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

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

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.

___________________
Lost Souls

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.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

Last edited by Dervish on Apr-10-2005 at 18:05

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.

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

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?