Judging Others

earnest_seeker · Post by **earnest_seeker** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:19 pm

Ryan Rudolph on Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:45 am wrote:If you haven’t noticed, this entire forum is based on confrontation, criticism and attack.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:41 pm

Disgusting. You should be ashamed, morally and intellectually, to have plucked that except from Ryan's post to make a supposed point. I am offended that you would think I'd take that paltry effort seriously.

Don't fuck with me, sunshine.

earnest_seeker · Post by **earnest_seeker** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:54 pm

Perhaps Sher will jump in and let us know whether she was thinking of the same excerpt. Perhaps she had something different in mind. I think that she's probably asleep right now though. We might have to wait.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:12 pm

That was doubly pathetic.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:23 pm

In fact, if you don't address what Ryan actually said, I'll will consider you to be trolling:

If you haven’t noticed, this entire forum is based on confrontation, criticism and attack. It is the nature of GF, so why do you pretend it is otherwise? We are attacking the content of each other’s minds. That is the entire purpose of GF, and there are no rules as to when we should stop attacking someone’s ego. The ego is an evil structure, so why am I wrong in a thorough attack to it?

Only a badly intentioned person would make a point out of that first sentence, without the broader context. You're not doing that, are you?

earnest_seeker · Post by **earnest_seeker** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:35 pm

Ryan Rudolph wrote:there are no rules as to when we should stop attacking someone’s ego.

Dictionary.com defines the "ego" as "the “I” or self of any person". In that context, when Ryan talks about attacking people's "ego", he could just as well be talking about attacking the people themselves, couldn't he?

Ryan said that on GF we are supposed to be attacking "the contents of each other's minds" - how is this significantly different to what Sher said: "that the purpose of GF is to attack people"? The contents of our minds is a part of who we are, is it not?

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:53 pm

Are you a man in a kindergarten world? This is a non-academic philosophy forum. We do attack ideas we disavow - if you want to make no distinction between ideas and people, that's ok with me - I pretty much agree - but what's your point? You seem to have this thoroughly ludicrous idea that if you think you're a reasonable and "nice" person, that others should think so too. Guess what? It doesn't work that way. Do you know how many posters to this forum I have actually "disliked" in a personal sense? The answer is more than 1 and less than 3. Your are fast becoming 2 of them.

Make your case if you have one to make. Make it with courage and conviction. If you can't, fuck off. If you can't, you obviously have neither.

Courage and perseverance gets respected here, because they are fine virtues. Have 'em, show 'em. Don't? Then shut up.

earnest_seeker · Post by **earnest_seeker** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:01 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:Make your case if you have one to make.

I really don't have a case to make, Dan. I was simply answering the question that you asked Sher, knowing that right now she's probaly incapable of doing so given that she's most likely asleep: "Is that what Ryan said? Show me."

As far as this thread goes, I've found it fascinating to read through, but I don't have any comment to make as yet. I haven't yet decided whether a judgement can be free of moral content. As soon as I work out my opinion after careful thought (you wouldn't want anything less, would you?), then you can be sure that I'll post it here.

earnest_seeker · Post by **earnest_seeker** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:02 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:Make your case if you have one to make.

I really don't have a case to make, Dan. I was simply answering the question that you asked Sher, knowing that right now she's probably incapable of doing so given that she's most likely asleep: "Is that what Ryan said? Show me."

As far as this thread goes, I've found it fascinating to read through, but I don't have any comment to make as yet. I haven't yet decided whether a judgement can be free of moral content. As soon as I work out my opinion after careful thought (you wouldn't want anything less, would you?), then you can be sure that I'll post it here.

DHodges · Post by **DHodges** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:07 pm

Shahrazad wrote:Dan, so you agree that the purpose of GF is to attack people?

The purpose of GF is clearly stated at the top of the page - promoting logic, truth, honesty, wisdom, etc. Those things can be seen as the lack of (or the opposite of) irrationality, lies, foolishness, etc. So those things should be attacked where they are discovered - in yourself or in others.

It is not the person that is being attacked - except to the extent that the person identifies himself with foolishness, irrationality, etc. These things are nearly always easier to spot in other people than in one's self, so we do each other this service.

earnest_seeker wrote:Dictionary.com defines the "ego" as "the “I” or self of any person". In that context, when Ryan talks about attacking people's "ego", he could just as well be talking about attacking the people themselves, couldn't he?

No.

earnest_seeker wrote:]Ryan said that on GF we are supposed to be attacking "the contents of each other's minds" - how is this significantly different to what Sher said: "that the purpose of GF is to attack people"? The contents of our minds is a part of who we are, is it not?

The idea is to improve the contents of your mind. If you don't accept that improvement might occasionally involve pain to the ego, then you don't have any real commitment to improvement, or to the stated goals and aims of GF. You are just looking to feel better about yourself (stroke the ego). You will never appreciate the grandmotherly kindness of those who are willing to hit you with a stick, if that's what it takes.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:17 pm

I feel nostalgic for Marsha, all of a sudden. She would hate for me saying that, but then, we need some men around here. Christ, Dave.H - how long do you think Laird would last in a west Virginian whirlwind?

I think it's west - sorry Ma, if I erred.

earnest_seeker · Post by **earnest_seeker** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:34 pm

OK, Dave, so Sher should have said that according to Ryan, the purpose of GF is to "attack the contents of each other's minds" rather than that according to Ryan, the purpose of GF is to "attack people". If that's all that this disagreement is about, then fine: I have nothing more to say.

Alex Jacob · Post by **Alex Jacob** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:40 pm

Longstanding contributors, in my opinion, should not be banned. Each time that I have observed a banning, there is a chilling aftermath in which positions get hardened, the structure of a too-specific dogma seems to crystallize, and the forum seems to get more pathologically polarized. What is lost as a result of all that is greater than what is gained (whatever was supposed to have been 'gained').

DH wrote:

"It is not the person that is being attacked - except to the extent that the person identifies himself with foolishness, irrationality, etc. These things are nearly always easier to spot in other people than in one's self, so we do each other this service."

Sounds good on paper, so to speak. But I wonder if you see the danger that might arise when a group of people are identified who represent within a specific group, over and above others, this supposed ideal, and who begin to carry out a program in which they do no so much uproot or challenge 'foolishness and irrationality', but demonstrate how one can be deceived into believing one exclusively represents it. That is why I suggested the image of the Inquisitor.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:51 pm

Hmm, let's introduce the actual Inquisition so that Alex doesn't feel like anyone's being excluded.

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:43 am

Dan,

Is that what Ryan said? Show me.

Here's what I was going by:

If you haven’t noticed, this entire forum is based on confrontation, criticism and attack. It is the nature of GF, so why do you pretend it is otherwise? We are attacking the content of each other’s minds. That is the entire purpose of GF, --- emphasis mine

Maybe I'll rephrase my question, if it makes you feel that much better: Do you agree that the entire purpose of GF is to attack and confront? A simple yes or no will do. And of course it's no skin off my nose if your answer is yes, as it is your forum, not mine. I just wanted to be clear on exactly what you were agreeing with Ryan about. If you agree with his pathetic philosophy in general, save us both a lot of time and just say so.

-

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:05 am

I certainly agree with the statement, without the emotional bias you are giving it due to your conception of Ryan's "general philosophy."

There are many tools which can be used to attack (confrontation being rudimentary)---reason and wisdom being a couple.

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:14 am

For instance, and I kid you not :), the following method of attack (the tantrum, not the spray) is one I myself have utilised effectively under the same circumstances well before the ad came out.

Tomas · Post by **Tomas** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:17 am

earnest_seeker wrote:OK, Dave, so Sher should have said that according to Ryan, the purpose of GF is to "attack the contents of each other's minds" rather than that according to Ryan, the purpose of GF is to "attack people". If that's all that this disagreement is about, then fine: I have nothing more to say.

There is an ignore button.

Ryan is obviously too enlightened to employ such a concept.

........

Samadhi started a thread, all Ryan had to do was ignore the entire thread. Living in your parent's basement at age-28... then crying over spilled milk.

He ain't young, Carl.

........

The girlfriend and I have a problem child/adult son who has had a tough go of it, we loaned him the money for an apartment and he is improving (and has two jobs to keep busy). Perhaps Ryan has never lived on his own -or- is incapable of doing so...

Whatever.

.

.

Tomas · Post by **Tomas** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:41 am

Shahrazad wrote:Dan,

Is that what Ryan said? Show me.
Here's what I was going by:

If you haven’t noticed, this entire forum is based on confrontation, criticism and attack. It is the nature of GF, so why do you pretend it is otherwise? We are attacking the content of each other’s minds. That is the entire purpose of GF, --- emphasis mine
Maybe I'll rephrase my question, if it makes you feel that much better: Do you agree that the entire purpose of GF is to attack and confront? A simple yes or no will do. And of course it's no skin off my nose if your answer is yes, as it is your forum, not mine. I just wanted to be clear on exactly what you were agreeing with Ryan about. If you agree with his pathetic philosophy in general, save us both a lot of time and just say so.

-

My 2 cents is that I don't know if there was a passing of "private messages" (to Dan and or David Qunn) -before- Ryan publicly announced that Samadhi should be banned.

As far as I recall, didn't inject any opinion on Samadhi or Ryan intersectoring on any specific threads. Samadhi seemed to "win" every one (as he is detail-oriented).

I've one thread in particular, from some time back, but see if there are any responses before further comment on their salvos.

PS - I mean, come on. living on $5.55 a day? And Ryan bitches that his parents spend $400.00 a month on food? Like fresh oranges grow on trees in Nova Scotia ... in January.

.

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:51 am

Tomas,

I fail to see how your reply has anything to do with what I posted. You could have used another quotation to make your point.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:58 am

There is, so you know, and therefore no longer need waste time speculating, ordinarily, no "private" discussion about bannings. I don't recall a multilateral QSR banning - but if you want to set a precedent, by all means put your hand up. I'm sure I can speak for us all.

If you didn't get that last pun, please leave, now.

I find discussions about modes of "attack" in this place, frightfully intimidating and, well, attacking. I mean, if you can't cope, there's always the CWA.

But, hang on, how dare you presume to get uppity with me. Dammit, you'd think I was pontificating on something important to humanity. Did I say that? Oh, fuck, I may have. Sorry. I didn't mean to, it must have been there, inherent in what I was saying. I lose track.

The devil makes me do it.

Tomas · Post by **Tomas** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:23 am

Shahrazad wrote:Tomas,

I fail to see how your reply has anything to do with what I posted. You could have used another quotation to make your point.

-Ryan-
We are attacking the content of each other's minds.

-Shah-
If you agree with his pathetic philosophy in general, save us both a lot of time and just say so.

-tomas-
A lot of what Ryan writes about IS "interesting", it's his..., that somehow, omitting by a sweep of the hands, and wha-lah! - all is fair in love and war.

As far as using a different quote - perhaps he has a second floor bedroom/private bathroom - but his parents have master keys - and, hopefully, to his computer usage/logs.

How he coddled himself onto a philosophical level (on an even keel) with the likes of Diebert, David, Carl, Dan, (and the grand master Kevin).

Unfortunately, Ryan has a breaking point. It is revealed between his lines of writing. (Especially by the docu-novelist) Carl, (detail-oriented) Samadhi, (and the parody-guy) Alex exposed this.

You would be able to see for yourself, as illustrated by your use of the word "pathetic" (pathos). It just takes some time reading-to-realization that sinking feeling that something ain't quite right upstairs :-(

He is a live-at-home Brownshirt.

.

Alex Jacob · Post by **Alex Jacob** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:34 am

I don't normally collaborate with the Opposition, but this banned commercial is in response to Leyla's.

Here's one for Dan.

Interesting, ain't it? Trying to work out an accurate assessment of someone---in this case Ryan (et al)---and the meaning of The Banning of Samadhi. It is interesting how an event has as many different interpretations as interpreters.

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:40 am

Tomas,

How he coddled himself onto a philosophical level (on an even keel) with the likes of Diebert, David, Carl, Dan, (and the grand master Kevin).

I should remind you that he left Dan and Carl out of the quinns. According to the brownshirt, the five thinkers are Kevin, David, Cory, Diebert and himself. You can look it up if you don't trust me. I would not lie to you.

Carl must have felt left out, and he copied / pasted the original quote, replacing Cory's name with his own. Clever of him, somebody might say.

At least Dan never whined about being left out.

A lot of what Ryan writes about IS "interesting", it's his..., that somehow, omitting by a sweep of the hands, and wha-lah! - all is fair in love and war.

I tired, but I failed to parse that sentence.

-

Alex Jacob · Post by **Alex Jacob** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:48 am

I didn't want to leave anyone out (try to laugh a little, if you can, dear fireinds), so here's one for David.

GENIUS FORUMS

Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others

Re: Judging Others