On the Pleasure of Hating.

[ding]

You do realize your condescending attitude says more about you than me, right?

That’s binary too.

Its completely necessary with you - its the way you talk to others and so its obviously your preferred means of communication.

You seek conflict ~ and you declare a lot of absolutes that are demonstrably false. Of course when people do that, in discourse, it is challenged as an idea.

You said right and wrong is "literally" binary.

Thats demonsrably false -

there are categories of these things.

moral rights and wrongs ..

right and wrong problem solving...

When you can solve a problem in more than 1 way, and fail to solve a problem in more than 1 way, right and wrong are not "literally" binary.

Conceptually, thinking theres only 1 way to solve a problem and 1 way to fail is called binary thinking ~ which indicates a disposition of poor critical thinking.

Poor critical thinking is like saying something along the lines of . ..

we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves...


without 1st considering that most folks hate the worst of humanity (folks who harm children) the most because its NOT in them to do so.....not because it is....and they hate it.

Thats binary thinking.

That’s pretty ironic that you accuse me of seeking conflict.

I can’t help it if my beliefs create conflicts in others. That’s beyond my control. I don’t hold my beliefs because they are controversial. I hold my beliefs because there are good reasons for holding them. People who do not have well thought out positions don’t like it because I have a basis for my beliefs and they don’t. You can’t argue the merits of your beliefs so you attack my character instead.

You literally ignored a direct refutation of your belief regarding what we hate in others, and instead employed diversionary tactics and condescendingly acting like a victim.

The problem with you is that youre literally not able to defend your beliefs, and so you go tactical like a kid, & thats coping.

Otherwise, you could begin explaining how we all must seek to harm children, because thats the most hated trait that society seems to frown upon in others....and for your theory to be true, we all must be desiring to do so ourselves since its something we hate.

That we dont, refutes your theory. Its not an absolute, check mate, its a "sometimes."

And sometimes, we ADMIRE, not HATE, in others what we hate in ourselves.

You clearly didnt think these platitudes through, and you clearly want to run from that fact and devolve into meta like usual

GT, your so called refutation was so far afield as to be idiotic. You wanted to argue an idiotic point that you hate child abusers. You needed to take such an extreme position because things like being rude or selfish or arrogant wouldn’t work. That’s why I called your argument a fring argument. You are literally trying to define the rule by exception. You do that a lot too.

Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes.

You've never seemed to have been able to grasp that.

There are plenty of other examples of things we hate in others that we dont hate in ourselves.

Racism. Racist hate the other color, not their own.
Homophobia. They hate folks with a different disposition than the norm.
Sexism, of the opposite sex.
Partisan hatred of OPPOSITE views.


The list goes on and on, I merely gave you the most OBVIOUS example because I was talking to someone who fails basic logic on a consistent basis and even THEN you failed to grasp it.

No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.

 

[G.T.]

Something is binary if it contains only two parts or options. In mathematics or computing, those two parts are 1s and 0s. In binary thinking, a person only considers two possibilities.

Yes, that's been established.

Binary thinking is binary thought.

I can solve puzzles or problems multiple ways, and usually do to check my work. That is not binary thought. An example of binary thought would be getting the answer right or getting the answer wrong. There isn’t a middle ground. The quadratic equation is a perfect example. In the quadratic equation there are multiple root solutions but only one of the two is correct.

You only repeated what I already said...

the only real question - is why you didnt realize it.

I explained the difference. Your position that using multiple methods to solve a problem is not an example of a refutation of binary thought. Binary thought is when you only see one of two possible outcomes. Such as right and wrong. In your morally relativistic universe you do not believe there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. In my black and white universe, I do. And in fact, the universe is binary. It’s literally the basis for cause and effect.

We werent talking about my morals - you went way off topic and got really fucking confused is what you just said.

This is literally the issue with you. Youre dense.

 

[G.T.]

Its completely necessary with you - its the way you talk to others and so its obviously your preferred means of communication.

You seek conflict ~ and you declare a lot of absolutes that are demonstrably false. Of course when people do that, in discourse, it is challenged as an idea.

You said right and wrong is "literally" binary.

Thats demonsrably false -

there are categories of these things.

moral rights and wrongs ..

right and wrong problem solving...

When you can solve a problem in more than 1 way, and fail to solve a problem in more than 1 way, right and wrong are not "literally" binary.

Conceptually, thinking theres only 1 way to solve a problem and 1 way to fail is called binary thinking ~ which indicates a disposition of poor critical thinking.

Poor critical thinking is like saying something along the lines of . ..

we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves...


without 1st considering that most folks hate the worst of humanity (folks who harm children) the most because its NOT in them to do so.....not because it is....and they hate it.

Thats binary thinking.

That’s pretty ironic that you accuse me of seeking conflict.

I can’t help it if my beliefs create conflicts in others. That’s beyond my control. I don’t hold my beliefs because they are controversial. I hold my beliefs because there are good reasons for holding them. People who do not have well thought out positions don’t like it because I have a basis for my beliefs and they don’t. You can’t argue the merits of your beliefs so you attack my character instead.

You literally ignored a direct refutation of your belief regarding what we hate in others, and instead employed diversionary tactics and condescendingly acting like a victim.

The problem with you is that youre literally not able to defend your beliefs, and so you go tactical like a kid, & thats coping.

Otherwise, you could begin explaining how we all must seek to harm children, because thats the most hated trait that society seems to frown upon in others....and for your theory to be true, we all must be desiring to do so ourselves since its something we hate.

That we dont, refutes your theory. Its not an absolute, check mate, its a "sometimes."

And sometimes, we ADMIRE, not HATE, in others what we hate in ourselves.

You clearly didnt think these platitudes through, and you clearly want to run from that fact and devolve into meta like usual

GT, your so called refutation was so far afield as to be idiotic. You wanted to argue an idiotic point that you hate child abusers. You needed to take such an extreme position because things like being rude or selfish or arrogant wouldn’t work. That’s why I called your argument a fring argument. You are literally trying to define the rule by exception. You do that a lot too.

Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes.

You've never seemed to have been able to grasp that.

There are plenty of other examples of things we hate in others that we dont hate in ourselves.

Racism. Racist hate the other color, not their own.
Homophobia. They hate folks with a different disposition than the norm.
Sexism, of the opposite sex.
Partisan hatred of OPPOSITE views.


The list goes on and on, I merely gave you the most OBVIOUS example because I was talking to someone who fails basic logic on a consistent basis and even THEN you failed to grasp it.

No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.

Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.

Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.

or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??

jeeze

Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.

And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.

 

[Mindful]

What do you think of this, Ding?

Wu wei (無爲) is a concept in Taoism sometimes translated as non-action or non-doing. It means aligning with the wisdom of Nature, not taking action based on self-centric thinking. Some problems are best solved simply by staying calm and allowing life to take its natural course.

 

[ding]

Something is binary if it contains only two parts or options. In mathematics or computing, those two parts are 1s and 0s. In binary thinking, a person only considers two possibilities.

Yes, that's been established.

Binary thinking is binary thought.

I can solve puzzles or problems multiple ways, and usually do to check my work. That is not binary thought. An example of binary thought would be getting the answer right or getting the answer wrong. There isn’t a middle ground. The quadratic equation is a perfect example. In the quadratic equation there are multiple root solutions but only one of the two is correct.

You only repeated what I already said...

the only real question - is why you didnt realize it.

I explained the difference. Your position that using multiple methods to solve a problem is not an example of a refutation of binary thought. Binary thought is when you only see one of two possible outcomes. Such as right and wrong. In your morally relativistic universe you do not believe there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. In my black and white universe, I do. And in fact, the universe is binary. It’s literally the basis for cause and effect.

We werent talking about my morals - you went way off topic and got really fucking confused is what you just said.

This is literally the issue with you. Youre dense.

I am showing you examples of binary and non-binary thinking. Non-binary thinking or thought isn’t using more than two methods to solve a problem. Non-binary thinking is believing there are more than two solutions of which being diametrically opposed to each other is not a requirement. Binary thinking or thought is believing there are only two mutually exclusive solutions;usually diametrically opposed. Like up or down, in or out, left or right, on or off, good or evil, right or wrong.

You should look up transactional analysis to see what kind of conversations you seek with the words you use.

 

[G.T.]

Yes, that's been established.

Binary thinking is binary thought.

I can solve puzzles or problems multiple ways, and usually do to check my work. That is not binary thought. An example of binary thought would be getting the answer right or getting the answer wrong. There isn’t a middle ground. The quadratic equation is a perfect example. In the quadratic equation there are multiple root solutions but only one of the two is correct.

You only repeated what I already said...

the only real question - is why you didnt realize it.

I explained the difference. Your position that using multiple methods to solve a problem is not an example of a refutation of binary thought. Binary thought is when you only see one of two possible outcomes. Such as right and wrong. In your morally relativistic universe you do not believe there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. In my black and white universe, I do. And in fact, the universe is binary. It’s literally the basis for cause and effect.

We werent talking about my morals - you went way off topic and got really fucking confused is what you just said.

This is literally the issue with you. Youre dense.

I am showing you examples of binary and non-binary thinking. Non-binary thinking or thought isn’t using more than two methods to solve a problem. Non-binary thinking is believing there are more than two solutions of which being diametrically opposed to each other is not a requirement. Binary thinking or thought is believing there are only two mutually exclusive solutions;usually diametrically opposed. Like up or down, in or out, left or right, on or off, good or evil, right or wrong.

You should look up transactional analysis to see what kind of conversations you seek with the words you use.

Ding, I didn't ask for any examples of binary thinking. It wasn't even pertinent to the conversation, and if I'd really have to explain why that is for you then it's just furthering your record of being a waste of time.

Which is fine, but it's why I avoid a pretty good handful of topics with ya that might otherwise be interesting.

You get really flummoxed with cliches and non-sequitur and will go off on tangents and walls of texts that didn't even pertain. It's fine, but it's not my cuppa tea most of the time. When I engage in formal debates on discords and youtube, it's in voice and easier to articulate back and forth with one another.

When it's in a text chat, it's really easy to get lost in minutia over a misreading of context and intent.

 

[ding]

That’s pretty ironic that you accuse me of seeking conflict.

I can’t help it if my beliefs create conflicts in others. That’s beyond my control. I don’t hold my beliefs because they are controversial. I hold my beliefs because there are good reasons for holding them. People who do not have well thought out positions don’t like it because I have a basis for my beliefs and they don’t. You can’t argue the merits of your beliefs so you attack my character instead.

You literally ignored a direct refutation of your belief regarding what we hate in others, and instead employed diversionary tactics and condescendingly acting like a victim.

The problem with you is that youre literally not able to defend your beliefs, and so you go tactical like a kid, & thats coping.

Otherwise, you could begin explaining how we all must seek to harm children, because thats the most hated trait that society seems to frown upon in others....and for your theory to be true, we all must be desiring to do so ourselves since its something we hate.

That we dont, refutes your theory. Its not an absolute, check mate, its a "sometimes."

And sometimes, we ADMIRE, not HATE, in others what we hate in ourselves.

You clearly didnt think these platitudes through, and you clearly want to run from that fact and devolve into meta like usual

GT, your so called refutation was so far afield as to be idiotic. You wanted to argue an idiotic point that you hate child abusers. You needed to take such an extreme position because things like being rude or selfish or arrogant wouldn’t work. That’s why I called your argument a fring argument. You are literally trying to define the rule by exception. You do that a lot too.

Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes.

You've never seemed to have been able to grasp that.

There are plenty of other examples of things we hate in others that we dont hate in ourselves.

Racism. Racist hate the other color, not their own.
Homophobia. They hate folks with a different disposition than the norm.
Sexism, of the opposite sex.
Partisan hatred of OPPOSITE views.


The list goes on and on, I merely gave you the most OBVIOUS example because I was talking to someone who fails basic logic on a consistent basis and even THEN you failed to grasp it.

No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.

Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.

Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.

or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??

jeeze

Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.

And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.

When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.

With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.

 

[G.T.]

You literally ignored a direct refutation of your belief regarding what we hate in others, and instead employed diversionary tactics and condescendingly acting like a victim.

The problem with you is that youre literally not able to defend your beliefs, and so you go tactical like a kid, & thats coping.

Otherwise, you could begin explaining how we all must seek to harm children, because thats the most hated trait that society seems to frown upon in others....and for your theory to be true, we all must be desiring to do so ourselves since its something we hate.

That we dont, refutes your theory. Its not an absolute, check mate, its a "sometimes."

And sometimes, we ADMIRE, not HATE, in others what we hate in ourselves.

You clearly didnt think these platitudes through, and you clearly want to run from that fact and devolve into meta like usual

GT, your so called refutation was so far afield as to be idiotic. You wanted to argue an idiotic point that you hate child abusers. You needed to take such an extreme position because things like being rude or selfish or arrogant wouldn’t work. That’s why I called your argument a fring argument. You are literally trying to define the rule by exception. You do that a lot too.

Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes.

You've never seemed to have been able to grasp that.

There are plenty of other examples of things we hate in others that we dont hate in ourselves.

Racism. Racist hate the other color, not their own.
Homophobia. They hate folks with a different disposition than the norm.
Sexism, of the opposite sex.
Partisan hatred of OPPOSITE views.


The list goes on and on, I merely gave you the most OBVIOUS example because I was talking to someone who fails basic logic on a consistent basis and even THEN you failed to grasp it.

No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.

Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.

Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.

or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??

jeeze

Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.

And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.

When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.

With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.

The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.

It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.

GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."


Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."


Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.


To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.

When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -

There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.

And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.



What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.

 

[ding]

Binary thinking is binary thought.

I can solve puzzles or problems multiple ways, and usually do to check my work. That is not binary thought. An example of binary thought would be getting the answer right or getting the answer wrong. There isn’t a middle ground. The quadratic equation is a perfect example. In the quadratic equation there are multiple root solutions but only one of the two is correct.

You only repeated what I already said...

the only real question - is why you didnt realize it.

I explained the difference. Your position that using multiple methods to solve a problem is not an example of a refutation of binary thought. Binary thought is when you only see one of two possible outcomes. Such as right and wrong. In your morally relativistic universe you do not believe there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. In my black and white universe, I do. And in fact, the universe is binary. It’s literally the basis for cause and effect.

We werent talking about my morals - you went way off topic and got really fucking confused is what you just said.

This is literally the issue with you. Youre dense.

I am showing you examples of binary and non-binary thinking. Non-binary thinking or thought isn’t using more than two methods to solve a problem. Non-binary thinking is believing there are more than two solutions of which being diametrically opposed to each other is not a requirement. Binary thinking or thought is believing there are only two mutually exclusive solutions;usually diametrically opposed. Like up or down, in or out, left or right, on or off, good or evil, right or wrong.

You should look up transactional analysis to see what kind of conversations you seek with the words you use.

Ding, I didn't ask for any examples of binary thinking. It wasn't even pertinent to the conversation, and if I'd really have to explain why that is for you then it's just furthering your record of being a waste of time.

Which is fine, but it's why I avoid a pretty good handful of topics with ya that might otherwise be interesting.

You get really flummoxed with cliches and non-sequitur and will go off on tangents and walls of texts that didn't even pertain. It's fine, but it's not my cuppa tea most of the time. When I engage in formal debates on discords and youtube, it's in voice and easier to articulate back and forth with one another.

When it's in a text chat, it's really easy to get lost in minutia over a misreading of context and intent.

That was a whole lot of nothing. I don’t care what you asked for. I don’t care if you participate in conversations with me. I don’t get flummoxed. I don’t use cliques. I don’t use non-sequitur. And I don’t go off on tangents.

I explain the basis of my beliefs in a systematic and logical fashion. For instance, Non-binary thinking or thought isn’t using more than two methods to solve a problem. Non-binary thinking is believing there are more than two solutions of which being diametrically opposed to each other is not a requirement. Binary thinking or thought is believing there are only two mutually exclusive solutions;usually diametrically opposed. Like up or down, in or out, left or right, on or off, good or evil, right or wrong.

So rather than address the basis for this belief, you went off on a tangent, you got flummoxed, you created a non-sequitur. You accused me of everything you are doing.

 

[ding]

I’ll finish this line and then respond to the other.

 

[G.T.]

You only repeated what I already said...

the only real question - is why you didnt realize it.

I explained the difference. Your position that using multiple methods to solve a problem is not an example of a refutation of binary thought. Binary thought is when you only see one of two possible outcomes. Such as right and wrong. In your morally relativistic universe you do not believe there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. In my black and white universe, I do. And in fact, the universe is binary. It’s literally the basis for cause and effect.

We werent talking about my morals - you went way off topic and got really fucking confused is what you just said.

This is literally the issue with you. Youre dense.

I am showing you examples of binary and non-binary thinking. Non-binary thinking or thought isn’t using more than two methods to solve a problem. Non-binary thinking is believing there are more than two solutions of which being diametrically opposed to each other is not a requirement. Binary thinking or thought is believing there are only two mutually exclusive solutions;usually diametrically opposed. Like up or down, in or out, left or right, on or off, good or evil, right or wrong.

You should look up transactional analysis to see what kind of conversations you seek with the words you use.

Ding, I didn't ask for any examples of binary thinking. It wasn't even pertinent to the conversation, and if I'd really have to explain why that is for you then it's just furthering your record of being a waste of time.

Which is fine, but it's why I avoid a pretty good handful of topics with ya that might otherwise be interesting.

You get really flummoxed with cliches and non-sequitur and will go off on tangents and walls of texts that didn't even pertain. It's fine, but it's not my cuppa tea most of the time. When I engage in formal debates on discords and youtube, it's in voice and easier to articulate back and forth with one another.

When it's in a text chat, it's really easy to get lost in minutia over a misreading of context and intent.

That was a whole lot of nothing. I don’t care what you asked for. I don’t care if you participate in conversations with me. I don’t get flummoxed. I don’t use cliques. I don’t use non-sequitur. And I don’t go off on tangents.

I explain the basis of my beliefs in a systematic and logical fashion. For instance, Non-binary thinking or thought isn’t using more than two methods to solve a problem. Non-binary thinking is believing there are more than two solutions of which being diametrically opposed to each other is not a requirement. Binary thinking or thought is believing there are only two mutually exclusive solutions;usually diametrically opposed. Like up or down, in or out, left or right, on or off, good or evil, right or wrong.

So rather than address the basis for this belief, you went off on a tangent, you got flummoxed, you created a non-sequitur. You accused me of everything you are doing.

That was also a non-sequitur.

You're asking me to address a tangent about binary thoughts - and then when I'm telling you it's a tangent, you're doubling down and accuse me of not addressing its basis.

The reason it's a tangent, is that we expressly agree on what the concept "binary thought" means.

There's no need for you to even be saying these things - and it seems autistic that you typed that much about it.


And you DO get flummoxed, VERY flummoxed. You argue with 10 people at a time in the Religious forum, name call each and every one of them in the end, infer that they're all stupid when it's typically you that's missing something and going off on tangents, and then you BEG, literally BEG like a little puppy dog for people to go over into the bullring with you as though there's some sort of bravado prize to be had.

You can quit fooling yourself, and doing this bi-polar bullshit where you change from the guy who wants to stay on topic, to the guy moralizing against everyone, to the guy engaging in name calling for giggles........you're a completely ridiculous human on here....and blaming me ain't gunna help buck-o. I'll hold your mirror whenever I see fit, and you can continue to fuckin cry about it.

 

[ding]

I explained the difference. Your position that using multiple methods to solve a problem is not an example of a refutation of binary thought. Binary thought is when you only see one of two possible outcomes. Such as right and wrong. In your morally relativistic universe you do not believe there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. In my black and white universe, I do. And in fact, the universe is binary. It’s literally the basis for cause and effect.

We werent talking about my morals - you went way off topic and got really fucking confused is what you just said.

This is literally the issue with you. Youre dense.

I am showing you examples of binary and non-binary thinking. Non-binary thinking or thought isn’t using more than two methods to solve a problem. Non-binary thinking is believing there are more than two solutions of which being diametrically opposed to each other is not a requirement. Binary thinking or thought is believing there are only two mutually exclusive solutions;usually diametrically opposed. Like up or down, in or out, left or right, on or off, good or evil, right or wrong.

You should look up transactional analysis to see what kind of conversations you seek with the words you use.

Ding, I didn't ask for any examples of binary thinking. It wasn't even pertinent to the conversation, and if I'd really have to explain why that is for you then it's just furthering your record of being a waste of time.

Which is fine, but it's why I avoid a pretty good handful of topics with ya that might otherwise be interesting.

You get really flummoxed with cliches and non-sequitur and will go off on tangents and walls of texts that didn't even pertain. It's fine, but it's not my cuppa tea most of the time. When I engage in formal debates on discords and youtube, it's in voice and easier to articulate back and forth with one another.

When it's in a text chat, it's really easy to get lost in minutia over a misreading of context and intent.

That was a whole lot of nothing. I don’t care what you asked for. I don’t care if you participate in conversations with me. I don’t get flummoxed. I don’t use cliques. I don’t use non-sequitur. And I don’t go off on tangents.

I explain the basis of my beliefs in a systematic and logical fashion. For instance, Non-binary thinking or thought isn’t using more than two methods to solve a problem. Non-binary thinking is believing there are more than two solutions of which being diametrically opposed to each other is not a requirement. Binary thinking or thought is believing there are only two mutually exclusive solutions;usually diametrically opposed. Like up or down, in or out, left or right, on or off, good or evil, right or wrong.

So rather than address the basis for this belief, you went off on a tangent, you got flummoxed, you created a non-sequitur. You accused me of everything you are doing.

That was also a non-sequitur.

You're asking me to address a tangent about binary thoughts - and then when I'm telling you it's a tangent, you're doubling down and accuse me of not addressing its basis.

The reason it's a tangent, is that we expressly agree on what the concept "binary thought" means.

There's no need for you to even be saying these things - and it seems autistic that you typed that much about it.


And you DO get flummoxed, VERY flummoxed. You argue with 10 people at a time in the Religious forum, name call each and every one of them in the end, infer that they're all stupid when it's typically you that's missing something and going off on tangents, and then you BEG, literally BEG like a little puppy dog for people to go over into the bullring with you as though there's some sort of bravado prize to be had.

You can quit fooling yourself, and doing this bi-polar bullshit where you change from the guy who wants to stay on topic, to the guy moralizing against everyone, to the guy engaging in name calling for giggles........you're a completely ridiculous human on here....and blaming me ain't gunna help buck-o. I'll hold your mirror whenever I see fit, and you can continue to fuckin cry about it.

That was also a non-sequitur.

No. It wasn't a non-sequitur. It was a response to YOUR non-sequitur. A non-sequitur is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

In post #202 I said you should be careful about dismissing binary thought. In post #204 you said Binary thought is not the same thing as binary code. In post #205 you said Binary thought refers to the concept "two of them." In post #207 you said If you can solve a puzzle using more than 2 methods - thats what it means to breach a binary thought process.

It's a tangent because you wanted to argue binary thought is not the same thing as binary code. You literally created the tangent.

You are 100% correct there is no need to be discussing it. I don't dismiss binary thinking nor have a need to convince you of it. I am more than happy for you to believe whatever you want.

And you DO get flummoxed, VERY flummoxed. You argue with 10 people at a time in the Religious forum, name call each and every one of them in the end, infer that they're all stupid when it's typically you that's missing something and going off on tangents, and then you BEG, literally BEG like a little puppy dog for people to go over into the bullring with you as though there's some sort of bravado prize to be had.

^ see definition of non-sequitur

You can quit fooling yourself, and doing this bi-polar bullshit where you change from the guy who wants to stay on topic, to the guy moralizing against everyone, to the guy engaging in name calling for giggles........you're a completely ridiculous human on here....and blaming me ain't gunna help buck-o. I'll hold your mirror whenever I see fit, and you can continue to fuckin cry about it.

^ see definition of non-sequitur

 

[G.T.]

 

[Mindful]

Shall I leave you two to it?

 

[G.T.]

Shall I leave you two to it?

I'm devolving my consciousness in our fantabulous 4f - you can have your thread back as we change the world for the worse.

 

[Mindful]

Shall I leave you two to it?

I'm devolving my consciousness in our fantabulous 4f - you can have your thread back as we change the world for the worse.

Who said it was mine? I didn't.

And it's me who should change. Not the world.

 

[G.T.]

Shall I leave you two to it?

I'm devolving my consciousness in our fantabulous 4f - you can have your thread back as we change the world for the worse.

Who said it was mine? I didn't.

And it's me who should change. Not the world.

That's a sweet notion that we all might adopt, and then TNHarley's jokes about aborting babies with the retard gene just wouldn't work the same. : /

 

[ding]

^ see definition of non-sequitur

 

[ding]

GT, your so called refutation was so far afield as to be idiotic. You wanted to argue an idiotic point that you hate child abusers. You needed to take such an extreme position because things like being rude or selfish or arrogant wouldn’t work. That’s why I called your argument a fring argument. You are literally trying to define the rule by exception. You do that a lot too.

Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes.

You've never seemed to have been able to grasp that.

There are plenty of other examples of things we hate in others that we dont hate in ourselves.

Racism. Racist hate the other color, not their own.
Homophobia. They hate folks with a different disposition than the norm.
Sexism, of the opposite sex.
Partisan hatred of OPPOSITE views.


The list goes on and on, I merely gave you the most OBVIOUS example because I was talking to someone who fails basic logic on a consistent basis and even THEN you failed to grasp it.

No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.

Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.

Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.

or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??

jeeze

Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.

And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.

When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.

With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.

The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.

It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.

GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."


Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."


Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.


To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.

When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -

There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.

And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.



What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.

Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.

The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong. The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves. It's the reason they have such strong feelings. So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.

In fact, let me offer even more proof....

"...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “I'mnot terrible; you are.”

This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:

"We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."

The Psychology of Hate

 

[ding]

non-sequitur in 3, 2, 1....