Guevarista wrote:
See, this is a prime example of how you see things differently to me. At no time have I ever implied that you should agree with everything other people post. The implication that I have suggested such a silly thing is an attempt to discredit me. And I don't think you're stupid, so that can only be deliberate. (Yet even within this very thread you have questioned why I was posting in it since I didn't agree with you. See any irony?).

When you say I should become emotionally detached from my beliefs, that again is a misdirection. There are many subjects here that I'm unsure about, so have no firm beliefs on. Whereas other subjects, such as rape / paedophilia etc, I do have strong views on, and the day I release any emotional content from those judgements is the day I lose my humanity, imo. Why? Because the beliefs are based on being able to identify with (i.e. have empathy for) the victims. While such subjects can be considered in a cerebral way, to do so without automatically taking into account a whole range of emotions that such acts evoke, would, to me at any rate, be unnatural.

So, somebody has beliefs on things such as, let's say Archons since you mentioned it. It's something I've not read much about, so have no strong opinions on - hence can't possibly be accused of emotional attachment to a pov on the subject. Your argument seems to be that, you, as a superior intellect, deem it to be a harmful concept (because you don't believe in it) and therefore, the 'empathetic' thing to do is to respond to that individual with mockery and ridicule.

I find that impossible to accept. In my opinion, the empathetic response would be to state your reasons for disbelief in a logical and respectful manner, so that the other member has the opportunity, without feeling attacked, to actually evaluate your points and possibly change their own views because of them. And if they don't change their views, so what? Your (theoretically) more accurate logic is still there on view for other readers to ponder while forming their own opinions, and nobody's been stomped on (or deterred from ever posting again) for you to get your opinions or facts heard.

Even if your views on a matter are indisputably right, and someone else's are 100% wrong (unless they're being twatish) I don't see it as empathetic to stride in like the thought police and punish them by belittling.

And in seeing that Archon chap off, imo you've done us a disservice. I'd have been interested in hearing more of his thoughts - I like to decide for myself what information's 'of use'.

Also to my mind, it's sufficiently hypocritcal to beggar belief that, whilst routinely partaking in this kind of ridiculing (allegedly done for empathetic reasons, as it's in the best interests of the forum at large, since we need you to dispose of people whose opinions don't match yours, -oops - I mean are no 'use' ultimately to people who are against the status quo) you also think it's appropriate to advise myself that I should 'Try a Little Tenderness' with regard to expressing an unwillingness to empathise with rapists.

We're never likely to agree, are we!

Ok, well since you' and Dubs have both said here that I need to reform the way I communicate I will bear your advices in mind, and try and put forward opposing positions less polemically, i';m not guaranteeing I will change but I will bear the more sensitive members in mind.
The implication that I'm implying something other than what I said is slightly misguided imo.
I ignored your posts when I realized you were an adherent to the Christian view on morality, our chat in this thread could have stopped there, I attempted to understand Mikey's points a bit further so asked him a question relating to Kant, that was the cue for you and irrepressible to begin asking me stupid questions, cue thread derailment, SEE POST #53.

I'm of a mind actually to ask if you could, instead of taking every thread we're both in off topic leading to me looking like a cunt, address any personal issues or condemnation of my writing, posting style to me personaly via the Private message function?
Hey if these things were real do you think he would have ran off to post it somewhere else where nobody will question it?
If you want to believe something that's fine, if you believe something that doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny and can't defend or even substantiate your beliefs (without telling someone to buy a book or watch a youtubez) then don't post about it in a public forum I was very generous with the Archon I thought, there are many sceptics who would have completely ridiculed him and show how logically deranged his theories were, beaten him with intelligence, reason, logic, in turn he'd have ended up hating intelligence, logic and reason, at least if I'm just siimply obnoxious you can easily dismiss me as such and end up only hating me

TBH I think you're just interpreting my posts in a way that suits your feelings of animosity towards me, the Percy Sledge song wasn't even for you.

I'm sorry you bear a grudge.

Guevarista wrote:
See straight away that is belittling, insulting and shows a total lack of empathy. So much so that I've read no further.
It really is a shame gue because you're a valued poster with incisive views and a raft of theoretical knowledge to offer.
Time and again though you just rub people up the wrong way with your lack of empathy and big up yourself comments, then as a result your input gets glossed over and or ignored.

Good illustration of emotional reactivity being a self inflicted obstacle to development.
If I was being sarcastic I would have said over-sensitive, a thank you would have sufficed.
Time and again people are looking for an excuse to disagree with me.

guev you're a smart dude, you do what you want, you represent only yourself.

batou wrote: I think it's wrong to think of me as a human being to some degree, I'm either post or sub human imo, at least part A.I.

come here and give me a hug. its time to go from a human being, to a human doing.

weaponry: Good vs Evil
livingry: Healthy vs Unhealthy

Guevarista wrote:
Kinell. What a complete crock

If someone is sick because they live next door to a nuclear reactor you don't punish them for it, you attempt to understand and remove the cause of their illness, it's my view that one of the primary causes of humans acting unhealthily towards each other is the Dualistic and absolutist adherence to human interpretation of reality, specifically good and evil.

That is merely my point of view, I've not tried to foist it on anyone I have tried to develop an awareness of my point of view, and perhaps show how it is an advance on a traditional POV that hasn't worked..

Gilly I truly am sorry you've been through that shit, I would like to see such things removed from human life and don't really see them as separate from the way human's interact and conceive of each other in a barbaric society, for me it seems we've been accepting these events for 1000's of years as just some metaphysical manifestation of evil, it can occur anywhere and at any time.
Icke, the new age and The Archon promote that world view.
Common sense tells me that hasn't been working, rape and violence are as widespread now as they've ever been imo so we need to try something different, genetic and anthropological evidence tells us such things are remnants of a diverse physiological development, blood lust, dominance, psychopathy, barbarism would all have served important early human requirements, i ultimately think that's an optimistic world view being that such behaviours are mainly unconscious now, defunct and "inter-subjectively" frowned upon, I would suggest the key to evolutionary development now is teamwork, and this correlates to the raise in awareness about the forces acting against that progress.

Guevarista wrote:
Absolute agreement from me on that point. If we are to evolve (which we will need to), I suggest that things like empathy will be crucial. To literally feel how another feels will help us to understand and make wise decisions collectively.
Whilst we as a Western civilization remain largely separate and self centred, we are heading for ultimate extinction by our own doing.

Guevarista wrote:
No they're not.

Guev, my questions were not stupid in the least
You were talking about empathising with perpetrators of violence, and atrocities, I was merely laying out scenarios that brought those kinds of people into your world, as opposed to them doing their "thing" to other people, far removed from your world and your loved ones.
I used those illustrations to propose that in those kinds of situations, empathising with the aggressor would probably be the furthest thing from your mind.

Guevarista wrote:
Did i say you were a cunt or doing such a thing?

Gue, re post #122, it started off so well. Pity it went from one extreme to the other in the blink of an eye.

Nobody derailed the thread - it's been about empathy all the way through. Nobody asked you stupid or irrelevant questions.

Amongst any good points you raise, you make so very many which I believe require challenging though, that ultimately it becomes just too much of a tedious, time consuming chore. So I give in.



Till your arrogance gets on my tits again, at least.

Mikey it just seemed you were implying there must always be an ulterior, negative motive for questioning the existence of or asserting there is no objective basis from which to determine moral good, there are behaviours that harm the organism and behaviours that heal it with much in between.
irrepressible wrote: I was putting forward the revolutionary idea that instead of only reacting like Bruce Lee, you take this an example of the destructive results the environment you live in breeds, don't get me wrong i;m not advocating sitting a potential murderer down and offering him a blow job before my life is ended, my perspective is that I wouldn't consider your/gilly's or my own reaction if it resulted in said attackers death as "evil" or "good" but entirely motivated by the immediate situation/environment, that is realism imo, & to a degree empathy, i would also not consider the attackers behaviour as "evil" or "good" rather motivated by his personal situation/environment.

Your hypothetical questions and willingness to transgress "thou shalt not kill" showed you don't seem to believe in the existence of a moralistic good or evil yourself, i don't think you defined your personal interpretation of empathy very well?
The same way you can engage in a hypothetical debate about being raped and stabbed to death; for want of a better word (empathy)"imagination".
Empathy means according to the dictionary:
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
Not the wholesale justification of murder as you seem to believe.

I no longer give a fuck tbh.
We're all in the same sinking boat in an ocean of shit.

Can we close the thread now please mods. It's no longer fit for purpose. No disrespect implied or intended to any of the contributors.