Consciousness

Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:22:39 PM

If you're so rational, you'll have realized by now that life is an absurd clusterfuck of chemical reactions. Why shouldn't the sensations we feel be pleasant and relaxing ones?

Binge drinking is nothing more than seeking instant gratification at the expense of your health and mind. The sensation is temporary, but the costs is permanent.

Life is a temporary sensation. You might as well enjoy it.

But will it affect the total amount of happiness you can have in your life? The cost to benefit does not seem worth it. I have thought about drinking but never thought it worth it. I have enough of a mind to find something else that is fun and stupid but doesn't affect the brain.

Life is a temporary sensation. You might as well enjoy it.

You know, life is longer than a drinking session. 

...Let's presume incorrectly that binge drinking has no long term side effects for a moment:
When people get hardcore drunk, you never know what's going to happen.

I like having complete control over myself, and I am perfectly capable of having fun without losing my personality. I don't want to be that guy who is overly friendly with his friend's fiance. I don't want to slur my words while yelling out every sentence. I don't want to stumble out into traffic. I don't want to wake up with a killer hangover, in a bed saturated with vomit, if I should be so lucky as to wake up in a bed at all.

Drunk people do stupid shit.

That seems reason enough not to start drinking to me.

You know, life is longer than a drinking session. 

Not significantly.

...Let's presume incorrectly that binge drinking has no long term side effects for a moment:
When people get hardcore drunk, you never know what's going to happen.

Welcome to reality.

I like having complete control over myself, and I am perfectly capable of having fun without losing my personality.

Complete control? As in "free will"?

And how does alcohol strip one of one's personality? Alcohol may impair some senses, true, but it does not change who you are.

I don't want to be that guy who is overly friendly with his friend's fiance. I don't want to slur my words while yelling out every sentence. I don't want to stumble out into traffic. I don't want to wake up with a killer hangover, in a bed saturated with vomit, if I should be so lucky as to wake up in a bed at all.

Drunk people do stupid shit.

That seems reason enough not to start drinking to me.

This coming from someone who has never tasted alcohol before? Not everyone reacts the same way. You don't need to become shitfaced every time you drink either.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 22, 2009, 09:38:42 PM

I like having complete control over myself, and I am perfectly capable of having fun without losing my personality.

Complete control? As in "free will"?

Whether it is an illusion or not it is preferable to operate as if it is real in practice, even if that is ultimately inevitable. Operating as a fatalist is a feeble attempt to exempt oneself from responsibility.

And how does alcohol strip one of one's personality? Alcohol may impair some senses, true, but it does not change who you are.

Not strip, but transform. What do you consider a personality, and what parts stay with you when you are batshit drunk? Personality is largely based on behavior.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 22, 2009, 09:38:42 PM

I don't want to be that guy who is overly friendly with his friend's fiance. I don't want to slur my words while yelling out every sentence. I don't want to stumble out into traffic. I don't want to wake up with a killer hangover, in a bed saturated with vomit, if I should be so lucky as to wake up in a bed at all.

Drunk people do stupid shit.

That seems reason enough not to start drinking to me.

This coming from someone who has never tasted alcohol before? Not everyone reacts the same way. You don't need to become shitfaced every time you drink either.

Some people are more tolerant of alcohol, meaning it takes more to have the same effect. Still, I am not seeking these effects. Not having experienced it firsthand means little to me, especially when I have witnessed the effects on others to confirm the assessments I made from general knowledge.

Whether it is an illusion or not it is preferable to operate as if it is real in practice, even if that is ultimately inevitable. Operating as a fatalist is a feeble attempt to exempt oneself from responsibility.

Now you sound like an existentialist; assigning value to preferences and "responsibility". What happened to the coldly rational being from before?

Not strip, but transform. What do you consider a personality, and what parts stay with you when you are batshit drunk? Personality is largely based on behavior.

I do not become a different person when I am drunk. I have never felt like I "lost control" while under the influence - even in my most drunken stupor I was still aware of my actions. Alcohol makes stupid things seem more appealing, however, it does not make one chat up someone else's fiancee unless such impulses ordinarily require restraint. As Mel Gibson learned, it makes you speak your mind. Unless you harbour deep insecurities or self-doubt, what is to fear?

Some people are more tolerant of alcohol, meaning it takes more to have the same effect.

That is not what I meant. One can partake in alcohol (even be a complete drunkard) and not fit the "roaring" cliche.

Still, I am not seeking these effects. Not having experienced it firsthand means little to me, especially when I have witnessed the effects on others to confirm the assessments I made from general knowledge.

Did it hurt to type that? "General knowledge" and "personal assessment" doesn't confirm shit and you know it.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 22, 2009, 10:06:25 PM

Whether it is an illusion or not it is preferable to operate as if it is real in practice, even if that is ultimately inevitable. Operating as a fatalist is a feeble attempt to exempt oneself from responsibility.

Now you sound like an existentialist; assigning value to preferences and "responsibility". What happened to the coldly rational being from before?

Perhaps I am not being clear, though it is a hard concept to describe with connotations that are inherently contradictory in nature... especially when the concept is used in a self referencing manner.

A fatalist, will generally be diagnosed with cancer and give up saying "it was bound to happen," or "god wanted this." If a fatalist is given a "choice" between something that appeals to his id, and something that invokes his superego, he may very well justify "choosing" the id based pleasure on account that he has no free will. He doesn't have free will, but knowing the distinction between the two choices, an informed individual should operate as if they believe in free will, not that operating as if they have the belief is a choice. 

Someone with no concept of free will, will never make the the "choice" to appeal to fate. They were subjected to it and follow it because it is an easy 'out'. Encouraging a person to disregard the free will dilemma might play a role in their future actions to be favorable as opposed to fatalistic.

Belief in fate is a function of the mind that changes a substantial amount of behavior usually for the worse, so they should force themselves to disregard what they essentially know and act. Ironically, forcing themselves to follow this ideal (or continuing to be a fatalist) is still a predetermined outcome. Making someone aware of this argument may be considered 'input' that leads up to their inevitable decision, like part of any complex physics equation. Make sense? 

In this case responsibility refers more to "what one is held responsible for" instead of "what duties they have".

Either way, I feel like its increasingly irrelevant. Especially when a lack of free will can be used as an argument against or support for both sides equally.

Unless you harbour deep insecurities or self-doubt, what is to fear?

Losing self respect (and also the respect of others) by acting when I shouldn't, or perhaps harming myself or others. (Self restraint is good for not getting into bar fights.) 

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 22, 2009, 10:06:25 PM

Some people are more tolerant of alcohol, meaning it takes more to have the same effect.

That is not what I meant. One can partake in alcohol (even be a complete drunkard) and not fit the "roaring" cliche.

I agree that the individual's behavior when drunk, is based in his sober personality.

This coming from someone who has never tasted alcohol before? Not everyone reacts the same way. You don't need to become shitfaced every time you drink either.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 22, 2009, 10:06:25 PM

Still, I am not seeking these effects. Not having experienced it firsthand means little to me, especially when I have witnessed the effects on others to confirm the assessments I made from general knowledge.

Did it hurt to type that? "General knowledge" and "personal assessment" doesn't confirm shit and you know it.

How so? Every decision I make is based on my own personal assessments. I'm not laying down the law for everyone; personal assessments work very well as structure for personal actions.

General knowledge is less reliable, because I am referring to all the subtle things I pick up on from the world independently and see what they point to. When they are consistent I give them more weight, but not as much as when I experience something firsthand.

VenomfangX once incorrectly declared that atheism is an argument from ignorance because religious people have religious experiences, and atheists don't. Having never been inebriated fits this argument's structure very well. Just because I have not experienced something doesn't mean I can't understand it, or that the experience gives that person's position more merit. (Especially when the experience is one that compromises the judgment, perception, and memory... but I'll try not to hold that against you)

I think you guys are leaving out one very important argument.  Drunk Sex.  Discuss.

I think you guys are leaving out one very important argument.  Drunk Sex.  Discuss.

One more reason not to get drunk?


http://www.brackenspub.com/beer.swf

Perhaps I am not being clear, though it is a hard concept to describe with connotations that are inherently contradictory in nature... especially when the concept is used in a self referencing manner.

I'm going to leave your whole rant about fatalism because it is obvious that you did not understand me. I know what fatalism is. I know what a "choice" is. It is indeed very irrelevant.

Losing self respect (and also the respect of others) by acting when I shouldn't, or perhaps harming myself or others. (Self restraint is good for not getting into bar fights.) 

You just gave me a whole speech about responsibility. Don't you consider blaming indiscretions on alcohol "bad"?

I agree that the individual's behavior when drunk, is based in his sober personality.

Again, not necessarily what I meant. I have observed polite and quiet individuals become raucous and obnoxious blowhards become quiet and contemplative. One's behaviour is not always reflective of their actual feelings.

How so? Every decision I make is based on my own personal assessments. I'm not laying down the law for everyone; personal assessments work very well as structure for personal actions.

Exactly. That is the entire point. You present yourself as a champion of rationalism; striving to rid yourself of any intellectual compromise. You view logic and reason as positive attributes. However, rationalism is a means, not an end. Anything may be rationalized in relation to one's subjective projects - no action or thought process we perform is independently rational. Irrationality is no less "rational" in view of objective absurdity. There is ultimately no reason to personally accept a "fact" over a mere "abstraction".

Your own sense of righteousness comes from ancient values - truth, acceptance, knowledge, objectivity etc. All of these things apparently appeal to you, but why is ignorance irrational? What is rationality for a madman? As soon as you bring up "personal assessment" your ideals are rendered as empty as anyone else's.

General knowledge is less reliable, because I am referring to all the subtle things I pick up on from the world independently and see what they point to. When they are consistent I give them more weight, but not as much as when I experience something firsthand.

I was typing a response for this when I noticed what you'd added...

VenomfangX once incorrectly declared that atheism is an argument from ignorance because religious people have religious experiences, and atheists don't. Having never been inebriated fits this argument's structure very well. Just because I have not experienced something doesn't mean I can't understand it, or that the experience gives that person's position more merit.

When read in conjunction, facepalms were induced.

(Especially when the experience is one that compromises the judgment, perception, and memory... but I'll try not to hold that against you)

How would I go about "rationally" responding to this condescension? Acknowledge it and attempt a rebuttal? Politely feign ignorance for the sake of custom?

Our "consciousness" is an illusion. Or more aptly, another construct.

I'm going to leave your whole rant about fatalism because it is obvious that you did not understand me. I know what fatalism is. I know what a "choice" is. It is indeed very irrelevant.

Good, since a notion of "control over oneself" doesn't have practical use when acting.

You just gave me a whole speech about responsibility. Don't you consider blaming indiscretions on alcohol "bad"?

What point are you trying to make? Alcohol does do away with our inhibitions, so blaming altered behavior on being drunk is a logical consequence, but it would still be better to not act reckless and uninhibited at all.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 22, 2009, 11:45:40 PM

I agree that the individual's behavior when drunk, is based in his sober personality.

Again, not necessarily what I meant. I have observed polite and quiet individuals become raucous and obnoxious blowhards become quiet and contemplative. One's behaviour is not always reflective of their actual feelings.

How would you know their feelings? And isn't unpredictability worse?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 22, 2009, 11:45:40 PM

How so? Every decision I make is based on my own personal assessments. I'm not laying down the law for everyone; personal assessments work very well as structure for personal actions.

Exactly. That is the entire point. You present yourself as a champion of rationalism; striving to rid yourself of any intellectual compromise. You view logic and reason as positive attributes. However, rationalism is a means, not an end.

In my case it's a lifestyle 'choice'.

Anything may be rationalized in relation to one's subjective projects - no action or thought process we perform is independently rational. Irrationality is no less "rational" in view of objective absurdity. There is ultimately no reason to personally accept a "fact" over a mere "abstraction".

Wait, are you saying that your argument is "because we can't be completely objective, we shouldn't try"? I try to emulate objectivity as closely as I can, even though I will never be 100% successful. (Objectivity being a perfect logical consensus from all perspectives.)

Also, rationalization works in reverse, and has much less to do with being rational than being irrational. I consider 'forcing yourself to believe that your actions are rational after the fact', to be irrational. Justifying something to yourself after you know your decision or goal, is usually reminiscent of self conflict, which is usually reminiscent of a 'bad' decision.

No reason to accept facts over mere abstraction? Maybe I'm not understanding you, but facts usually refer to the objective world. Why shouldn't we try to attain objectivity?

Your own sense of righteousness comes from ancient values - truth, acceptance, knowledge, objectivity etc. All of these things apparently appeal to you, but why is ignorance irrational?

What does ignorance have to do with my argument? I'd say that willful ignorance is irrational because you are closing your mind, shutting out possibilities without giving yourself a chance to judge them.

What is rationality for a madman? As soon as you bring up "personal assessment" your ideals are rendered as empty as anyone else's.

Unless I can build a consensus with the general population. Personal assessment wasn't used as an 'ideal' but an 'observation'. I can assess a situation, but I never used personal assessment as opinionated.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 22, 2009, 11:45:40 PM

General knowledge is less reliable, because I am referring to all the subtle things I pick up on from the world independently and see what they point to. When they are consistent I give them more weight, but not as much as when I experience something firsthand.

I was typing a response for this when I noticed what you'd added...

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 22, 2009, 11:45:40 PM

VenomfangX once incorrectly declared that atheism is an argument from ignorance because religious people have religious experiences, and atheists don't. Having never been inebriated fits this argument's structure very well. Just because I have not experienced something doesn't mean I can't understand it, or that the experience gives that person's position more merit.

When read in conjunction, facepalms were induced.

I and yet you didn't read it in conjunction with this:

Especially when the experience is one that compromises the judgment, perception, and memory.

Drinking is an exception to the rule in this regard because it compromises the mind. In the VenomfangX comparison I take the side of unnecessary experience, because I can understand the concept without having to feel my brain melt. Have you seen Pleasantville? People could understand the wavelengths of light, cone and rod receptors in the eye, and reactions of the optical nerves, but they never actually experienced red before. Experience itself is confined to sensation, and when sensation isn't my argument I don't need the experience.

How would I go about "rationally" responding to this condescension? Acknowledge it and attempt a rebuttal? Politely feign ignorance for the sake of custom?

You're asking me to argue on your behalf? 
If you cannot think of a rational response to contest it, perhaps you should examine your own beliefs.



Also, I have yet to hear why doing something else fun (without the consequences of drinking) isn't a preferable alternative.
...Unless, you aren't actually trying to convince me to drink.

What point are you trying to make? Alcohol does do away with our inhibitions, so blaming altered behavior on being drunk is a logical consequence, but it would still be better to not act reckless and uninhibited at all.

1) It is not a logical consequence. It is a convenience.
2) You're still only offering opinion.

How would you know their feelings? And isn't unpredictability worse?

Again, one's own feelings should not be unpredictable unless one is some kind of manically repressed basket case (VenomfangX, for example).

In my case it's a lifestyle 'choice'.

And as informed as any other.

Wait, are you saying that your argument is "because we can't be completely objective, we shouldn't try"?

No.

I try to emulate objectivity as closely as I can, even though I will never be 100% successful.

Which is why you come across as a pretentious asshole. Get off your high horse.

(Objectivity being a perfect logical consensus from all perspectives.)

How can one "emulate" such a thing?

Also, rationalization works in reverse, and has much less to do with being rational than being irrational. I consider 'forcing yourself to believe that your actions are rational after the fact', to be irrational. Justifying something to yourself after you know your decision or goal, is usually reminiscent of self conflict, which is usually reminiscent of a 'bad' decision.

True, but that has nothing to do with this.

No reason to accept facts over mere abstraction? Maybe I'm not understanding you, but facts usually refer to the objective world. Why shouldn't we try to attain objectivity?

No, by all means, try. Just do not maintain any illusion that you will attain it.

What does ignorance have to do with my argument? I'd say that willful ignorance is irrational because you are closing your mind, shutting out possibilities without giving yourself a chance to judge them.

That is your personal assessment. If the person is satisfied with his current belief system and wants nothing more than to maintain it (again, VenomfangX), willful ignorance is a rational course.

Unless I can build a consensus with the general population.

"Consensus" is as fickle a security blanket as religion. But hey, we all have our opiates.

Drinking is an exception to the rule in this regard because it compromises the mind. In the VenomfangX comparison I take the side of unnecessary experience, because I can understand the concept without having to feel my brain melt. Have you seen Pleasantville? People could understand the wavelengths of light, cone and rod receptors in the eye, and reactions of the optical nerves, but they never actually experienced red before. Experience itself is confined to sensation, and when sensation isn't my argument I don't need the experience.

And what is your argument? You seem to know an awful lot about the concept of "feeling [your] brain melt". What this has to do with our discussion is beyond me.

You're asking me to argue on your behalf? 
If you cannot think of a rational response to contest it, perhaps you should examine your own beliefs.

My facetious comments were intended to highlight your own snide insinuations and air of intellectual superiority. I admit, your latest response has done a better job of it.

Also, I have yet to hear why doing something else fun (without the consequences of drinking) isn't a preferable alternative.
...Unless, you aren't actually trying to convince me to drink.

The only thing I am trying to convince you to do is pull that stick out of your ass.

That is your personal assessment. If the person is satisfied with his current belief system and wants nothing more than to maintain it (again, VenomfangX), willful ignorance is a rational course.

lol wut? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

Quote from: Proleg on April 24, 2009, 05:26:21 PM

That is your personal assessment. If the person is satisfied with his current belief system and wants nothing more than to maintain it (again, VenomfangX), willful ignorance is a rational course.

lol wut? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

That article supports my point. Thank you.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2009, 09:21:44 AM

What point are you trying to make? Alcohol does do away with our inhibitions, so blaming altered behavior on being drunk is a logical consequence, but it would still be better to not act reckless and uninhibited at all.

1) It is not a logical consequence. It is a convenience.

Blame seems to carry a connotation of shifting responsibility off of what is responsible. The point I'm try to make is alcohol is responsible for 'inhibiting inhibitions'.

2) You're still only offering opinion.

What were you looking for? 

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2009, 09:21:44 AM

How would you know their feelings? And isn't unpredictability worse?

Again, one's own feelings should not be unpredictable unless one is some kind of manically repressed basket case (VenomfangX, for example).

Let's assume we can know that with certainty for a second. In the interest of refraining from bias, consider that one who does have suppressed thoughts is not aware of it. I am not aware of it, so it is a possibility I too am a basket case. 
Also:

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 22, 2009, 09:38:42 PM

When people get hardcore drunk, you never know what's going to happen.

Welcome to reality.

You don't seem to contest predictability here. Did you change your mind or are you playing devil's advocate later on just to be obstinate? Well there is the third option that you can claim to have read it semantically that the future cannot be known.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2009, 09:21:44 AM

Quote from: Proleg on April 23, 2009, 12:41:38 AM

There is ultimately no reason to personally accept a "fact" over a mere "abstraction".

Wait, are you saying that your argument is "because we can't be completely objective, we shouldn't try"?

No.

...Then what?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2009, 09:21:44 AM

I try to [approximate] objectivity as closely as I can, even though I will never be 100% successful.

Which is why you come across as a pretentious asshole. Get off your high horse.

Someone strives to be the best they can be and you get annoyed. What does this say about you?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2009, 09:21:44 AM

No reason to accept facts over mere abstraction? Maybe I'm not understanding you, but facts usually refer to the objective world. Why shouldn't we try to attain objectivity?

No, by all means, try. Just do not maintain any illusion that you will attain it.

Uh, where did I imply that I thought I could?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2009, 09:21:44 AM

(Objectivity being a perfect logical consensus from all perspectives.)

How can one "emulate" such a thing?

I admit it was bad wording on my part. 

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2009, 09:21:44 AM

What does ignorance have to do with my argument? I'd say that willful ignorance is irrational because you are closing your mind, shutting out possibilities without giving yourself a chance to judge them.

That is your personal assessment.

Once again, it sounds as if you think I am trying to establish a reason for everybody not to drink.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2009, 09:21:44 AM

Unless I can build a consensus with the general population.

"Consensus" is as fickle a security blanket as religion. But hey, we all have our opiates.

And how do you propose I should reach for objectivity if not by common elements in perception?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2009, 09:21:44 AM

Experience itself is confined to sensation, and when sensation isn't my argument I don't need the experience.

And what is your argument? You seem to know an awful lot about the concept of "feeling [your] brain melt". What this has to do with our discussion is beyond me.

Feeling your brain melt? What are you talking about? I do not contest that drinking can make you happy by escaping reality, meaning do not I contest the happiness one experiences while drunk. I used that handy 'consensus' thing to establish the general rule of "drinking makes one happy" from other people's perspectives.

My only position has been that I do not consider the costs of drinking to be worth the self indulgent 'Happyland' fantasy.
You have always been free to weigh your priorities.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2009, 09:21:44 AM

You're asking me to argue on your behalf? 
If you cannot think of a rational response to contest it, perhaps you should examine your own beliefs.

My facetious comments were intended to highlight your own snide insinuations and air of intellectual superiority.

Assumptions were made. I do not consider you to be intellectually inferior.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2009, 09:21:44 AM

...Unless, you aren't actually trying to convince me to drink.

The only thing I am trying to convince you to do is pull that stick out of your ass.

I know that in serious discussions, I often come off too serious. But this presentation of me as if I hold myself above either you, or the rest of FES, is simply incorrect. And once again, my personal conclusions only apply to my personal choices. The only thing I can think of that might have upset you, is the notion that I was dissing drinking. Is this an accurate assessment?

If anything, it sounds like you are trying to force your perspective onto me. Recall the beginning of the conversation.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 22, 2009, 08:14:41 PM

Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:05:15 PM

Turns out ﮎingulaЯiτy is a bigger moralfag than our KKKristians.

I don't do anything to compromise my rationality or poison my system. Make fun all you want.   

If you're so rational, you'll have realized by now that life is an absurd clusterfuck of chemical reactions. Why shouldn't the sensations we feel be pleasant and relaxing ones?

Life is a temporary sensation. You might as well enjoy it.

Blame seems to carry a connotation of shifting responsibility off of what is responsible. The point I'm try to make is alcohol is responsible for 'inhibiting inhibitions'.

And who/what is responsible for consuming the alcohol in the first place?

Let's assume we can know that with certainty for a second. In the interest of refraining from bias, consider that one who does have suppressed thoughts is not aware of it. I am not aware of it, so it is a possibility I too am a basket case. 

You are a diseased Freudian.

You don't seem to contest predictability here. Did you change your mind or are you playing devil's advocate later on just to be obstinate? Well there is the third option that you can claim to have read it semantically that the future cannot be known.

It can't be, so I don't understand what your issue is.

Someone strives to be the best they can be and you get annoyed. What does this say about you?

Striving to be the best? No offense, but the only activities you perform that I am aware of is arguing over the internet. But I'll take your word for it, bud.

Uh, where did I imply that I thought I could?

The part where you seem to think objective rationality exists.

And how do you propose I should reach for objectivity if not by common elements in perception?

I'm not proposing any "superior" method in attaining the unattainable. I guess that's just where we differ.

Feeling your brain melt? What are you talking about? I do not contest that drinking can make you happy by escaping reality, meaning do not I contest the happiness one experiences while drunk. I used that handy 'consensus' thing to establish the general rule of "drinking makes one happy" from other people's perspectives.

Religion, by consensus, also makes one happy. Hardly universal though. Or rational, to say the least.

I know that in serious discussions, I often come off too serious. But this presentation of me as if I hold myself above either you, or the rest of FES, is simply incorrect. And once again, my personal conclusions only apply to my personal choices.

Wardogg has admitted that he believes in Christianity solely because he was raised that way. Yet you do not seem capable of leaving him alone. I enjoy trolling him as much as the next member, but there comes a point where it gets old and appears to be motivated by a maliciousness beyond the realm of childish ribbing. Again, it probably is not your intention, but you truly come across as a self-satisfied penguin who is contemptuous of opinions or dispositions that deviate from your own established canon. *cough* Sound familiar?

No, your wrong.

No, you.

How much time did you spend on that shit and was it really worth it?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 25, 2009, 03:55:18 PM

Blame seems to carry a connotation of shifting responsibility off of what is responsible. The point I'm try to make is alcohol is responsible for 'inhibiting inhibitions'.

And who/what is responsible for consuming the alcohol in the first place?

The person who consumes the alcohol made the decision to compromise their mind, and therefore are responsible.
I recall the original point you were making: that I can blame my behavior on being drunk so it doesn't matter how I behave around people.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 25, 2009, 03:55:18 PM

Let's assume we can know that with certainty for a second. In the interest of refraining from bias, consider that one who does have suppressed thoughts is not aware of it. I am not aware of it, so it is a possibility I too am a basket case. 

You are a diseased Freudian.

First, your statement lacked confirmation. Second, I'm open minded. Calling me diseased isn't really an argument against anything.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 25, 2009, 03:55:18 PM

You don't seem to contest predictability here. Did you change your mind or are you playing devil's advocate later on just to be obstinate? Well there is the third option that you can claim to have read it semantically that the future cannot be known.

It can't be, so I don't understand what your issue is.

There would be no point in stating the obvious that we can't know the future. 
To agree to the statement that when people get hardcore drunk you will never know what will happen, would imply agreement agreeing to say anyone becomes unpredictable when they are intoxicated enough. Yet another statement you made was an unverified claim that people are only unpredictable when drunk if they are basket cases.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 25, 2009, 03:55:18 PM

Someone strives to be the best they can be and you get annoyed. What does this say about you?

Striving to be the best? No offense, but the only activities you perform that I am aware of is arguing over the internet. But I'll take your word for it, bud.

You are twisting my concerns. Objectivity was the focus. Debate over the internet is actually a constructive hobby for me, but is ultimately irrelevant to the issue.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 25, 2009, 03:55:18 PM

Uh, where did I imply that I thought I could?

The part where you seem to think objective rationality exists.

But I never said I could attain it.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 25, 2009, 03:55:18 PM

And how do you propose I should reach for objectivity if not by common elements in perception?

I'm not proposing any "superior" method in attaining the unattainable. I guess that's just where we differ.

Your sentence seems to imply that an attempt to be pointless, but I'll assume it isn't. Then why attack my process of approximation if you have no constructive alternative nor nothing to add?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 25, 2009, 03:55:18 PM

I do not contest that drinking can make you happy by escaping reality, meaning do not I contest the happiness one experiences while drunk. I used that handy 'consensus' thing to establish the general rule of "drinking makes one happy" from other people's perspectives.

Religion, by consensus, also makes one happy. Hardly universal though. Or rational, to say the least.

Gaining a sensation of happiness with consensus (religion), and gaining knowledge of that sensation through alternative consensus (knowing religious people are happy) are very different things.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 25, 2009, 03:55:18 PM

I know that in serious discussions, I often come off too serious. But this presentation of me as if I hold myself above either you, or the rest of FES, is simply incorrect. And once again, my personal conclusions only apply to my personal choices.

Wardogg has admitted that he believes in Christianity solely because he was raised that way. Yet you do not seem capable of leaving him alone. I enjoy trolling him as much as the next member, but there comes a point where it gets old and appears to be motivated by a maliciousness beyond the realm of childish ribbing. Again, it probably is not your intention, but you truly come across as a self-satisfied penguin who is contemptuous of opinions or dispositions that deviate from your own established canon. *cough* Sound familiar?

You are becoming emotionally aggressive. I'll consider that a good sign for my argument. 
There are a couple of things you should know about the conversation between Wardogg and myself. I only recently came to realize that he openly admits that his beliefs are logically unjustified, around the same time you mentioned Russel's teapot. I debate with him to get him to question his beliefs, not to change them. Also, I am curious to know his thought process. I have never met anyone else even remotely like him with respect to his beliefs.  It's actually interesting to me.

The person who consumes the alcohol made the decision to compromise their mind, and therefore are responsible.
I recall the original point you were making: that I can blame my behavior on being drunk so it doesn't matter how I behave around people.

I never made that point.

First, your statement lacked confirmation. Second, I'm open minded. Calling me diseased isn't really an argument against anything.

"Diseased Freudian" is actually redundant. Your references to the id and the ego were obvious enough.

There would be no point in stating the obvious that we can't know the future. 
To agree to the statement that when people get hardcore drunk you will never know what will happen, would imply agreement agreeing to say anyone becomes unpredictable when they are intoxicated enough. Yet another statement you made was an unverified claim that people are only unpredictable when drunk if they are basket cases.

There is no reason to behave foolishly or unpredictably whether drunk or sober. The excuse of intoxication is bullshit.

But I never said I could attain it.

Yet you claim to be "rational".

Your sentence seems to imply that an attempt to be pointless, but I'll assume it isn't. Then why attack my process of approximation if you have no constructive alternative nor nothing to add?

Because you do the exact same to others without any awareness of hypocrisy or self-contradiction.

Gaining a sensation of happiness with consensus (religion), and gaining knowledge of that sensation through alternative consensus (knowing religious people are happy) are very different things.

And where is the line between "consensus" and "alternative consensus" and how do you know which to adhere to?

You are becoming emotionally aggressive.

Obviously. The internets are teh serious.

There are a couple of things you should know about the conversation between Wardogg and myself. I only recently came to realize that he openly admits that his beliefs are logically unjustified, around the same time you mentioned Russel's teapot.

Weak. I have informed you explicitly on at least two occasions of Wardogg's disposition. You ignored it completely. This neatly ties in to your seeming obliviousness and lack of tact.

I debate with him to get him to question his beliefs, not to change them. Also, I am curious to know his thought process. I have never met anyone else even remotely like him with respect to his beliefs.  It's actually interesting to me.

Indeed. Your words are respectful and without a hint of condescension. How could I have ever interpreted any of that from you?

I debate with him to get him to question his beliefs, not to change them. Also, I am curious to know his thought process. I have never met anyone else even remotely like him with respect to his beliefs.  It's actually interesting to me.

Indeed. Your words are respectful and without a hint of condescension. How could I have ever interpreted any of that from you?

I have read that entire discussion and I have to say, Singularity never came across as malicious or condescending.  I understand his motives because I am the same way, I argue with people to better understand their beliefs and how they think.  It's not like he's shoving his beliefs down Wardogg's throat, just getting him to question his usual way of thinking.

What are we arguing about?

What are we arguing about?

That Singularity is essentially you, only less interesting.

Oh, cool.

Oscar is contributing to the delinquency of a moderator! (or trying to, IMO)

Everyone who isn't allergic should get stinking drunk at least once in their life.  If you haven't done stupid shit, you won't have any crazy memories to carry you through your old age.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 30, 2009, 09:26:56 PM

The person who consumes the alcohol made the decision to compromise their mind, and therefore are responsible.
I recall the original point you were making: that I can blame my behavior on being drunk so it doesn't matter how I behave around people.

I never made that point.

I believe there has been a miscommunication somewhere along the line, because I have been trying to make that point from almost the very beginning.

...If you really do agree that people are responsible for their behavior when sober and drunk, then I have another question.

If I'm always held responsible for my actions (to myself and others), why are you telling me to put myself in a condition that wouldn't allow me to be responsible? For example, I don't think the baby sitter should get drunk on the job. Now expectations may be higher for things like jobs, but I still would like to behave responsibly whenever I can.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 30, 2009, 09:26:56 PM

First, your statement lacked confirmation. Second, I'm open minded. Calling me diseased isn't really an argument against anything.

"Diseased Freudian" is actually redundant. Your references to the id and the ego were obvious enough.

Everyone contributes to a field, and I have yet to see anybody get everything right. But why would you make such a vast and comprehensive assumption about my views on psychology based only on one quick example? ...especially when alternative perspectives are incorporated in my posts on these same boards?

There is no reason to behave foolishly or unpredictably whether drunk or sober. The excuse of intoxication is bullshit.

Finally something I agree with.
But it doesn't matter if there isn't a rational reason to behave foolishly, because you aren't rational when you're drunk. Does it make sense why I make it a priority to avoid compromising my rationality now?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 30, 2009, 09:26:56 PM

But I never said I could attain it.

Yet you claim to be "rational".

Objectivity and rationality are different. Didn't you even post a link showing that you can be nonobjective while being rational? 
Not that's relevant, but where did I even say I was perfectly rational? Although rationality is a priority to me, I don't seem to recall claiming that.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 30, 2009, 09:26:56 PM

Why attack my approach to reach for objectivity?

Because you do the exact same to others without any awareness of hypocrisy or self-contradiction.

I highly doubt that I have attacked other member's personal reach for intellectual advancement, whatever they deem as advancement. I have asked people about their beliefs like deities, but when someone says they drink or smoke I leave them alone. I have yet to attack someone's lifestyle choices. Even when I have ontological and logic structure conversations, I do not attack them.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 30, 2009, 09:26:56 PM

Gaining a sensation of happiness with consensus (religion), and gaining knowledge of that sensation through alternative consensus (knowing religious people are happy) are very different things.

And where is the line between "consensus" and "alternative consensus" and how do you know which to adhere to?

To believe in god because your parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts and uncles do, is appealing to popularity. Knowledge of anything is built by evidence. Consensus of god is basically wikiality. Consensus of an observable phenomenon, (the rising of the sun, the heating of a stove, the effects of alcohol) are all verifiable testable and become common knowledge when people are in agreement. Consensus needs foundations in falsifiability before I would consider them to be legitimate. People would call each other out if they disagreed that the sun didn't appear to move across the sky. I'll believe in god when testable evidence surfaces.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 30, 2009, 09:26:56 PM

You are becoming emotionally aggressive.

Obviously. The internets are teh serious.

Still, I can't help but think that you took offense by me standing up for my personal lifestyle.

Weak. I have informed you explicitly on at least two occasions of Wardogg's disposition. You ignored it completely. This neatly ties in to your seeming obliviousness and lack of tact.

Oh I didn't ignore your insight, but I hadn't come to the same conclusions at that point nor did I see you present compelling evidence confirming that Wardogg was beyond examining himself. After all, I got my own conclusions mostly confirming your insight within a few pages from the primary source himself.

Indeed. Your words are respectful and without a hint of condescension. How could I have ever interpreted any of that from you?

Please post something you think was malicious or disrespectful. I want to see what you find offensive, especially after you compared my discussions with your recent outbursts.

Everyone who isn't allergic should get stinking drunk at least once in their life.  If you haven't done stupid shit, you won't have any crazy memories to carry you through your old age.

Your wisdom inspires. 

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 01, 2009, 12:15:45 PM

Everyone who isn't allergic should get stinking drunk at least once in their life.  If you haven't done stupid shit, you won't have any crazy memories to carry you through your old age.

Your wisdom inspires. 

If you ever need someone to hold your hair while you puke, let me know!