Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Collectivist and Immortality

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 5:32:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In thinking about why it is people so ardently defend their political causes even if their own interests are at stake, I have come to the point in which I believe there is something more precious than one's own life. For the individual who wishes to continue his, or her, traditions, self-interest does little to entice one away from his, or her, birthright. In fact, people are willing to vote against their their own interests in order to preserve a particular way of life.

Why would someone do this, especially, if it entails slowly decreasing one's mobility in his, or her, society? Is the preservation of a single culture worth the sacrifice of one's liberties? I believe the individual in many cases is a continuation, or an attempt at immortality, of one's heritage. He, or she, is not merely alive to serve his, or her, own interests but, also, the interests of one's ancestry; and, to put his, or her, interests above the interests of his, or her, lineage is seen as a betrayal not only of one's past but, also, one's future. In other words, the collectivist does not see himself, or herself, as, merely, an individual with a finite amount of time to accomplish his, or her, goals but a component of something greater, a continuation of something that has gone before and the hope of something that will follow, after.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 12:01:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 5:32:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In thinking about why it is people so ardently defend their political causes even if their own interests are at stake, I have come to the point in which I believe there is something more precious than one's own life. For the individual who wishes to continue his, or her, traditions, self-interest does little to entice one away from his, or her, birthright. In fact, people are willing to vote against their their own interests in order to preserve a particular way of life.

Why would someone do this, especially, if it entails slowly decreasing one's mobility in his, or her, society? Is the preservation of a single culture worth the sacrifice of one's liberties? I believe the individual in many cases is a continuation, or an attempt at immortality, of one's heritage. He, or she, is not merely alive to serve his, or her, own interests but, also, the interests of one's ancestry; and, to put his, or her, interests above the interests of his, or her, lineage is seen as a betrayal not only of one's past but, also, one's future. In other words, the collectivist does not see himself, or herself, as, merely, an individual with a finite amount of time to accomplish his, or her, goals but a component of something greater, a continuation of something that has gone before and the hope of something that will follow, after.

I agree with this; it's very reminiscent of Eric Hoffer, especially his work on mass movements. Have you ever read him?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 5:27:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 12:01:58 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:32:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In thinking about why it is people so ardently defend their political causes even if their own interests are at stake, I have come to the point in which I believe there is something more precious than one's own life. For the individual who wishes to continue his, or her, traditions, self-interest does little to entice one away from his, or her, birthright. In fact, people are willing to vote against their their own interests in order to preserve a particular way of life.

Why would someone do this, especially, if it entails slowly decreasing one's mobility in his, or her, society? Is the preservation of a single culture worth the sacrifice of one's liberties? I believe the individual in many cases is a continuation, or an attempt at immortality, of one's heritage. He, or she, is not merely alive to serve his, or her, own interests but, also, the interests of one's ancestry; and, to put his, or her, interests above the interests of his, or her, lineage is seen as a betrayal not only of one's past but, also, one's future. In other words, the collectivist does not see himself, or herself, as, merely, an individual with a finite amount of time to accomplish his, or her, goals but a component of something greater, a continuation of something that has gone before and the hope of something that will follow, after.

I agree with this; it's very reminiscent of Eric Hoffer, especially his work on mass movements. Have you ever read him?

No. I haven't. These thoughts came to me, yesterday, while having lunch with a friend.

I have for years believed people put politics above religious beliefs; now, I'm not quite sure.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 6:24:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Politics and religion are equivalent. We get this notion stuck in our head as we go ---that they are separate, that politics is some incredible pragmatism, whilst religion is but dreams; but this is incorrect. Instead, what happens here is we get lost in perspective - perhaps willfully - in these notions of absolutes, which are science's laws, family, death, and, most grievously, denials of God, to name a few.

What do you really know about the world, and yourself? When you think politics, what deep chords are ringing, creating the noise which is your affiliation? .....These are fascinating questions. Oh, but you might say "I am an atheist, I care only for such-and-such and so-and-so"; but stop lying. Do you think you have come through childhood a perfectly logical machine, by the ways, impervious to spiritual consideration? No, of course you haven't. Just as the abused child suffers mental problems at the hands of his past, so too do we all, abused in the conventional sense or not. Or perhaps it is not abuse, but birthright, necessity ---It does not matter (indeed, what even is the conventional sense - Ted Bundy and his entire life rendered a joke by Christianity's fiddling with his parenthood perhaps?); but do not try to split yourself off from where you have come from, or you will be lost and insensible. We are all the children of God in some way or other, whether bastards, indignants, or loyal sons. And this resounds through one's politics ----the so-common conservative Christian, for example. Truly, every action in us is with reference to the purely existential, and, then, as a necessity, God ---I could point them out all day and explain them. But I am rattled from drink lol.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 6:27:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I had a religious experience like a bastard this weekend; then I fell in love lol.....I am so f*cked though.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 8:52:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Politics and religion are equivalent. We get this notion stuck in our head as we go ---that they are separate, that politics is some incredible pragmatism, whilst religion is but dreams; but this is incorrect. Instead, what happens here is we get lost in perspective - perhaps willfully - in these notions of absolutes, which are science's laws, family, death, and, most grievously, denials of God, to name a few.

Even though I believe they influence each other, I don't believe they're, entirely, the same; for instance, Christianity through out history and today has been and is compatible with very diverse political systems.

What do you really know about the world, and yourself? When you think politics, what deep chords are ringing, creating the noise which is your affiliation? .....These are fascinating questions. Oh, but you might say "I am an atheist, I care only for such-and-such and so-and-so"; but stop lying. Do you think you have come through childhood a perfectly logical machine, by the ways, impervious to spiritual consideration? No, of course you haven't. Just as the abused child suffers mental problems at the hands of his past, so too do we all, abused in the conventional sense or not. Or perhaps it is not abuse, but birthright, necessity ---It does not matter (indeed, what even is the conventional sense - Ted Bundy and his entire life rendered a joke by Christianity's fiddling with his parenthood perhaps?); but do not try to split yourself off from where you have come from, or you will be lost and insensible. We are all the children of God in some way or other, whether bastards, indignants, or loyal sons. And this resounds through one's politics ----the so-common conservative Christian, for example. Truly, every action in us is with reference to the purely existential, and, then, as a necessity, God ---I could point them out all day and explain them. But I am rattled from drink lol.

Even though I believe our heritage influences us, tremendously, I believe we are also unique; I don't believe in nature versus nurture; I believe in both. I believe the development of our personalities is a combination of agreeable and disagreeable characteristics. I believe we have similarities but I also believe we have differences.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 7:34:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 8:52:49 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Politics and religion are equivalent. We get this notion stuck in our head as we go ---that they are separate, that politics is some incredible pragmatism, whilst religion is but dreams; but this is incorrect. Instead, what happens here is we get lost in perspective - perhaps willfully - in these notions of absolutes, which are science's laws, family, death, and, most grievously, denials of God, to name a few.

Even though I believe they influence each other, I don't believe they're, entirely, the same; for instance, Christianity through out history and today has been and is compatible with very diverse political systems.

What do you really know about the world, and yourself? When you think politics, what deep chords are ringing, creating the noise which is your affiliation? .....These are fascinating questions. Oh, but you might say "I am an atheist, I care only for such-and-such and so-and-so"; but stop lying. Do you think you have come through childhood a perfectly logical machine, by the ways, impervious to spiritual consideration? No, of course you haven't. Just as the abused child suffers mental problems at the hands of his past, so too do we all, abused in the conventional sense or not. Or perhaps it is not abuse, but birthright, necessity ---It does not matter (indeed, what even is the conventional sense - Ted Bundy and his entire life rendered a joke by Christianity's fiddling with his parenthood perhaps?); but do not try to split yourself off from where you have come from, or you will be lost and insensible. We are all the children of God in some way or other, whether bastards, indignants, or loyal sons. And this resounds through one's politics ----the so-common conservative Christian, for example. Truly, every action in us is with reference to the purely existential, and, then, as a necessity, God ---I could point them out all day and explain them. But I am rattled from drink lol.

Even though I believe our heritage influences us, tremendously, I believe we are also unique; I don't believe in nature versus nurture; I believe in both. I believe the development of our personalities is a combination of agreeable and disagreeable characteristics. I believe we have similarities but I also believe we have differences.

You have a real art in saying nothing as if you're saying something. You're wrong, though. ----whatever it is you believe. Nature but defines the comfort one can take---the autist can't spin around in circles, for example; but he/she needs to be very straight, needs to have the whole world lining up perfectly. The rest is nurture ---consciousness anticipated, sort of. (That'd make an interesting title for a book, wouldn't it?---Consciousness Anticipated. I've been thinking about it.)
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 7:37:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The man with the beady, little eyes, a little too close together, will be an incredibly scheming man, to make up for his poor span of vision.----is that nature or nurture? Nurture.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 7:46:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Twin Studies merely describe how exact this propensity for taking comfort is too. Commonly misinterpreted ridiculously,---as if everything is set in stone; the sort of toothpaste you prefer, your sexuality, etc. But it's not. The right-handed man will turn to his right, for his right side offers most comfort in its greater strength. Certain colours and tastes and sounds etc. are indeed more easily accommodated by one's nature; but these things are trivial.----and still hugely variable, just with little room for maneuver. Man's only nature is to take the easiest life available to him.

........And every single thought becomes a part of the man, something solid, ---a feeling by which to be bounced around. I'm actually very, very good at kicking people in their primordial.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 11:50:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You have a real art in saying nothing as if you're saying something. You're wrong, though. ----whatever it is you believe. Nature but defines the comfort one can take---the autist can't spin around in circles, for example; but he/she needs to be very straight, needs to have the whole world lining up perfectly. The rest is nurture ---consciousness anticipated, sort of. (That'd make an interesting title for a book, wouldn't it?---Consciousness Anticipated. I've been thinking about it.)

Nature and its creation don't entirely exist apart; they are both dependent on each other.

Whether the artist spins around in circles or has the world lined up, perfectly, or does a little of both is the meaning of art. Art is a picture of the heart, and being the heart is not merely perfect but also imperfect, so, likewise, is one's art.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 8:22:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 6:24:38 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Politics and religion are equivalent. We get this notion stuck in our head as we go ---that they are separate, that politics is some incredible pragmatism, whilst religion is but dreams; but this is incorrect. Instead, what happens here is we get lost in perspective - perhaps willfully - in these notions of absolutes, which are science's laws, family, death, and, most grievously, denials of God, to name a few.

What do you really know about the world, and yourself? When you think politics, what deep chords are ringing, creating the noise which is your affiliation? .....These are fascinating questions. Oh, but you might say "I am an atheist, I care only for such-and-such and so-and-so"; but stop lying. Do you think you have come through childhood a perfectly logical machine, by the ways, impervious to spiritual consideration? No, of course you haven't. Just as the abused child suffers mental problems at the hands of his past, so too do we all, abused in the conventional sense or not. Or perhaps it is not abuse, but birthright, necessity ---It does not matter (indeed, what even is the conventional sense - Ted Bundy and his entire life rendered a joke by Christianity's fiddling with his parenthood perhaps?); but do not try to split yourself off from where you have come from, or you will be lost and insensible. We are all the children of God in some way or other, whether bastards, indignants, or loyal sons. And this resounds through one's politics ----the so-common conservative Christian, for example. Truly, every action in us is with reference to the purely existential, and, then, as a necessity, God ---I could point them out all day and explain them. But I am rattled from drink lol.

Politics and religion are equivalent. No one is based in deception and manipulation through the access of money and power and one is based in truth and human nature.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 8:27:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/1/2015 8:22:51 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:24:38 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Politics and religion are equivalent. We get this notion stuck in our head as we go ---that they are separate, that politics is some incredible pragmatism, whilst religion is but dreams; but this is incorrect. Instead, what happens here is we get lost in perspective - perhaps willfully - in these notions of absolutes, which are science's laws, family, death, and, most grievously, denials of God, to name a few.

What do you really know about the world, and yourself? When you think politics, what deep chords are ringing, creating the noise which is your affiliation? .....These are fascinating questions. Oh, but you might say "I am an atheist, I care only for such-and-such and so-and-so"; but stop lying. Do you think you have come through childhood a perfectly logical machine, by the ways, impervious to spiritual consideration? No, of course you haven't. Just as the abused child suffers mental problems at the hands of his past, so too do we all, abused in the conventional sense or not. Or perhaps it is not abuse, but birthright, necessity ---It does not matter (indeed, what even is the conventional sense - Ted Bundy and his entire life rendered a joke by Christianity's fiddling with his parenthood perhaps?); but do not try to split yourself off from where you have come from, or you will be lost and insensible. We are all the children of God in some way or other, whether bastards, indignants, or loyal sons. And this resounds through one's politics ----the so-common conservative Christian, for example. Truly, every action in us is with reference to the purely existential, and, then, as a necessity, God ---I could point them out all day and explain them. But I am rattled from drink lol.

Politics and religion are equivalent. No one is based in deception and manipulation through the access of money and power and one is based in truth and human nature.

That is some high grade cynicism, sadolite, lol.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 8:31:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/1/2015 8:27:55 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/1/2015 8:22:51 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:24:38 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Politics and religion are equivalent. We get this notion stuck in our head as we go ---that they are separate, that politics is some incredible pragmatism, whilst religion is but dreams; but this is incorrect. Instead, what happens here is we get lost in perspective - perhaps willfully - in these notions of absolutes, which are science's laws, family, death, and, most grievously, denials of God, to name a few.

What do you really know about the world, and yourself? When you think politics, what deep chords are ringing, creating the noise which is your affiliation? .....These are fascinating questions. Oh, but you might say "I am an atheist, I care only for such-and-such and so-and-so"; but stop lying. Do you think you have come through childhood a perfectly logical machine, by the ways, impervious to spiritual consideration? No, of course you haven't. Just as the abused child suffers mental problems at the hands of his past, so too do we all, abused in the conventional sense or not. Or perhaps it is not abuse, but birthright, necessity ---It does not matter (indeed, what even is the conventional sense - Ted Bundy and his entire life rendered a joke by Christianity's fiddling with his parenthood perhaps?); but do not try to split yourself off from where you have come from, or you will be lost and insensible. We are all the children of God in some way or other, whether bastards, indignants, or loyal sons. And this resounds through one's politics ----the so-common conservative Christian, for example. Truly, every action in us is with reference to the purely existential, and, then, as a necessity, God ---I could point them out all day and explain them. But I am rattled from drink lol.

Politics and religion are equivalent. No one is based in deception and manipulation through the access of money and power and one is based in truth and human nature.

That is some high grade cynicism, sadolite, lol.

Show me a politician that doesn't seek to deceive and manipulate and I'll start voting again.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 11:33:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 5:32:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In thinking about why it is people so ardently defend their political causes even if their own interests are at stake, I have come to the point in which I believe there is something more precious than one's own life. For the individual who wishes to continue his, or her, traditions, self-interest does little to entice one away from his, or her, birthright. In fact, people are willing to vote against their their own interests in order to preserve a particular way of life.

I think there's an assumption which is common here in regards to a distinction between 'self-interest' and not, which doesn't actually exist. Any interest is, I think, rational, and directed out into the world, so I don't think there's any difference in people's political decisions and anything else they do, just an attempt to rationally interact with the world. Nobody is out there consciously trying to make the world worse to 'benefit themselves'.. what would that even mean?

Why would someone do this, especially, if it entails slowly decreasing one's mobility in his, or her, society? Is the preservation of a single culture worth the sacrifice of one's liberties? I believe the individual in many cases is a continuation, or an attempt at immortality, of one's heritage. He, or she, is not merely alive to serve his, or her, own interests but, also, the interests of one's ancestry; and, to put his, or her, interests above the interests of his, or her, lineage is seen as a betrayal not only of one's past but, also, one's future. In other words, the collectivist does not see himself, or herself, as, merely, an individual with a finite amount of time to accomplish his, or her, goals but a component of something greater, a continuation of something that has gone before and the hope of something that will follow, after.

This doesn't need to be something 'spiritual'; they simply exchange financial benefit for a different, perhaps more abstract kind of benefit. If I am living with a large amount of wealth, but my situation with regard to society is irrational, I will probably find it very difficult to reconcile myself to my situation. And whatever joy we take in simple physical comfort in the moment is very small, almost irrelevant, in comparison to our longer-term goals, because a human being is primarily rational. We are always telling ourselves stories; comparing everything to an overall story which we tell ourselves about our entire life and the rationality of it, and that is a kind of supreme happiness in itself. So really I agree with your general direction, but don't agree that this larger purpose is something unusual or spiritual, rather I believe that it's the primary kind of happiness that we are all, generally, searching for.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 11:41:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 11:33:26 AM, sdavio wrote:
So really I agree with your general direction, but don't agree that this larger purpose is something unusual or spiritual, rather I believe that it's the primary kind of happiness that we are all, generally, searching for.

For instance: how people will camp out for the release of a new book, or starve themselves in order to be attractive. Aren't these just other examples of people being more than willing to sacrifice physical comfort for other, more cerebral forms of gratification? Really, physical comfort and wealth are one of the lowest priorities for most people. And if people do accumulate wealth, generally it seems to be as a means to something else. I guess my point is really that the kind of terms like "self-interest" vs "altruism" really are quite shallow analysis of what people are really doing. Every action is really, in its own way, both at once.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 11:43:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 11:38:21 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
That was a good post, sdavio. In fairness. :P

Oh, thanks :)
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 11:45:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Very good posts, dude.
lol...I don't mean to act like I'm an authority or anything, but they just gave me some sense of rightness about the world.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 11:46:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The whole inherently selfish vs. altruistic bit is just psychological armouring. It is shallow, has no real world application. The rational and the spiritual meld here, though. :P
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 11:50:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Death is not a priori.--It is something that must be rationalised. And it rings through the entirety of our existence, and the uncertainty of it. Really, there is no avoiding spiritual consideration. It will be in everything.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 11:52:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 11:50:59 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Death is not a priori.--It is something that must be rationalised. And it rings through the entirety of our existence, and the uncertainty of it. Really, there is no avoiding spiritual consideration. It will be in everything.

The spirit is the essence, that which transcends death.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:02:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 11:41:49 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/2/2015 11:33:26 AM, sdavio wrote:
So really I agree with your general direction, but don't agree that this larger purpose is something unusual or spiritual, rather I believe that it's the primary kind of happiness that we are all, generally, searching for.

For instance: how people will camp out for the release of a new book, or starve themselves in order to be attractive. Aren't these just other examples of people being more than willing to sacrifice physical comfort for other, more cerebral forms of gratification? Really, physical comfort and wealth are one of the lowest priorities for most people. And if people do accumulate wealth, generally it seems to be as a means to something else. I guess my point is really that the kind of terms like "self-interest" vs "altruism" really are quite shallow analysis of what people are really doing. Every action is really, in its own way, both at once.

Good point. I think self-sacrifice is often confused with what is, in fact, just another level in a hierarchy of values. Another example of this would be child-rearing: superficially, it may appear as a totally selfless obligation, but rarely is this the case.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:07:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 7:37:19 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The man with the beady, little eyes, a little too close together, will be an incredibly scheming man, to make up for his poor span of vision.----is that nature or nurture? Nurture.

wut
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:09:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:07:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/31/2014 7:37:19 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The man with the beady, little eyes, a little too close together, will be an incredibly scheming man, to make up for his poor span of vision.----is that nature or nurture? Nurture.

wut

Just an example of a physical attribute defining mental considerations. I mean, it's perfectly sensible, right? Small-handed people are generally going to be rather timid, too, as another example.----Consciousness Anticipated: it's all rational.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:11:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There's actually a very interesting study to be made of anticipating a person's personality by gauging their physical attributes. I'm arguing against an inherent of mind, dylan.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:13:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:11:36 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
There's actually a very interesting study to be made of anticipating a person's personality by gauging their physical attributes. I'm arguing against an inherent of mind, dylan.

And it should be obvious, but for a lot of people it's not.----black people are supposedly inherently criminal yadda yadda. A lot of people are too knee-jerk retarded to get it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:19:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:09:46 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/2/2015 12:07:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/31/2014 7:37:19 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The man with the beady, little eyes, a little too close together, will be an incredibly scheming man, to make up for his poor span of vision.----is that nature or nurture? Nurture.

wut

Just an example of a physical attribute defining mental considerations. I mean, it's perfectly sensible, right? Small-handed people are generally going to be rather timid, too, as another example.----Consciousness Anticipated: it's all rational.

I'm sorry, but was this supposed to sound not completely retarded?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:20:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:19:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/2/2015 12:09:46 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/2/2015 12:07:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/31/2014 7:37:19 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The man with the beady, little eyes, a little too close together, will be an incredibly scheming man, to make up for his poor span of vision.----is that nature or nurture? Nurture.

wut

Just an example of a physical attribute defining mental considerations. I mean, it's perfectly sensible, right? Small-handed people are generally going to be rather timid, too, as another example.----Consciousness Anticipated: it's all rational.

I'm sorry, but was this supposed to sound not completely retarded?

What's retarded about it, my child? sdavio got it. :)