TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Masculinity in the U.S. and the World
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

Re: This thread should be renamed to "Masculinity in the World + Arbiter's mind"

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Once she had graduated or completely stopped associating with you, wouldn't she stop being a threat? Besides, she just walked away, it's not like she had ratted you or anything. She was not a traitor - she was a "coward", if you will and such "cowardness" wouldn't be a threat because if she would most likely be enough of a "coward" not to do anything against you... not to mention that, as far as you've told us, the reason why she did so remains unknown. Wasn't damaging her relationship and her school life a bit bang out of order? Couldn't it be related to the fact she had slept with you in spite of being commited, which may trigger a harsher behaviour? Understanding you is something that's taught me a lot but this time, I'm quite puzzled.

I was definitely angry, that's one thing for sure. It wasn't the sex - which I viewed and still view as largely meaningless - but the friendship. I don't keep a lot of friends and the people I choose are people I think very highly of - and therefore have high expectations of as well. I was disappointed, frustrated, and angry: not only at her, but also at myself for apparently misjudging her.

But that was merely incidental - it wasn't the reason for the severity of my actions. It was for the sake of personal honesty - and to maintain my credibility. I had made it clear to everyone I was working with that this type of betrayal/cowardice/whatever-you-want-to-call-it would not be acceptable, and that moreover, anyone found to have betrayed us would face the most serious consequences that we could muster without putting ourselves at too much legal risk. Nobody was allowed in without knowing what was expected of them and what consequences they could expect to face if that expectation wasn't met. If they weren't prepared to deal with that kind of commitment, they had plenty of opportunities to turn it down.

Now if I went to all that length to make sure everyone understood the degree of loyalty and discipline expected of members, and then when a member blatantly violated their commitment and I did nothing about it, what would it say about me? That I was lying, inconsistent, untrustworthy - someone who doesn't back up words with actions. But that's not the kind of person I am - and if I am to expect the trust, discipline, and loyalty from the other people I associate with, I can't have them thinking that's the kind of person I am either. Any organization no matter how big or small which doesn't enforce its rules is a joke and can't expect to accomplish anything or maintain any semblance of discipline. It wasn't her "the person" that posed a continuous threat: it was "her" the idea - the idea that a person could spit in my face and I'd just turn the other cheek. That was the true threat, the threat which could only be erased by fulfilling the promise I made the day she joined, the promise that disloyalty would be met with the stiffest penalties available.

As a leader, and as a man of my word, I had little choice.

OK. Interesting. I guess I would say a couple of things now in response to what Arbiter posted the the "worst thing you've ever done" thread, now that I've said that I agree with his defense of individualism in this thread. I tried to restrict my comments to issues relevant in this thread, and I stick by what I said in regards to the topic of this thread.

In response to the skeleton in Arbiter's closet...well, it was posted in the "what's the worst thing you've ever done" thread, so that should tell you something. He recognizes it as the worst thing he's ever done, directly or indirectly, so it's no surprise that it would make you squirm. Don't confuse a flaw in his character with a flaw in his philosophy about individualism. Nobody is perfect. If he loses of couple of respect points in your book because he let you in on a dark secret, then so be it.

But yea, I think he was a little "gung-ho" on the whole academic infiltration thing. Failure is not an option with this one.

quote:

Originally posted by zig Aw yes...you provide justification for your actions and reasoning to go with it,as to why you must at all costs it seems,protect your honour and integrity and deal with any threats to yourself with extreme malice and you care little for the fact that the individual concerned may have committed suicide later in her life....and you obviously know how this sounds to other people...it sounds cold and calculated....and then you go on about other individuals being boring and predictable with a mental weakness...because they put open to question your reasoning...and of course you have contempt for them also...perfectly rational of course....except for one thing....it exposes you probably more than you would like to people who read these forums...and these same people will form ophinions about you...some of which you obviously cant handle...as for my ophinion of you...cold calculating c**t probably comes quickest to mind....but no doubt i am probably weak also in your ophinion............

Trust me, I can handle just about any opinion that anybody on this forum could muster. The only thing I ask is that you back it up. If you don't I'm going to call you on it: it's simple as that.

I'll never call somebody an idiot or an asshole for having an opinion, but if you're going to spout off about how crappy a person somebody is you should back your opinions up with a well-thought-out rationale.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've just skimmed over this conversation and don't really have a sound understanding of what's going on. Now I'm going to suggest that before you post on this topic again, you acquire such an understanding and put some coherent thoughts together next time, preferably in a more readable paragraph format. I'd be more than happy to address any legitimate comments, concerns, or questions you have. But if you're just going to spout off a bunch of personal insults without backing your position up I'm going to call you on it just like your good buddy Dervish here.

his views and philosophy are still no justification for the severity of his actions taken against this girl

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Arbiter, you're a pretty typical male in the sense that your attitude and views are highly influenced by the whole i'm-completely-independend-don't-need-anyone macho bullshit. And as a reslut, you're cruel, insecure and afraid of truly caring about anyone else. You really need to grow out of it unless you want to be a bitter old lonely man.

The fact that you think you know so much about me from a handful of posts on an internet message board speaks volumes about your credibility. The reality is that you only know one thing about me: if I'm put in the position where I feel threatened and betrayed by someone, I don't hold back. As much as I wish I would never have to be in that position, that's something I'm not ashamed of.

If you gave that description of me to any of my friends or family they would tell you that you're full of shit, because you are.

When I met my last girlfriend, Liza, she was working as a waitress in downtown DC and living in a one bedroom apartment with three roommates because that was all she could afford. She had dropped out of school because her parents cut off her money when they disowned her after finding out she had sex out of wedlock and she couldn't get a loan. Three months before we even started going out, I had her not only back in school but enrolled in a pre-med program - all at my own expense and without ever intending to ask for any repayment. She was two semesters ahead of her courses as a result of my tutoring and her own brilliant mind and she got straight A's in her first semester. I got her a good job through my personal contacts teaching old people how to use computers so she could pay for her own expenses, and when she got sick with mono and couldn't go to class I caught a train up to see her and back every single day to comfort her and make sure she didn't fall behind in her classes even though I was also sick myself for a month.

When my close friend John's father died during exam week, I was the one who stayed up with him for 54 hours straight, making sure he got through it in one piece and without flunking out of school. I even missed an exam to do it, and was lucky my professor allowed me to take it a day late when I explained the situation. But if he hadn't, I would still have no regrets.

When my grandfather had lung cancer and my grandmother needed help to take care of him, I rode 5-6 hours there and 5-6 hours back from Buffalo, NY to Bay City, MI seven days a week while going to attending school fairly regularly to offer my emotional support and help my grandmother make his last days as comfortable as humanly possible.

Every single person who I call my friend I would give my life for without a moment's hesitation. I doubt you could say the same. So yeah, if someone poses a threat to me, or stabs my friends in the back, you better believe I'm going to go at them 100%.

That's the honorable way of life in my opinion: nothing but the best for my friends, nothing but the worst for my enemies. If that doesn't always comply with people's simplistic one-dimensional conceptions of right and wrong so be it. That's what I stand for and I'll stick by it to the very end. What about you?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The fact that you think you know so much about me from a handful of posts on an internet message board speaks volumes about your credibility.

Ok, I could say the same thing to you based on that last statement.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter If that doesn't always comply with people's simplistic one-dimensional conceptions of right and wrong so be it.

Anyways, that's besides the point. After reading your last response, I must say I have a certain amount of respect for you partly becuase of unselfishly helping someone else out, partly because you seem to be loyal to your friends etc. and patly becuae you seem to be someone who tries to live by and stick to his values and beliefs.

I must also admit I don't really know much about the situation with your ex other than what little I read of some of your post and other people's response to them. It's understandable why you would be pissed but I still think your reaction was too harsh to be justified.

Re: Re: This thread should be renamed to "Masculinity in the World + Arbiter's mind"

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter But that was merely incidental - it wasn't the reason for the severity of my actions. It was for the sake of personal honesty - and to maintain my credibility. I had made it clear to everyone I was working with that this type of betrayal/cowardice/whatever-you-want-to-call-it would not be acceptable, and that moreover, anyone found to have betrayed us would face the most serious consequences that we could muster without putting ourselves at too much legal risk. Nobody was allowed in without knowing what was expected of them and what consequences they could expect to face if that expectation wasn't met. If they weren't prepared to deal with that kind of commitment, they had plenty of opportunities to turn it down. Now if I went to all that length to make sure everyone understood the degree of loyalty and discipline expected of members, and then when a member blatantly violated their commitment and I did nothing about it, what would it say about me? That I was lying, inconsistent, untrustworthy - someone who doesn't back up words with actions. But that's not the kind of person I am - and if I am to expect the trust, discipline, and loyalty from the other people I associate with, I can't have them thinking that's the kind of person I am either. Any organization no matter how big or small which doesn't enforce its rules is a joke and can't expect to accomplish anything or maintain any semblance of discipline. It wasn't her "the person" that posed a continuous threat: it was "her" the idea - the idea that a person could spit in my face and I'd just turn the other cheek. That was the true threat, the threat which could only be erased by fulfilling the promise I made the day she joined, the promise that disloyalty would be met with the stiffest penalties available. As a leader, and as a man of my word, I had little choice.

Well, I (think I) do understand your attitude now.

However, I wonder whether this behaviour doesn't bring you much problems. By keeping your word ruthlessly, it's only natural that others will feel threatened/freightened. In a moment of despair, in spite of how trustful you are to friends, any of your "friends/allies" could do something to you fearing your reaction and, not only you could have problems for being one step behind or because you could be outnumbered. I mean, wasn't the discipline too harsh for a students' jury? Maybe you're expecting from others what you'd expect yourself to do. Unfortunately, we can't behave that way (otherwise I wouldn't be here awake because of the stupidity of a teacher of mine, for example).

Re: Re: Re: This thread should be renamed to "Masculinity in the World + Arbiter's mind"

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Well, I (think I) do understand your attitude now. However, I wonder whether this behaviour doesn't bring you much problems. By keeping your word ruthlessly, it's only natural that others will feel threatened/freightened. In a moment of despair, in spite of how trustful you are to friends, any of your "friends/allies" could do something to you fearing your reaction and, not only you could have problems for being one step behind or because you could be outnumbered. I mean, wasn't the discipline too harsh for a students' jury? Maybe you're expecting from others what you'd expect yourself to do. Unfortunately, we can't behave that way (otherwise I wouldn't be here awake because of the stupidity of a teacher of mine, for example).

I can't say that I've really had any problems like that. For the most part, my friends realize that it's pretty easy not to put me in that position. I don't ask for a whole lot: and if I ask for something significant, it's optional. The problem arises when people choose to make a commitment and then want to back out of that. I do have a problem with that, but if they have a good reason I'd be more than happy to work with them to try to find some sort of satisfactory resolution to the situation. When someone won't even talk to you, that can't be done however. I really have no idea what was going through her head but my other friends seem to see that it's not that hard to avoid a conflict like that if they just act like reasonable people and accordingly don't feel particularly threatened.

As for whether or not the punishment was too harsh, that's something I personally choose not to really judge one way or the other. But one thing you have to understand is, that with things like that you never know how harsh they're going to end up being. I mean when I altered her registration, I didn't know how incompetent the school registration department would be in repairing the error. I had originally expected it to cause her a lot of stress and maybe make her miss a few classes, but eventually be resolved.

With regards to her fiance, you never know how something like that is going to work out anyway. I mean I didn't think the guy was particularly good for her in the first place, but that was just my opinion. An end to that relationship was obviously painful to her but it was also an opportunity to possibly find another relationship that might be even better. How harsh a discipline it really ends up being is subject to how she decides to react to the situation, as well as chance. It wasn't something I had complete control over - I wasn't sure I'd even be able to cause a permanent and complete breakup rather than just a lot of fights as they'd broken up and gotten back together about five million times before that.

So at the time the "punishments" didn't seem like they'd be as bad as maybe they ended up being. But whether or not that makes them excessive? I don't know, it's really just an opinion and I don't have much of an opinion on the matter.

I see.

Although I would've behaved in a different way (which is only natural since we're different individuals), I've got nothing to say other than mere opinions. Therefore, I'd better get some sleep, as I should've gone to bed a few hours ago... oops

Out of curiosity Arbiter, and correct me if I'm wrong, but have you been influenced by Stirner, Nietzsche and Sartre's philosophies? I can't help but notice patterns in your behaviour molded along the lines of philosophies of egoism, individualism and existentialism as promulgated by the aformentioned figures. Not that I'm making a judgement either way as to the validity or worthiness of these philosophies. I'm simply intrigued as to where your philosophical influences stem from, seeing as you remind me very much of a good friend of mine.

On another note, although I understand why the dichotomous myth of reason versus emotions continues to linger in popular culture, I can't understand why no one in this thread has not bothered to debunk it...unless of course, everyone here adheres to the myth. Kant is the philosopher best known for emphasizing an opposition between reason and emotions, trumpeting of course the virtues of the former over the latter. Without delving into the details of Kant's moral philosophy (although we could if anyone here is interested), suffice it to say that modern neuroscience and neurophilosophy guided by Hume's thinking on this matter has shown that not only is this dichotomy simplistic, it's also dead wrong, in the objective sense. Hume asserted: "Reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will; and secondly, it can never oppose passion in the direction of the will [...] Tis from the prospect of pain or pleasure that the aversion or propensity arises towards any object: And these emotions extend themselves to the causes and effects of that object, as they ar pointed out to us by reason and experience" (A treatise of Human Nature, 1739, 413-414).

Hume aside, all current work in neurobiology with regards to decision making clearly points to a different picture than the one conventionally painted by pop-culture -- a one-dimensional struggle between reason and emotion. All directions point to a rather complex interplay between this cognitive-emotive consortium versus that cognitive-emotive consortium. Emotion is key in decision making, any way you slice it. Empirical evidence abunds to support this claim, and I invite anyone doubting this to research the massive amount of work that has been done by neurobiologist pioneers in this field such as the Damasios, who dramatically illustrated that point with their remarkable patient E.V.R. Click here for an interesting read. Personally, I strongly recommend anyone interested in this to pick up Patricia Churchland's "Brainwise", and check out the section on Free Will (pages 201-237). She's an absolutely brilliant philosopher of mind who "does philosophy the right way" to quote Quine, because she bases all her theories on hard empirical science, rather than dubious a priori armchair metaphysics like most of the pontiffs in this field.

interesting post. i wasn't aware of such studies and their results.

The point that everyone should be taking from Arbiter's argumentation is that he accepts absolutely no responsiblity for "the worst thing that he's ever done"

It's all the girl's fault.

She deserved what she got because of her actions, and that gave him carte blanche to do whatever he wanted in retribution.

He's not responsible for her messing up at school (how could he know the administration would mess things up, so let's transfer responsibility from me to the school)

He's not responsible for the breakup (how could he know the outcome of messing around in their relationship? so let's transfer responsibility from me to them)

Convient? I'd say.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter As for whether or not the punishment was too harsh, that's something I personally choose not to really judge one way or the other.

Easy to judge others... why bother turning that lens on yourself, but hey logic has already been provided that 'absolved' him of responsibility for the consequences of his retribution.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I've heard that she eventually killed herself, although not from a reliable source. But to be honest I don't care one way or another.

As Shaolin_Z aptly observed, his justification for all these actions is based on this bizzarre bastardization of the male ethos wherein he had to save face in front of his peer group.

Either Arbiter is trying out for the lead in Camus' The Stranger, or he really is what he appears.

I suspect most of it is a construction for our benefit. The tip off is the suicide. Suicide is the meme with the highest transmission rate. Yet here it is unconfirmed. And he's trying to take credit for it... like its a badge of honour to be worn "I'm so bad ass I made a girl kill herself!"...

Just in case you missed that.. he's trying to take credit for someone's suicide on an internet forum. So let's all say in unison to Arbiter "Your one bad ass", but remember to *wink* when you say it

Wow. That's all I have to say. That quickly turned in to The Life and Times of Arbiter. Good post, though Epicurus. I guess the tie between the 'Is Arbiter the Biggest Douche in the Universe?' discussion and the masculine image has become 'Does Arbiter Represent the Masculine Image?' I have never met you, Arbiter so I do not hold what I am about to say as a truth, just merely a theory. You are alienated from other men, because in your mind they are not valuable enough to be your friend. However, this makes very little sense, as every person male or female you come across on the street has the potential to hold what you designate as worthy and neccessary traits. To simply say, there are only a handful of people in this world that can live up to your expectations is in a way your assertion of dominance. I get a sense of fear behind your actions. Are you living up to the standards you have set for yourself. Are you rational enough? Do you have enough empirical evidence to back up whatever discussion you choose to take part in? Are you friends smart enough? Your girlfriend good looking enough? When she questions or threatens your dominance do you strike back (not violently) with fire?

You have gone on now for at least 6 replies worth of explaining yourself, attempting to shwo how what you have done is right, how you could never be in the wrong. How you are dominant. Who are we though? A bunch of guys you have never met before in your life. Why do you feel the need to explain yourself. You shared an experience on a bored pertaining to that subject, so why should you feel it neccessary to keep responidng to people who question you. To me, its out of an anxiety, an anxiety to prove you are 'the best' or the the most virtueous. To assert your dominance.

I know I am sounding like a psychologist, and a quack at that, reading a patient I have never met through a bunch of message boards. However, I am simply trying to find how the masculine image is prevelent in all male members of our society, and does indeed have negative effects.

wow, the "Arbiter thread" is getting interesting

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Dervish, the fatal flaw, I think, going way back to some original reasoning talking about sociology class and having a Coke, etc., is that you assume everybody behaves a certain way because you likely fall into that group of people. Not surprisingly, when you said Arbiter probably drank Coke, he replied the he drinks what he likes. He is not led around by the yoke of the media that you believe is pervasively controlling us all.

To get back on topic, and off Arbiter (poor lad). Who I think was just trying to dramatise something he did up a bit, which everyone has done at one point (I mean in all probability her failing and so on might happened without your intervention maybe (I dunno obviously but anyway... ))?

Personnaly I will mostly buy a coke (along with huge portions of the world) just because of its image (five other fizzy water concotions there which taste roughly the same anyway). I personnaly can't be bothered to check every single fizzy drink (most I've tried taste.... suguary & fizzy) which I actually know is bad for me and the only reason I am buying it is for convenience.

As strange as this sounds (and more important) I'll admit that most of my opinions are based upon the media... obviously you have to realise that to take a world view without being there (everywhere, all the time) I have to.

I'll make my desision on which media I'll trust based upon my impression of them (how else?).

So in other words I (and I think most people) will have to extract their own view on many (if not most) things solely from the media (I'm including internet forums here though obviously they arn't media).

Basicly we don't have time to create a view on everything from first hand experiance and we live in (and have to operate and adapt to) a socity which doesn't either.

So we will oviously include the way we should act (as men or women) from elsewhere as (atleast some of) our pardgim is based upon knowlage from sources other than first hand knowlage.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey The point that everyone should be taking from Arbiter's argumentation is that he accepts absolutely no responsiblity for "the worst thing that he's ever done" It's all the girl's fault. She deserved what she got because of her actions, and that gave him carte blanche to do whatever he wanted in retribution. He's not responsible for her messing up at school (how could he know the administration would mess things up, so let's transfer responsibility from me to the school) He's not responsible for the breakup (how could he know the outcome of messing around in their relationship? so let's transfer responsibility from me to them) Convient? I'd say. Easy to judge others... why bother turning that lens on yourself, but hey logic has already been provided that 'absolved' him of responsibility for the consequences of his retribution. As Shaolin_Z aptly observed, his justification for all these actions is based on this bizzarre bastardization of the male ethos wherein he had to save face in front of his peer group. Either Arbiter is trying out for the lead in Camus' The Stranger, or he really is what he appears. I suspect most of it is a construction for our benefit. The tip off is the suicide. Suicide is the meme with the highest transmission rate. Yet here it is unconfirmed. And he's trying to take credit for it... like its a badge of honour to be worn "I'm so bad ass I made a girl kill herself!"... Just in case you missed that.. he's trying to take credit for someone's suicide on an internet forum. So let's all say in unison to Arbiter "Your one bad ass", but remember to *wink* when you say it

Allow me to suggest that you re-examine your reasoning. First, ask yourself why you feel the need to construct simplistic straw man arguments in order to support your position. Then, examine the internal consistency of your claims (which you provide no evidence for):

You claim that I take no responsibility for my actions. A strange assertion, giving that by categorizing it as a "terrible thing that I've done" I am by definition asserting a responsibility for my actions (although not necessarily all of their consequences because for me to do so would be an example of the complex cause fallacy). Not only that, you go on to suggest that I am somehow proud of my "accomplishments" and am seeking recognition for them. This is neither consistent with my categorization of those actions as "terrible" nor your previous claim that I denied responsibility for them.

I believe it is an interesting observation that while I freely have provided my rationale and opinions regarding my actions in a high degree of detail and logical coherence, you and several other individuals in this thread have relied instead on baseless assertions and logical fallacies presumably in order to attempt to frame the discussion into conformance with your pre-existing biases. I can only assume that if you had a body of evidence and valid series of inferences by which you came to your conclusions, then you would have provided them. That you did not is a compelling indicator that no such rationale exists. The fact that you made these claims nonetheless indicates that you felt compelled to do so as a result of your emotional state.

But, as you've said, it's easy to judge others, why bother turning the lens on yourself? I could offer you a variety of crackpot psychological hypotheses as to why you feel the need to post these baseless and inconsistent theories. But why don't you save me the time and explain yourself instead? Or are you too uncomfortable under that lens? ""

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings Wow. That's all I have to say. That quickly turned in to The Life and Times of Arbiter. Good post, though Epicurus. I guess the tie between the 'Is Arbiter the Biggest Douche in the Universe?' discussion and the masculine image has become 'Does Arbiter Represent the Masculine Image?' I have never met you, Arbiter so I do not hold what I am about to say as a truth, just merely a theory. You are alienated from other men, because in your mind they are not valuable enough to be your friend. However, this makes very little sense, as every person male or female you come across on the street has the potential to hold what you designate as worthy and neccessary traits. To simply say, there are only a handful of people in this world that can live up to your expectations is in a way your assertion of dominance. I get a sense of fear behind your actions. Are you living up to the standards you have set for yourself. Are you rational enough? Do you have enough empirical evidence to back up whatever discussion you choose to take part in? Are you friends smart enough? Your girlfriend good looking enough? When she questions or threatens your dominance do you strike back (not violently) with fire?

That is a very interesting hypothesis kush, but is it supported by empirical evidence or is it a leap of faith? I'd invite you to continue to share your thoughts on the matter because I believe that if you took an objective viewpoint, instead of trying to force the square facts and evidence into the round hole of your sociological dogma, you would come to a very different conclusion.

quote:

You have gone on now for at least 6 replies worth of explaining yourself, attempting to shwo how what you have done is right, how you could never be in the wrong. How you are dominant. Who are we though? A bunch of guys you have never met before in your life. Why do you feel the need to explain yourself. You shared an experience on a bored pertaining to that subject, so why should you feel it neccessary to keep responidng to people who question you. To me, its out of an anxiety, an anxiety to prove you are 'the best' or the the most virtueous. To assert your dominance.

Your conclusion that I "feel the need to explain [myself]" is mistaken. I'm participating in this discussion only because I find many of the responses to the topic interesting, if lacking logical coherence (or perhaps because of that?) I have explained myself because others have expressed interest in the topic of my reasoning. And when I have encountered others' assertions on the topic which I do not understand, I have attempted to induce them to provide more detailed reasoning regarding how they came to those conclusions for my own personal edification.

That is the purpose of this sort of discussion of any topic, after all: the mutual edification of interested parties. I see no reason why I should react differently when the topic is my own previous actions. Am I wrong?

quote:

I know I am sounding like a psychologist, and a quack at that, reading a patient I have never met through a bunch of message boards. However, I am simply trying to find how the masculine image is prevelent in all male members of our society, and does indeed have negative effects.

It seems to me that you are inordinately preoccupied with confirming your original hypothesis to the exclusion of evidence to the contrary. Your desire to establish the veracity of your claims that the masculine image is prevalent in all men and has negative effects seems to me to have blinded you to all the evidence to the contrary.

I would recommend that you temporarily suspend that particular quest and examine this issue from a more objective point of view. If you would do that, I believe that our conversation regarding these matters would be of higher quality. There is, after all, only so much we can take from you repeatedly making a series of claims, me asking you to provide a supporting body of evidence, and you responding with a new series of claims which largerly resembles the previous assumptions instead.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Out of curiosity Arbiter, and correct me if I'm wrong, but have you been influenced by Stirner, Nietzsche and Sartre's philosophies? I can't help but notice patterns in your behaviour molded along the lines of philosophies of egoism, individualism and existentialism as promulgated by the aformentioned figures. Not that I'm making a judgement either way as to the validity or worthiness of these philosophies. I'm simply intrigued as to where your philosophical influences stem from, seeing as you remind me very much of a good friend of mine.

I do consider Stirner, Nietzsche, and Sartre to be influences of mine (Nietzsche in particular.)

quote:

On another note, although I understand why the dichotomous myth of reason versus emotions continues to linger in popular culture, I can't understand why no one in this thread has not bothered to debunk it...unless of course, everyone here adheres to the myth. Kant is the philosopher best known for emphasizing an opposition between reason and emotions, trumpeting of course the virtues of the former over the latter. Without delving into the details of Kant's moral philosophy (although we could if anyone here is interested), suffice it to say that modern neuroscience and neurophilosophy guided by Hume's thinking on this matter has shown that not only is this dichotomy simplistic, it's also dead wrong, in the objective sense. Hume asserted: "Reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will; and secondly, it can never oppose passion in the direction of the will [...] Tis from the prospect of pain or pleasure that the aversion or propensity arises towards any object: And these emotions extend themselves to the causes and effects of that object, as they ar pointed out to us by reason and experience" (A treatise of Human Nature, 1739, 413-414). Hume aside, all current work in neurobiology with regards to decision making clearly points to a different picture than the one conventionally painted by pop-culture -- a one-dimensional struggle between reason and emotion. All directions point to a rather complex interplay between this cognitive-emotive consortium versus that cognitive-emotive consortium. Emotion is key in decision making, any way you slice it. Empirical evidence abunds to support this claim, and I invite anyone doubting this to research the massive amount of work that has been done by neurobiologist pioneers in this field such as the Damasios, who dramatically illustrated that point with their remarkable patient E.V.R. Click here for an interesting read. Personally, I strongly recommend anyone interested in this to pick up Patricia Churchland's "Brainwise", and check out the section on Free Will (pages 201-237). She's an absolutely brilliant philosopher of mind who "does philosophy the right way" to quote Quine, because she bases all her theories on hard empirical science, rather than dubious a priori armchair metaphysics like most of the pontiffs in this field.

I believe the dichotomy that you are referring to is somewhat different than the one I've been referring to (although the confusion is probably due to my lack of specificity.)

I agree with Hume (and disagree with Kant) that "Reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will." To put it simply, in my view it is the function of reason to provide the "is" and the function of emotion to provide the "ought" (or at least those fundamental "oughts" from which other "oughts" can be derived by reason.) To be more specific, I believe emotion is key to the forumlation of decision-making in that the ultimate motivation behind all actions is one or more value judgments which cannot be made by reason alone.

My proposition about the seperation of reason and emotion assumes this relationship. What I am concerned with is the elimination of irrelevant emotional data from decisions regarding what "is." A particularly conspicuous example would be the person who believes that God exists because they were able to "feel" his presence. This can also take the form of decision-making with regards to what "is" the course of action most likely to accomplish a particular goal. The goal as the research you referred to (a good read by the way) is what can be traced back to emotion. Determining the efficacy of available avenues by which to pursue that goal, however, does not require additional emotional input.

If you need further clarification, I'd be happy to oblige.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter But, as you've said, it's easy to judge others, why bother turning the lens on yourself? I could offer you a variety of crackpot psychological hypotheses as to why you feel the need to post these baseless and inconsistent theories. But why don't you save me the time and explain yourself instead? Or are you too uncomfortable under that lens? ""

So your entire defense is to hide behind the language of argumentation because you have no other defense. Interesting strategy. We call that the Proxy Ghost Defense, and its easy to walk right through as if it were a ghost. But feel free to conjure the ghost up again, as I suspect you will, since as was observed its your only defense.

I'll just requote the statements you've made to hang yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I've heard that she eventually killed herself, although not from a reliable source. But to be honest I don't care one way or another.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter So at the time the "punishments" didn't seem like they'd be as bad as maybe they ended up being. But whether or not that makes them excessive? I don't know, it's really just an opinion and I don't have much of an opinion on the matter.

In your world view its a matter of opinion whether or not someone ends up killing themselves as punishment for not following through on your little subterfuge is excessive. That's not a matter of opinion. Any reasonable person would conclude that that is excessive. Therefore you are not a reasonble person. You are a sociopath or you play one on TV... woops I meant on TA.

The wolf in your clothing should rename himself from arbiter to punisher.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey So your entire defense is to hide behind the language of argumentation because you have no other defense. Interesting strategy. We call that the Proxy Ghost Defense, and its easy to walk right through as if it were a ghost. But feel free to conjure the ghost up again, as I suspect you will, since as was observed its your only defense.

Leave your nonsense at the door. If you have a valid argument, then make it. Otherwise, I'll generously accept your failure to produce it as a concession.

quote:

In your world view its a matter of opinion whether or not someone ends up killing themselves as punishment for not following through on your little subterfuge is excessive. That's not a matter of opinion. Any reasonable person would conclude that that is excessive. Therefore you are not a reasonble person. You are a sociopath or you play one on TV... woops I meant on TA. The wolf in your clothing should rename himself from arbiter to punisher.

It is, by definition, a matter of opinion. Show us otherwise: what's the basis for your "objective morality?"

In case you couldn't figure it out, I don't believe for one second that she genuinely killed herself. In any case it's irrelevant, as suicide is an inherently personal decision and not one that I could make for her or anybody else but myself. So how can I even be responsible for it?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter So how can I even be responsible for it?

You can't be responsible for it. But you can be responsible for putting her in a situation where suicide becomes an attractive option.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic You can't be responsible for it. But you can be responsible for putting her in a situation where suicide becomes an attractive option.

That is true - as she can be responsible for putting me in a situation where my actions proved the most attractive option. And who can say who or what may be responsible for her disposition to do that? Perhaps it was yet another act of mine? And could we not speculate as to its origins as well?

Such analysis doesn't seem very productive to me. Who can truly know all that they may set into motion?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I do consider Stirner, Nietzsche, and Sartre to be influences of mine (Nietzsche in particular.) I believe the dichotomy that you are referring to is somewhat different than the one I've been referring to (although the confusion is probably due to my lack of specificity.) I agree with Hume (and disagree with Kant) that "Reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will." To put it simply, in my view it is the function of reason to provide the "is" and the function of emotion to provide the "ought" (or at least those fundamental "oughts" from which other "oughts" can be derived by reason.) To be more specific, I believe emotion is key to the forumlation of decision-making in that the ultimate motivation behind all actions is one or more value judgments which cannot be made by reason alone. My proposition about the seperation of reason and emotion assumes this relationship. What I am concerned with is the elimination of irrelevant emotional data from decisions regarding what "is." A particularly conspicuous example would be the person who believes that God exists because they were able to "feel" his presence. This can also take the form of decision-making with regards to what "is" the course of action most likely to accomplish a particular goal. The goal as the research you referred to (a good read by the way) is what can be traced back to emotion. Determining the efficacy of available avenues by which to pursue that goal, however, does not require additional emotional input. If you need further clarification, I'd be happy to oblige.

No further clarification necessary. Our positions, then, are pretty much identical. The following, in particular, sums up my position exactly:

quote:

To be more specific, I believe emotion is key to the forumlation of decision-making in that the ultimate motivation behind all actions is one or more value judgments which cannot be made by reason alone.

I'll let the cross-examination of your character and actions continue unabated now. In fact, since we're on the subject, I'd simply like to make a couple of quick observations with regards to this matter as an impartial observer:

This matter boils down to differences in opinions with regards to the course of action that Arbiter decided to engage in following the girl's actions. Following our discussion of the role of emotions in ultimately deciding the course of action that a person engages in, it seems to me that Arbiter's actions stem from his strong attachment to such values as honour and loyalty (perhaps power also) that trumped other values such as pity or sympathy (for instance) in this case, and which prompted him to choose the course of action he ultimately chose. This, in opposition to others who might have chosen an alternative course of action based on a different set of values, which would have been at the root of their decision not to engage in a similar course of action. At the end of the day, this is a debate between one value system over another. Although I don't condone his particular actions stemming from his particular value system in this case, many in this entire discussion are in the wrong when they attempt to cloak their opinions with claims of superiority of one value system over another in the objective sense. The most that can be said is to recognize that there exists a fundamental disagreement between two value systems, and perhaps to express that explicitly, but that's about it. Furthermore, attempting to psycho-analyze the root causes of Arbiter's value system in this case within the context of theories of masculinity is a futile exercise, considering the fact that we are not privy to his biological nature or life experiences, the two most basic elements in determining the latter.

This is dragging out into a pointless flame war. Which I've really tried to avoid (note: even when critised I didn't perpetuate it, which would have been very easy).

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter In case you couldn't figure it out, I don't believe for one second that she genuinely killed herself.

then why say (note: I'm commenting on the choice to state, not the validity of, the claim that she killed herself)

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I've heard that she eventually killed herself, although not from a reliable source. But to be honest I don't care one way or another.

?

As I've said before I think this is more a case of just big talk rather than unbeliveable malice (which was the way it was initally infered in the origonal post >here<).

Can we move on now?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Leave your nonsense at the door. If you have a valid argument, then make it. Otherwise, I'll generously accept your failure to produce it as a concession.

You play two cards over and over again.

Card 1: Throw in the term "Straw Man Argument" and prance around distracting the natives from the issues at hand. Use of a term doesn't guarantee its veracity.

Card 2: Long expositions about honour and justice, and you prance around distracting the natives with that one. You are neither a blood nor don, stop translating your secret club from the backyard fort where it resides to realms where people might justify your behaviour.

What you fail to realize is that except for the few who are in fact distracted by those two cards, a lot of us have moved on from your less than stellar light show because we recognize both as being nothing more than thimblerigs.

Your behaviour is not acceptable, playing cards 1 and 2 over and over again will not change our minds. At this point we are trying to determine who is behind the proverbial curtain. In order to determine that, yes we have to speculate, and the first decision we have to make is whether or not we believe any of your tale.

I don't. And I tire of cards 1 and 2. If others wish to play another hand with you in this thread, that's their perogative. I'll take my deck elsewhere.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.