Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Heroes

Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2010 8:42:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Not the TV series. But it's about the TV series, if you can follow the video :)
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2010 10:03:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Huh?

Yes, popular fiction is an escape. I know that. Most people know that. But to say that popular fiction is maliciously designed to enslave the minds of the masses requires a huge leap in logic.

Besides, the creator of the video forgets literature, wherein extraordinary people are subjugated to normal circumstances--a flip from popular fiction's usual formula of normal people in extraordinary circumstances.

I mean, this video is good food for though, but it doesn't really make much sense.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2010 10:03:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/1/2010 10:03:12 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
I mean, this video is good food for thought, but it doesn't really make much sense.

Fix typo.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2010 10:26:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/1/2010 10:03:12 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
I mean, this video is good food for thought, but it doesn't really make much sense.
Whether or not something makes sense simply means the concept structure it is based on is not conceivable to you for one reason or another :P

I agree that he forgets to mention the "literature" you speak of, and I put that in quotes because the word "literature" probably actually covers more material than you intended it to, but I don't agree that it's a huge jump in logic that mass media is designed to enslave the minds of the masses. Though perhaps you didn't get what he meant by "design"? He clarified it in the comments section.

I'm sorry if the word "designed" seems confusing, I certainly did not intend it to mean "consciously designed" (which is why I clearly stated that the myths had remained unchanged for thousands of years, I didn't picture cavemen plotting this stuff out and handing it down through the generations!) - I meant "designed" in the way that biologists say that molars are "designed" to crush food, not in having a conscious designer, but in having evolved that way...
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2010 10:30:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/1/2010 10:26:33 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/1/2010 10:03:12 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
I mean, this video is good food for thought, but it doesn't really make much sense.
Whether or not something makes sense simply means the concept structure it is based on is not conceivable to you for one reason or another :P

I agree that he forgets to mention the "literature" you speak of, and I put that in quotes because the word "literature" probably actually covers more material than you intended it to

What I meant was "literary fiction."

And people who classify all fiction as "literary" are pretentious and stupid.

but I don't agree that it's a huge jump in logic that mass media is designed to enslave the minds of the masses. Though perhaps you didn't get what he meant by "design"? He clarified it in the comments section.

I'm sorry if the word "designed" seems confusing, I certainly did not intend it to mean "consciously designed" (which is why I clearly stated that the myths had remained unchanged for thousands of years, I didn't picture cavemen plotting this stuff out and handing it down through the generations!) - I meant "designed" in the way that biologists say that molars are "designed" to crush food, not in having a conscious designer, but in having evolved that way...

Designed by evolution to enslave ourselves?

Well, that just raises the burden of proof even higher. ;D
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2010 10:35:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/1/2010 10:30:42 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 5/1/2010 10:26:33 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/1/2010 10:03:12 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
I mean, this video is good food for thought, but it doesn't really make much sense.
Whether or not something makes sense simply means the concept structure it is based on is not conceivable to you for one reason or another :P

I agree that he forgets to mention the "literature" you speak of, and I put that in quotes because the word "literature" probably actually covers more material than you intended it to

What I meant was "literary fiction."

And people who classify all fiction as "literary" are pretentious and stupid.
Okay, so anyone who disagrees with you is preten- oh hey, that's how you act in general anyways. God damit, and I thought I could criticize out of inconsistency for once.

but I don't agree that it's a huge jump in logic that mass media is designed to enslave the minds of the masses. Though perhaps you didn't get what he meant by "design"? He clarified it in the comments section.

I'm sorry if the word "designed" seems confusing, I certainly did not intend it to mean "consciously designed" (which is why I clearly stated that the myths had remained unchanged for thousands of years, I didn't picture cavemen plotting this stuff out and handing it down through the generations!) - I meant "designed" in the way that biologists say that molars are "designed" to crush food, not in having a conscious designer, but in having evolved that way...

Designed by evolution to enslave ourselves?

Well, that just raises the burden of proof even higher. ;D

Well, I really can't say anything to that you know? You practically said nothing. You're just parading yourself at this point, without explaining what exactly it is you're going on about.

But that's okay. That's the Poe Joe way.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2010 10:44:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Illuminati symbolism in Hollywood movies leaves no question to the Illuminati influence in the media. Illuminist, Leo Zagami has even confirmed that some movie directors consult with Illuminists before making certain movies.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2010 10:51:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/1/2010 10:44:39 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:


The Illuminati symbolism in Hollywood movies leaves no question to the Illuminati influence in the media. Illuminist, Leo Zagami has even confirmed that some movie directors consult with Illuminists before making certain movies.

The Eye of Providence isn't expecitly Free mason, but yeah I agree.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2010 11:01:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/1/2010 10:35:53 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/1/2010 10:30:42 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 5/1/2010 10:26:33 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/1/2010 10:03:12 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
I mean, this video is good food for thought, but it doesn't really make much sense.
Whether or not something makes sense simply means the concept structure it is based on is not conceivable to you for one reason or another :P

I agree that he forgets to mention the "literature" you speak of, and I put that in quotes because the word "literature" probably actually covers more material than you intended it to

What I meant was "literary fiction."

And people who classify all fiction as "literary" are pretentious and stupid.
Okay, so anyone who disagrees with you is preten- oh hey, that's how you act in general anyways. God damit, and I thought I could criticize out of inconsistency for once.

That's not very nice to say. >_>

In any case, "literary fiction" is and should be a very reserved term. Care to disagree? Sure. Fine. I eagerly await your response.

but I don't agree that it's a huge jump in logic that mass media is designed to enslave the minds of the masses. Though perhaps you didn't get what he meant by "design"? He clarified it in the comments section.

I'm sorry if the word "designed" seems confusing, I certainly did not intend it to mean "consciously designed" (which is why I clearly stated that the myths had remained unchanged for thousands of years, I didn't picture cavemen plotting this stuff out and handing it down through the generations!) - I meant "designed" in the way that biologists say that molars are "designed" to crush food, not in having a conscious designer, but in having evolved that way...

Designed by evolution to enslave ourselves?

Well, that just raises the burden of proof even higher. ;D

Well, I really can't say anything to that you know? You practically said nothing. You're just parading yourself at this point, without explaining what exactly it is you're going on about.

What I meant was...

The guy in the video is asserting that because of evolutionary reasons, we have begun to enslave ourselves as seen through our media--at least that's what I got out of it. But the guy doesn't really explain or provide any proof. Thus, I'm skeptical.

I said "that just raises the burden of proof even higher," because my initial impression was that the guy in the video thought that popular fiction was consciously designed to enslave our minds. I disagreed, but that was my initial impression. And now that it has been clarified for me that he believes this enslavement in unconscious, I disagree even more, because that seems, at least to me, even more improbable. So, accordingly, the burden of proof gets higher.

But that's okay. That's the Poe Joe way.

This also isn't very nice. :D
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
lastrequest691
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 9:56:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hey, this soap comes in Star World here in India.
I don't watch it because I don't like that logo.
"That song was absolutely waste of talent; you sounded like a wounded animal and who told you to play the guitar by yourself." Simon Cowell
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 4:19:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
i think the use of the word "enslavement" here is misleading. if the stories evolved, it was to allow us to live vicariously through them. which does, in some cases, prevent people from going off to be heros in reality i guess. but i am skeptical anyone would want to in the first place. the reason they are attracted to stories rather than real life is because they get all the catharsis with none of the risk. people are extremely risk averse. losing actually hurts more than winning the same amount feels good (some psychological concept i can't remember the name of....) he also claims it softens us to serve our "masters" but never details who the masters are. nor does that gel with the idea that the stories evolved spontaneously rather than being designed and imposed from outside. his argument seems to rest on the premise that if it weren't for such stories we would act in heroic ways more often, but i think thats untrue.

in any case, i agree that people who live in fantasies instead of in reality are probably less than optimally happy, and that such stories can be used to substitute for real life. however, i think it makes it out to be a lot more grand than it actually is. people repeatedly choose the safe route and end up shortchanged. its not because the stories teach them to think they are helpless, its because they hobble themselves by constantly giving in to fear. blaming the stories is like blaming mcdonald's for fat people (which i know some people do, but i don't think you're one of them...)
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 9:12:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 4:19:39 PM, belle wrote:
the reason they are attracted to stories rather than real life is because they get all the catharsis with none of the risk. people are extremely risk averse. losing actually hurts more than winning the same amount feels good (some psychological concept i can't remember the name of....)

This. This is the win.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 9:35:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So in other words gambling addiction is impossible.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 9:37:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 9:35:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
So in other words gambling addiction is impossible.

its a generalization not a blanket statement applying to every individual without fail. don't be cheeky.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 9:52:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 4:19:39 PM, belle wrote:
i think the use of the word "enslavement" here is misleading.
What do you think enslavement can be? Is it only to lock people's bodies up one way or another?
if the stories evolved, it was to allow us to live vicariously through them. which does, in some cases, prevent people from going off to be heros in reality i guess.
In "some"? How about "most"?
but i am skeptical anyone would want to in the first place. the reason they are attracted to stories rather than real life is because they get all the catharsis with none of the risk. people are extremely risk averse. losing actually hurts more than winning the same amount feels good (some psychological concept i can't remember the name of....)
Well that's the basics, yes. But what does it also lead to? It leads to a developed experience of having all that pleasure without really having to work for it in reality. Hence, why people who jack off all the time and collect porn on the internet generally don't have girlfriends. Hence, why people who are in comic books and games all the time generally are cowardly pieces of crap. Hence, what the video was saying.
he also claims it softens us to serve our "masters" but never details who the masters are.
That's not the point of the video. Is it necessary to name who they are for the things in the video to be true?
nor does that gel with the idea that the stories evolved spontaneously rather than being designed and imposed from outside.
There is such a thing as indirect control.
his argument seems to rest on the premise that if it weren't for such stories we would act in heroic ways more often, but i think thats untrue.
Mass media entertainment is more or less a drug - your explanation can be used to explain why people take drugs, my explanation can be used to explain what happens to people after they take drugs. Do you really think that if a person did not take the heroic drug of many mass media forms, that they would be just as heroic as if they did?

however, i think it makes it out to be a lot more grand than it actually is. people repeatedly choose the safe route and end up shortchanged. its not because the stories teach them to think they are helpless, its because they hobble themselves by constantly giving in to fear.
Which is in turn why they turn to the stories, because they still want to be awesome, which in turn teaches them they are for helpless, which is why they want more. Sounds like a drug term we're all familiar with.
blaming the stories is like blaming mcdonald's for fat people (which i know some people do, but i don't think you're one of them...)
I don't agree with the analogy, so it doesn't matter what I am in the analogy :D
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2010 10:19:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
if it can be like a drug then why does the mcdonalds analogy fail?

also do you blame drugs for addictions or people for getting addicted?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 1:06:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/2/2010 10:19:26 PM, belle wrote:
if it can be like a drug then why does the mcdonalds analogy fail?
I don't follow. Are you saying McDonalds is a drug?
also do you blame drugs for addictions or people for getting addicted?
Can I not do both?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 2:03:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 1:06:32 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/2/2010 10:19:26 PM, belle wrote:
if it can be like a drug then why does the mcdonalds analogy fail?
I don't follow. Are you saying McDonalds is a drug?

no. neither are movies. people get "addicted" to certain types of stories like they get "addicted" to certain types of unhealthy food. theres no physiological component to either like there is to drugs. so i thought mcdonalds was actually a more apt comparison than drugs are

also do you blame drugs for addictions or people for getting addicted?
Can I not do both?

how can you blame an object for what people choose to do with it?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 2:36:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 2:03:54 PM, belle wrote:
At 5/3/2010 1:06:32 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/2/2010 10:19:26 PM, belle wrote:
if it can be like a drug then why does the mcdonalds analogy fail?
I don't follow. Are you saying McDonalds is a drug?

no. neither are movies. people get "addicted" to certain types of stories like they get "addicted" to certain types of unhealthy food. theres no physiological component to either like there is to drugs. so i thought mcdonalds was actually a more apt comparison than drugs are
No? So what exactly happens when someone watches a movie, and gets excited or gets turned on?

also do you blame drugs for addictions or people for getting addicted?
Can I not do both?

how can you blame an object for what people choose to do with it?
Do we mean different things by "blame"? I thought it simply meant "cause".
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 2:46:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 2:36:54 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/3/2010 2:03:54 PM, belle wrote:
At 5/3/2010 1:06:32 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/2/2010 10:19:26 PM, belle wrote:
if it can be like a drug then why does the mcdonalds analogy fail?
I don't follow. Are you saying McDonalds is a drug?

no. neither are movies. people get "addicted" to certain types of stories like they get "addicted" to certain types of unhealthy food. theres no physiological component to either like there is to drugs. so i thought mcdonalds was actually a more apt comparison than drugs are
No? So what exactly happens when someone watches a movie, and gets excited or gets turned on?

their brain does things with chemicals obviously. the difference being that mcdonalds/movies are not THEMSELVES chemicals that directly induce a chemical debendency. cocaine, nicotine, etc directly stimulate receptors in the brain. junk food and movies effect the brain more indirectly through experiences. both are commonly called "addiction" but withdrawal from an actual drug is more likely to cause actual, physical symptoms which are not mediated by psychological withdrawal.

Do we mean different things by "blame"? I thought it simply meant "cause".

i was thinking along the lines of the attribution of responsibility
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 3:22:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 2:46:27 PM, belle wrote:
At 5/3/2010 2:36:54 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/3/2010 2:03:54 PM, belle wrote:
At 5/3/2010 1:06:32 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/2/2010 10:19:26 PM, belle wrote:
if it can be like a drug then why does the mcdonalds analogy fail?
I don't follow. Are you saying McDonalds is a drug?

no. neither are movies. people get "addicted" to certain types of stories like they get "addicted" to certain types of unhealthy food. theres no physiological component to either like there is to drugs. so i thought mcdonalds was actually a more apt comparison than drugs are
No? So what exactly happens when someone watches a movie, and gets excited or gets turned on?

their brain does things with chemicals obviously. the difference being that mcdonalds/movies are not THEMSELVES chemicals that directly induce a chemical debendency [...]
Dependence on outside chemicals is not a necessary component of making something a drug, to the extent of my knowledge. Also, you said there's "no physiological component" to movies. That is not the same as movies are "not THEMSELVES chemicals".
both are commonly called "addiction" but withdrawal from an actual drug is more likely to cause actual, physical symptoms which are not mediated by psychological withdrawal.
I don't think that's a necessary component of a drug either. If you would like to call movies and drugs "addictions" or some other word that's fine with me, I just don't see them as fundamentally different if we're talking about things that lead to dependency the more they're used.

Do we mean different things by "blame"? I thought it simply meant "cause".

i was thinking along the lines of the attribution of responsibility
Oh, well, I don't deal with responsibility, I deal with causes :P

Responsibility confuses me too much.

So I guess it's not true that I "blame both", in your words.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 3:29:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 3:22:41 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Dependence on outside chemicals is not a necessary component of making something a drug, to the extent of my knowledge. Also, you said there's "no physiological component" to movies. That is not the same as movies are "not THEMSELVES chemicals".

in that case everything is physiological and the word has no meaning. i mean to distinguish experiences that are caused by the ingestion of a mind-altering chemical as opposed to experiences that simply cause emotional/cognitive reactions in people

both are commonly called "addiction" but withdrawal from an actual drug is more likely to cause actual, physical symptoms which are not mediated by psychological withdrawal.
I don't think that's a necessary component of a drug either. If you would like to call movies and drugs "addictions" or some other word that's fine with me, I just don't see them as fundamentally different if we're talking about things that lead to dependency the more they're used.

physical and psychological dependency are not the same though. you can't conflate the two.

additionally, then, you would agree that mcdonalds is like a drug? because you seemed to object to the analogy a few posts ago...

Oh, well, I don't deal with responsibility, I deal with causes :P

lol what do you mean?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 3:45:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 3:29:51 PM, belle wrote:
At 5/3/2010 3:22:41 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Dependence on outside chemicals is not a necessary component of making something a drug, to the extent of my knowledge. Also, you said there's "no physiological component" to movies. That is not the same as movies are "not THEMSELVES chemicals".

in that case everything is physiological and the word has no meaning. i mean to distinguish experiences that are caused by the ingestion of a mind-altering chemical as opposed to experiences that simply cause emotional/cognitive reactions in people
Well first of all I specified things that cause dependency, but I guess that's true. Still, as with all truths, it's dependent on perspective. I think that just within the realm of things that aren't mind altering substances, there are things that significantly affect the mind / cause depedency more than others. Mass media is one of them.

both are commonly called "addiction" but withdrawal from an actual drug is more likely to cause actual, physical symptoms which are not mediated by psychological withdrawal.
I don't think that's a necessary component of a drug either. If you would like to call movies and drugs "addictions" or some other word that's fine with me, I just don't see them as fundamentally different if we're talking about things that lead to dependency the more they're used.

physical and psychological dependency are not the same though. you can't conflate the two.
You're gonna have to tell me what they are then :D

additionally, then, you would agree that mcdonalds is like a drug? because you seemed to object to the analogy a few posts ago...
Dude, you keep bringing up this McDonalds thing, but you never explain it. I mean I could agree with it, I could disagree with it, but it'd have no meaning because my opinion wasn't on your explanation of it. Even if you don't personally agree with it, could you create the argument form for it?

Oh, well, I don't deal with responsibility, I deal with causes :P

lol what do you mean?
I don't think about who or what is "responsible" for things. I just look for everything that could possibly have contributed / caused the event. It's a lot easiernd doesn't have any of that sticky moral stuff attached to it.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 3:55:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 3:45:22 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
physical and psychological dependency are not the same though. you can't conflate the two.
You're gonna have to tell me what they are then :D

physical dependency means withdrawal causes physical symptoms which you can do nothing about- headaches and tiredness for caffeine, ranging all the way to severe body aches, vomiting, etc of heroin withdrawal.

psychological dependency is emotional. you get the anxiety and depression upon withdrawal as with the above, but the functioning of your body is not disrupted the way it is in cases of physical dependence.

http://www.answerbag.com...

^^more detailed overview

additionally, then, you would agree that mcdonalds is like a drug? because you seemed to object to the analogy a few posts ago...
Dude, you keep bringing up this McDonalds thing, but you never explain it. I mean I could agree with it, I could disagree with it, but it'd have no meaning because my opinion wasn't on your explanation of it. Even if you don't personally agree with it, could you create the argument form for it?

a person gets depressed/anxious if they don't have their mcdonalds fix and craves it constantly even though they may want to stop (for health reasons or whatever).

I don't think about who or what is "responsible" for things. I just look for everything that could possibly have contributed / caused the event. It's a lot easiernd doesn't have any of that sticky moral stuff attached to it.

but it can also be extremely misleading because it makes the concept of agency irrelevant. which is why it becomes possible to be enslaved by something inanimate...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 4:02:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
that video is giving our "masters" a lot more credit than they're due. the only purpose any of these movies have is to make money (that's what i think anyway). this is afterall all our "farmers" want from us, isn't it... i think the reason most heroes have all these amazing powers is because that's what sells and that this is the same reason you see all that illuminati sh*t in movies. if they really did want to turn us all into cowards in this way then what were they at releasing batman. also, this video was definitely inspired by kick-@ss.
signature
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 4:14:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 4:02:16 PM, badger wrote:
that video is giving our "masters" a lot more credit than they're due. the only purpose any of these movies have is to make money (that's what i think anyway).
Well there are other aspects to just wanting money you know? If I started a company, its only purpose would be to make money. That's not wrong or uncommon. What is wrong is when I'm willing to do certain things for money. The ruling class is willing to enslave everyone for it. They are probably sadists or at least control freaks.
this is afterall all our "farmers" want from us, isn't it... i think the reason most heroes have all these amazing powers is because that's what sells and that this is the same reason you see all that illuminati sh*t in movies. if they really did want to turn us all into cowards in this way then what were they at releasing batman. also, this video was definitely inspired by kick-@ss.
I don't see a difference in batman from any other of the superhero stories.

Wat is Kick-@ss about?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 4:22:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 3:55:24 PM, belle wrote:
At 5/3/2010 3:45:22 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
physical and psychological dependency are not the same though. you can't conflate the two.
You're gonna have to tell me what they are then :D

physical dependency means withdrawal causes physical symptoms which you can do nothing about- headaches and tiredness for caffeine, ranging all the way to severe body aches, vomiting, etc of heroin withdrawal.

psychological dependency is emotional. you get the anxiety and depression upon withdrawal as with the above, but the functioning of your body is not disrupted the way it is in cases of physical dependence.

http://www.answerbag.com...

^^more detailed overview
Seems to me like it's just severe vs not so much. The article isn't exactly what we're talking about; we're on physical vs physiological, article's on physical vs psychological.

But this line is crap.
On the other hand, some categories of substances share this property and are still not considered addictive: cortisone, beta-blockers and most antidepressants are examples.
If you take in a certain substance that your body naturally produces, then your body gradually shuts down its production. I don't know what cortisone is, but I'm pretty sure beta-blockers and antidepressants have their natural counterparts.

additionally, then, you would agree that mcdonalds is like a drug? because you seemed to object to the analogy a few posts ago...
Dude, you keep bringing up this McDonalds thing, but you never explain it. I mean I could agree with it, I could disagree with it, but it'd have no meaning because my opinion wasn't on your explanation of it. Even if you don't personally agree with it, could you create the argument form for it?

a person gets depressed/anxious if they don't have their mcdonalds fix and craves it constantly even though they may want to stop (for health reasons or whatever).
Sure, if a person is like that, then McDonalds is a drug for them I don't believe that exists on a significant scale, though. I don't believe it happens either, though it's not impossible to imagine.

I don't think about who or what is "responsible" for things. I just look for everything that could possibly have contributed / caused the event. It's a lot easiernd doesn't have any of that sticky moral stuff attached to it.

but it can also be extremely misleading because it makes the concept of agency irrelevant. which is why it becomes possible to be enslaved by something inanimate...
Agency is more or less irrelevant to me if we compare me to most people. I don't see agency as a first cause, it's more like this collection of other non-agency causes. People are what they believe/do/dream, and what they believe/do/dream is a result of what they experience, which is dependent on a hell of a lot of other things. Agency is what I think is misleading.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 4:35:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 4:14:30 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/3/2010 4:02:16 PM, badger wrote:
that video is giving our "masters" a lot more credit than they're due. the only purpose any of these movies have is to make money (that's what i think anyway).
Well there are other aspects to just wanting money you know? If I started a company, its only purpose would be to make money. That's not wrong or uncommon. What is wrong is when I'm willing to do certain things for money. The ruling class is willing to enslave everyone for it. They are probably sadists or at least control freaks.

it's possible i suppose, but i doubt it.

this is afterall all our "farmers" want from us, isn't it... i think the reason most heroes have all these amazing powers is because that's what sells and that this is the same reason you see all that illuminati sh*t in movies. if they really did want to turn us all into cowards in this way then what were they at releasing batman. also, this video was definitely inspired by kick-@ss.
I don't see a difference in batman from any other of the superhero stories.

well batman is just a normal human. the video makes out that we're being brainwashed into believing that one needs to have superpowers in order to become a superhero, but then there's batman...

Wat is Kick-@ss about?

about some kid who can't figure out why nobody has ever tried to become a superhero, and then goes away and tries and get's the sh*t kicked outa him the whole way through the movie... maybe they are brainwashing us.
signature