s_e on Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
s_e, I must just be sober, although if you do know how to edit your posts without leaving any evidence I wouldn't mind being let in on your little secret. (Actually, I probably just didn't bother retracing my steps because you do have a history of doing crazy things like changing posts after they've been read because the semi-permanant structure of a public forum is inconsiderate of your world-view. A boy who cried wolf sort of thing.)
although if you do know how to edit your posts without leaving any evidence I wouldn't mind being let in on your little secret.
mookestink, the post you thought was edited, was not edited. I did however, make a similar post in a different thread, which cited a different source, and naturally, was different from the one you thought you had read earlier in this thread.
...the semi-permanant structure of a public forum is inconsiderate of your world-view.
That would be your assumption, mookstinke.
I already stated my reasons for removing/editing my posts here, I addressed the matter further here although I think Scott's quip was far funnier.
***********************************************
[Edited to display editing stamp.]
[Edited to discover if there is a time frame during which a participant can edit their post without a time stamp appearing on the finished product. If this feature is possible, it's clearly linked to the button which will also allow a participant to delete a post within that same time frame. (Reference the "x" at the upper right of any post you have just made.)]
[There you go mookstinke -- you can edit a post without leaving a trace so long as you do so before that little "x" has disappeared. It would be my little secret if only we didn't all know now.]
mookestink, the post you thought was edited, was not edited. I did however, make a similar post in a different thread, which cited a different source, and naturally, was different from the one you thought you had read earlier in this thread.
...the semi-permanant structure of a public forum is inconsiderate of your world-view.
That would be your assumption, mookstinke.
I already stated my reasons for removing/editing my posts here, I addressed the matter further here although I think Scott's quip was far funnier.
***********************************************
[Edited to display editing stamp.]
[Edited to discover if there is a time frame during which a participant can edit their post without a time stamp appearing on the finished product. If this feature is possible, it's clearly linked to the button which will also allow a participant to delete a post within that same time frame. (Reference the "x" at the upper right of any post you have just made.)]
[There you go mookstinke -- you can edit a post without leaving a trace so long as you do so before that little "x" has disappeared. It would be my little secret if only we didn't all know now.]
Last edited by s_e on Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
s_e
I've seen your reasons, which consist entirely of a summary of your views on the nature of dialogue, which I might remind you is part of your world-view. I disagree with your reasons: I believe permanance is an important aspect of public forums, and is partially why I prefer debating online rather than in clubs at my university. It gives me a longer time to think of a reply. In other words, I chose to philosophize in this format for a reason, and you deliberately messed with the format because it didn't synchronize with what you believe the world is like.
It's annoying as hell. Part of the reason I refused to live with my dad when I was growing up was because he does the same thing. He's an engineer: basically, a combination between an inventor and an artist. He believes the world works one way, and if it turns out that it doesn't, he'll try his hardest to make it work that way. It's a great attitude when the products are beneficial, but too much of it becomes a problem: artists and inventors are constantly at odds with the rest of the world.
In your case, I saw absolutely no benefits to your method. Nobody gained anything valuable: no new insights or discoveries. A few threads lost some coherence as your posts disappeared or mysteriously changed. The philosophic points you made about the nature of dialogue were not special, original, or significant in any way. And I had to waste the last ten minutes telling you how ridiculous you were being. I feel like a goddamn parent having to lecture you on how childish you were.
God, writing that post was so troublesome.
I don't really do humour, although I dabble in sarcasm now and then. The assumption was meant to be accurate, not funny.That would be your assumption, mookstinke.
I already stated my reasons for removing/editing my posts here although I think Scott's quip was far funnier.
I've seen your reasons, which consist entirely of a summary of your views on the nature of dialogue, which I might remind you is part of your world-view. I disagree with your reasons: I believe permanance is an important aspect of public forums, and is partially why I prefer debating online rather than in clubs at my university. It gives me a longer time to think of a reply. In other words, I chose to philosophize in this format for a reason, and you deliberately messed with the format because it didn't synchronize with what you believe the world is like.
It's annoying as hell. Part of the reason I refused to live with my dad when I was growing up was because he does the same thing. He's an engineer: basically, a combination between an inventor and an artist. He believes the world works one way, and if it turns out that it doesn't, he'll try his hardest to make it work that way. It's a great attitude when the products are beneficial, but too much of it becomes a problem: artists and inventors are constantly at odds with the rest of the world.
In your case, I saw absolutely no benefits to your method. Nobody gained anything valuable: no new insights or discoveries. A few threads lost some coherence as your posts disappeared or mysteriously changed. The philosophic points you made about the nature of dialogue were not special, original, or significant in any way. And I had to waste the last ten minutes telling you how ridiculous you were being. I feel like a goddamn parent having to lecture you on how childish you were.
God, writing that post was so troublesome.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
I wouldn't waste the energy required to furrow my brow. I'm so used to responding to people who are incapable of basic logic that it doesn't require any effort at all.s_e wrote:I hope you furrowed your brow when you made that post. And made your eyes look very cross! It would hardly have been worth the effort of making it if you hadn't had at least a little fun.s_e: Generally speaking, generalizations are formed via limited personal experience and the assimiliation of cultural stereotypes and prejudices.
KS: For example, that very statement.
A few threads lost some coherence as your posts disappeared or mysteriously changed. The philosophic points you made about the nature of dialogue were not special, original, or significant in any way.
Precisely. To which I must ask, why the fuss?
I already noted that I had no objection to leaving the words of spiritual greats behind, but I don't consider myself to be one of them. If you strip my words out, what's really been lost? Meantime, I've also noticed that rules are stated and then bent various way to suit the host's needs. Apparently, there is a community standard, but it's not necessarily the one that's been formally posted for all the newbies to pledge allegiance to.
I also must question, what exactly is the purpose of this "rule" anyway? Ankit commented not long ago that the nuggets of wisdom that one could find here could make the venture worthwhile but one must flounder around in so much chit-chat and worthless diatribe to find them that it was hardly worth the effort. Personally, I think more people should erase their words. For one thing, it's good practice in letting go. For another, it could -- with a shift in perspective -- be considered an act of consideration for those who come along behind them. After all, it would spare them the mindless chatter and let them get right to what they're after -- a solid nugget.
There is the matter of context to consider of course, but you know, anyone who comes upon this particular dialogue weeks, months or years from now is never going to grasp the context of this particular moment anyway. I'll bet the whole lot could be erased and those who came along later would be none the worse for it.
Of course, if I was to venture to do such a thing I'd surely come up against someone such as yourself who would insist that my actions were motivated purely by childish selfishness, craziness, disrespect for those around me, an inability to properly control myself in a social environment. And yet, it could well be that there might have been something that was relevant, something that arose out of the apparent meaningless and was intended only for one or both participants. And that part would stay with them even if the conversation itself later dissappeared into thin air, as conversations are wont to do.
Precisely. To which I must ask, why the fuss?
I already noted that I had no objection to leaving the words of spiritual greats behind, but I don't consider myself to be one of them. If you strip my words out, what's really been lost? Meantime, I've also noticed that rules are stated and then bent various way to suit the host's needs. Apparently, there is a community standard, but it's not necessarily the one that's been formally posted for all the newbies to pledge allegiance to.
I also must question, what exactly is the purpose of this "rule" anyway? Ankit commented not long ago that the nuggets of wisdom that one could find here could make the venture worthwhile but one must flounder around in so much chit-chat and worthless diatribe to find them that it was hardly worth the effort. Personally, I think more people should erase their words. For one thing, it's good practice in letting go. For another, it could -- with a shift in perspective -- be considered an act of consideration for those who come along behind them. After all, it would spare them the mindless chatter and let them get right to what they're after -- a solid nugget.
There is the matter of context to consider of course, but you know, anyone who comes upon this particular dialogue weeks, months or years from now is never going to grasp the context of this particular moment anyway. I'll bet the whole lot could be erased and those who came along later would be none the worse for it.
Of course, if I was to venture to do such a thing I'd surely come up against someone such as yourself who would insist that my actions were motivated purely by childish selfishness, craziness, disrespect for those around me, an inability to properly control myself in a social environment. And yet, it could well be that there might have been something that was relevant, something that arose out of the apparent meaningless and was intended only for one or both participants. And that part would stay with them even if the conversation itself later dissappeared into thin air, as conversations are wont to do.
Last edited by s_e on Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm so used to responding to people who are incapable of basic logic that it doesn't require any effort at all.
I encountered a woman not long ago who had a similar ailment. Idiots, everywhere she went. At work, at the store, in the lane next to her, they even followed her home. She couldn't get away from the sea of idiots that she was drowning in. It wasn't her fault though -- the poor thing was just an idiot magnet. Talk about about bad genetic luck!
I encountered a woman not long ago who had a similar ailment. Idiots, everywhere she went. At work, at the store, in the lane next to her, they even followed her home. She couldn't get away from the sea of idiots that she was drowning in. It wasn't her fault though -- the poor thing was just an idiot magnet. Talk about about bad genetic luck!
If you really think your words are worthless, why bother to type & post them to the forum & waste people's time?s_e wrote:If you strip my words out, what's really been lost?
What I think really happened is that you got carried away with the emotion of the moment, said more than you meant to say, didn't want to leave evidence of the way you presented yourself, so decided to exercise self-control retrospectively.
There's a goddam epidemic of hypocrisy going on here.
.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
s_e wrote:
I believe our leader, The Most Reverend Kevin Solway, was making the obvious point that your generalization above has itself come from limited personal experience and the assimiliation of cultural stereotypes and prejudices.
Not all generalizations are the result of stereotypes and prejudice. For example, when the science community creates generalizations (which it does all the time ), it does so purely for the furtherance of human knowledge, at least for the most part. The same is true of the logical community and its deeper generalizations.
-
s_e: Generally speaking, generalizations are formed via limited personal experience and the assimiliation of cultural stereotypes and prejudices.
KS: For example, that very statement.
s_e: I hope you furrowed your brow when you made that post. And made your eyes look very cross! It would hardly have been worth the effort of making it if you hadn't had at least a little fun.
I believe our leader, The Most Reverend Kevin Solway, was making the obvious point that your generalization above has itself come from limited personal experience and the assimiliation of cultural stereotypes and prejudices.
Not all generalizations are the result of stereotypes and prejudice. For example, when the science community creates generalizations (which it does all the time ), it does so purely for the furtherance of human knowledge, at least for the most part. The same is true of the logical community and its deeper generalizations.
-