Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Jesus ing . Sophistry is so ing painful.
Are you accusing the video maker of being a sophist or me? If it's the video, I didn't even know what that word meant until 5 minutes ago but it sounds exactly like what I was talking about.
Lagrangian
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by Psyshell
So basically, if the manipulation and deception's cause doesn't matter... then there's no difference between a psychopath and an undercover cop besides a bureaucrat giving it a rubber stamp.
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
You are so clueless that it is almost pointless to explain to you how clueless you are.
This is what I'm talking about. When I say that you are clueless and try to help you develop some idea that concerns the topic that you are clueless about, you turn right around with another clueless remark that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
Taking the following, simple example of an obvious logical fallacy...
Fact: Cats are made of atoms.
Fact: Atoms are invisible. Fallacy of Composition: All cats are invisible.
...and applying it to your inference...
Fact: Psychopaths are liars.
Fact: Undercover police officers lie.
Fact: Undercover police officers serve under bureaucratic control. Fallacy of Composition: Undercover police officers are socially-sanctioned psychopaths.
...reveals that your thinking is beyond ed-up.
quote:
Originally posted by Psyshell
Also, I guess this kind've implies that short term paternalism (as in deceptive for someone else's own good and dishonesty about it) is far less likely to be concidered dysfunctional than long term paternalism. Although in the case of never telling your fat friend she's fat no matter what for years is just considered a normal part of human behavior... so it just depends on what's concidered societal norms.
No. Dysfunctional is dysfunctional, regardless of its duration or motivations. I had a roommate who, in the process of periodically negotiating our living arrangement, would qualify a legitimate request (e.g. Could you do your dishes before you leave for work?) with a lie (e.g. I'm deadly allergic to olive oil and don't want to get its residue on my hands - having had a grilled-chicken Caesar salad for lunch, earlier that day).
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to ask me to have my dishes done before I left for work. It's unsanitary. It's unsightly. It's a mess one has to work around. They're my dishes, to begin with. He felt he had to qualify his requests, however, with life-threatening anaphylaxis in order to convey a sense of urgency.
To his mind, the legitimate reasons I pointed out, above, seemed too arbitrary and insignificant. A life-threatening allergy, according to him, was far more compelling. Why? Well, a few months pass by and although he seems amiable on a lot of days, he truly is a miserable head who creates a living hell for everyone else in the house. He's often depressed, moody, and petulant, striking up irksome arguments out of the blue and then instantly retreating from them when he gets called out on the bull he's tried to impose.
One of our roommates convinces him to see a therapist. He goes for eight sessions and then one day, stops. The whole time, he's still being really ty - agreeable in one instance but then quarrelsome in the next. Two weeks after he's stopped seeing the therapist, in a moment of self-disclosure, he tells another roommate that the reasons he stopped was because he wasn't making any progress, had been disappointed every time he followed one of her suggestions, didn't see a need to, anyway, and believed that she'd misdiagnosed him with Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder.
I left the following month and haven't looked back.
Almost without any doubt in my mind, I predict that you will miss the point of this anecdote and come up with some mitigating reason why it's okay to do and/or say ed up (dysfunctional) things to someone in order to "cheer them up"; or something along those lines. My point, because you will probably miss it even though I am telling you, is that ed up is always ed up. People who use ed up reasoning to solve a problem are doing so because they are ed up, in the first place. If they weren't ed up, they wouldn't employ that which is ed up to "help" someone else.
quote:
Originally posted by Psyshell
Psychology related video that's almost as accurate as the video in the OP.
^Sophistry^
Does anyone hear the phone ringing?
Psyshell
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
Sophistry
Perhaps, but pkc is hard to read sometimes so I wanted to check.
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
Fact: Psychopaths are liars.
Fact: Undercover police officers lie.
Fact: Undercover police officers serve under bureaucratic control. Fallacy of Composition: Undercover police officers are socially-sanctioned psychopaths.
...reveals that your thinking is beyond ed-up.
There might be errors in my logic, and I may even be a "sophist" but I wouldn't call myself ed up. Neither would most other members of this forum. You are indeed helping me understand complex subjects quite quickly, my only problem is perhaps not making it clear enough that I don't know what I'm talking about when I don't. I knew I don't know much about this subject and I put it somewhere in my post, but I guess that got lost in the wall of text.
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
No. Dysfunctional is dysfunctional, regardless of its duration or motivations. I had a roommate who, in the process of periodically negotiating our living arrangement, would qualify a legitimate request (e.g. Could you do your dishes before you leave for work?) with a lie (e.g. I'm deadly allergic to olive oil and don't want to get its residue on my hands - having had a grilled-chicken Caesar salad for lunch, earlier that day).
Oh god... I have to deal with that crap on a daily basis. Especially with the life threatening bit, my mum got angry at me for buying 5 sauces and 1 of them she was alergic to. The one she was alergic to's purpose was to add variety for times when I'm only cooking for myself. "I can't be bothered cooking, I don't want dinner, make some stuff for yourself" is at least 1/5th of my meals btw (massive underestimate).
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
One of our roommates convinces him to see a therapist. He goes for eight sessions and then one day, stops. The whole time, he's still being really ty - agreeable in one instance but then quarrelsome in the next. Two weeks after he's stopped seeing the therapist, in a moment of self-disclosure, he tells another roommate that the reasons he stopped was because he wasn't making any progress, had been disappointed every time he followed one of her suggestions, didn't see a need to, anyway, and believed that she'd misdiagnosed him with Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder.
I left the following month and haven't looked back.
Sounds like a good response to get from a psychologist. That however has not in the slightest been my experience of psychologists or any of my friends experiences as far as I know. Like my mum's one seems to be telling her that I bully her and that if she just listens to some relaxation tracks that that'll fix all my mum's problems. I hate newagers like that chick. If she calls and I answer the phone I'm telling her she's an idiot who should get a real job because she's clearly incompetent.
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker [/b
Almost without any doubt in my mind, I predict that you will miss the point of this anecdote and come up with some mitigating reason why it's okay to do and/or say ed up (dysfunctional) things to someone in order to "cheer them up"; or something along those lines. My point, because you will probably miss it even though I am telling you, is that ed up is always ed up. People who use ed up reasoning to solve a problem are doing so because they are ed up, in the first place. If they weren't ed up, they wouldn't employ that which is ed up to "help" someone else.
You seem to be rather bad at predicting my actions. Concidering the fact that according to you I'm "ed up"... that's probably a good thing though.
I agree my logic is a bit stupid sometimes and if I hear a well laid out reason for why it's stupid then I'll drop that. As with everything, context is important. I might find a dumb reason to excuse a friend being mean to me but I'm not going to find a dumb reason to make it so that internally "using this person for sex is ok even though they love me". Or at least hopefully not.
quote:
[b]Originally posted by EddieZilker
Fact: Psychopaths are liars.
Fact: Undercover police officers lie.
Fact: Undercover police officers serve under bureaucratic control. Fallacy of Composition: Undercover police officers are socially-sanctioned psychopaths.
Also, that's an oversimplification and you know it.
A better counter example: For simplification I'm going to use the first person. This isn't what I'm like in the slightest though.
All my friends are females... the only reason I ever make female friends is to get casual sex from them. I'm perfectly happy to be in a relationship with one or say whatever it takes to get as much sex as often as possible from someone when I feel like having sex with them. When I hurt them I feel no remorse or sadness because "after all they're probably just in it for sex too".
Replace "all my friends" with "the people I spend 90% of my time around" and "females" with "criminal targets" and it does indeed look the same. If someone's truely not caring about a whole bunch of people they spend most of their time around and they don't even have an emotional response when they know they're hurting them, then that would make them a psychopath.
EddieZilker
Because I ing called it!
Psyshell
Also, since everyone seems to be so interested in my argument style. It generally involves first of all if I'm not willing to take a statement of face value giving a fairly basic assumption... then gradually increasing the complexity of the argument until either I decide that they're right and that I should reconcider my views (as has already happened once in this thread) or they give up. In which case them giving up is not a reason to change my opinion, if I did that every time politics was brought up I'd change views on a weekly basis.
If there's such a massive problem with that style of opinion forming what works better?
srussell0018
It takes a lot of courage to be as dumb as psyshell is. A tip of the cap to you sir.
Psyshell
Ehh most dumbasses don't show themselves in public. I try to in a futile effort for self improvement. Also, sometimes my posts are very confused and hard to read (e.g. when I'm both tired and hungry). Generally switching between using sarcasm and not using sarcasm several times a paragraph is hard to pull off. I do it well usually but sometimes my posts are just garbage.
To see it done well check this out: It features many many quite sane people speaking in deceptive codes to get things out of each other. I probably shouldn't speak that way when argueing, only while making jokes or something but still, it doesn't make someone an idiot.
Because honestly, I hardly ever see Americans talk in that sortof way, maybe it's a cultural thing? As in something only Brits and Australians do.
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
It takes a lot of courage to be as dumb as psyshell is. A tip of the cap to you sir.
QUOTE]Originally said in Dune
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
Halcyon+On+On
quote:
Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
my condition is now out of the DSM IV. I'm now normal. Just like that.
Halcyon+On+On
quote:
Originally posted by Psyshell
Ehh most dumbasses don't show themselves in public.
This is actually demonstrably true. They instead go to the internet.
