Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 4,246 - 4,257 of 6,170
The most bigotted,abusive, intellectually lazy folk don't actually want to appear that way Most of the people I know who fit that discription, don't know they have a problem untill they have to go to some class to keep their job, or the police get them and they have to spend some time in anger management. Then they swear the world just doesn't understand them. They meet like minded people to make friends with, and they all go to the pub for a drink.
It is amazing how some women seem to seek out men who will abuse them.
Some men look for abuse too. I do think there is a stereotype out there about the woman who wants abuse. It's because people underestimate the power of psychological conditioning and write off the cycle of abuse as some sort of liberal hooey. It's very real.
If you can believe in the Stockholm syndrome (a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage can show signs of having feelings of loyalty to the hostage-taker), and you can see how a dog can be trained into learned helplessness (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness), why is it so hard to forgive a person for being conditioned to adjust to living in an abusive environment? Does it offend your sense of free will to see that without help, even the best of us can follow destructive patterns? Maybe we just like to blame the victims so we feel that something like that could never happen to us. Then if someone we thought of as "nice" or "good" or even "strong" accepts abuse, we can shake our heads and say, "She doesn't seem like the type."
They'd mind if their prejudices were amenable to probing by an i-Truth.
Sorry, I still don't see how turning the problem outward would be in anyway helpful. The power is what matters, and ultimately, the only one you can change is yourself. Then you can offer to help others if they want help, and try to do what you can when you can.
Given there is a limited amount of money available for research, wouldn't we be better off funding medical MRI research and let lie detection be a matter of training people to think critically and test facts for themselves?
Want to know if your politicians are lying to you? OK. Your politicians are lying to you. What are you going to do about it?
It''s it better to solve political problems with politics and moral problems with morals? Why not look to train independent, active people who take responsibility for themselves and each other as seems fit in the circumstances? The question of right and wrong is for your religion, your ethics or your philosophy. It cannot be solved by outward means, no matter how cool the technology seems.
It might be easier to develop a stupidity-testing machine than a lie detector.
It's not so simple. I don't think the various types of intelligences and the various types of stupidity exists on opposite ens of a spectrum. I think each type of intelligence and stupidity has it's own spectrum and we can move up and down the line. If we were to try to measure it, we should not have one number, but complex multidimensional graphs in which each is given it's own axis. I think I am both highly intelligent and highly stupid, often at the exact same time.
Sorry, I still don't see how turning the problem outward would be in anyway helpful. The power is what matters, and ultimately, the only one you can change is yourself
That's true. But I still want to know if the politicians who rule my life are constitutionally unable to tell the truth. I know I'm a nice guy, but I don't trust "them". They could do a lot to undemonize themseves if we had reliable truth verification technology. I just think their fizzyplexers would be in almost permanet scream-&-flash mode.
I know I'm a nice guy, but I don't trust "them'
Hee hee you need to read that article Ulrike posted. My dad always said we are each our own worst enemy. All the same, it would be easier to punch Duyba in the nose.
Would you rather elect me, knowing I lie but have good intentions, or elect Duya if he had to tell the complete truth? Would it matter who could get things done?
Posts 4,246 - 4,257 of 6,170
Maybe voters like leaders that knock them around too. How many people do you know, really research the people they put in office?
Prob123 4240:
It might be easier to develop a stupidity-testing machine than a lie detector.
I think perhaps many people vote for someone stupid becaus they figure he won't be able to put anything over on them - or just, that they don't want to be outshone, or they want to be able to understand what's going on... in a way, that's a problem with Democracy: a large proportion of the population has to understand what's going on, if they are to judge it...
It might be easier to develop a stupidity-testing machine than a lie detector.
I think perhaps many people vote for someone stupid becaus they figure he won't be able to put anything over on them - or just, that they don't want to be outshone, or they want to be able to understand what's going on... in a way, that's a problem with Democracy: a large proportion of the population has to understand what's going on, if they are to judge it...
Some men look for abuse too. I do think there is a stereotype out there about the woman who wants abuse. It's because people underestimate the power of psychological conditioning and write off the cycle of abuse as some sort of liberal hooey. It's very real.
If you can believe in the Stockholm syndrome (a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage can show signs of having feelings of loyalty to the hostage-taker), and you can see how a dog can be trained into learned helplessness (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness), why is it so hard to forgive a person for being conditioned to adjust to living in an abusive environment? Does it offend your sense of free will to see that without help, even the best of us can follow destructive patterns? Maybe we just like to blame the victims so we feel that something like that could never happen to us. Then if someone we thought of as "nice" or "good" or even "strong" accepts abuse, we can shake our heads and say, "She doesn't seem like the type."
Ah, alcohol! A major contributing cause to violence and AIDS. As if people weren't stupid enough already...
Sorry, I still don't see how turning the problem outward would be in anyway helpful. The power is what matters, and ultimately, the only one you can change is yourself. Then you can offer to help others if they want help, and try to do what you can when you can.
Given there is a limited amount of money available for research, wouldn't we be better off funding medical MRI research and let lie detection be a matter of training people to think critically and test facts for themselves?
Want to know if your politicians are lying to you? OK. Your politicians are lying to you. What are you going to do about it?
It''s it better to solve political problems with politics and moral problems with morals? Why not look to train independent, active people who take responsibility for themselves and each other as seems fit in the circumstances? The question of right and wrong is for your religion, your ethics or your philosophy. It cannot be solved by outward means, no matter how cool the technology seems.
With the high percentage of people on alcohol and a dozen other drugs, it may just be the luck of the draw, when someone ends up in an abusive relationship.
It's not so simple. I don't think the various types of intelligences and the various types of stupidity exists on opposite ens of a spectrum. I think each type of intelligence and stupidity has it's own spectrum and we can move up and down the line. If we were to try to measure it, we should not have one number, but complex multidimensional graphs in which each is given it's own axis. I think I am both highly intelligent and highly stupid, often at the exact same time.
Prob, in my answer to you about abuse, the "you" wasn't really meant for you. I realize I was typing back to many people I have had this sort of discussion with in the past. I know you are not so close minded and judgmental.
That's true. But I still want to know if the politicians who rule my life are constitutionally unable to tell the truth. I know I'm a nice guy, but I don't trust "them". They could do a lot to undemonize themseves if we had reliable truth verification technology. I just think their fizzyplexers would be in almost permanet scream-&-flash mode.
Hee hee you need to read that article Ulrike posted. My dad always said we are each our own worst enemy. All the same, it would be easier to punch Duyba in the nose.
Would you rather elect me, knowing I lie but have good intentions, or elect Duya if he had to tell the complete truth? Would it matter who could get things done?
If Dubya had to tell the truth all the time, we'd know his intentions weren't honest. Stupid I can live with, but corrupt and dishonest, no.
I'd vote for you, because you'd lie less than Dubya, even if you tried not to (you're neither stupid nor dishonest, so your case is purely hypothetical.)
I'd vote for you, because you'd lie less than Dubya, even if you tried not to (you're neither stupid nor dishonest, so your case is purely hypothetical.)
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar