• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

N elitism

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
jesus. either you're a complete logical idiot, or you just don't get my point.

if a nuclear war breaks out and bombs are being dropped on major cities across every country on the entire fucking planet, don't you think there'd be more than 5 million causalities? do you not understand that i don't give you the option to choose between; it's kill 5 million now or a full scale nuclear war. it isn't "kill for peace" as much as it is "kill for survival". world peace is a perk in this situation.


You're being completely dense. I will make it clear: you do not kill millions of people to prevent ANYTHING, unless they are all about to kill you or others. And it has to be THEM, not the leaders of their nations.
 

Sentura

Phoenix Incarnate
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
750
MBTI Type
ENXP
Enneagram
1w9
You're being completely dense. I will make it clear: you do not kill millions of people to prevent ANYTHING, unless they are all about to kill you or others. And it has to be THEM, not the leaders of their nations.

well shoot.

U.S. POPClock Projection

tells me that right now there are just above 300 million americans in existence. given that a super power would launch nukes at you (and you wouldn't retaliate), we could assume that all major cities and surrounding areas would be completely devastated. there are 50 states, which would mean at least 50 major cities counting around 2 million people on average (surrounding areas included). my quick math skills tell me that would be 100 million deaths alone, not counting any other large cities that may have been targeted as well.

and you'd still not choose the death of 5 million to avoid the death of 100 million? i'll be damned, you're a humanist through and through.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
well shoot.

U.S. POPClock Projection

tells me that right now there are just above 300 million americans in existence. given that a super power would launch nukes at you (and you wouldn't retaliate), we could assume that all major cities and surrounding areas would be completely devastated. there are 50 states, which would mean at least 50 major cities counting around 2 million people on average (surrounding areas included). my quick math skills tell me that would be 100 million deaths alone, not counting any other large cities that may have been targeted as well.

and you'd still not choose the death of 5 million to avoid the death of 100 million? i'll be damned, you're a humanist through and through.

What the hell does this have to do with N superiority? He JUST said that you shouldn't kill unless someone is trying to harm you or others. And with launching a nuke and with these supposed 100 million deaths, yeah that's harming "you or others". So uh... Yeah. I have no idea what this post is supposed to even accomplish.

But seriously, how is this related?
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
well shoot.

U.S. POPClock Projection

tells me that right now there are just above 300 million americans in existence. given that a super power would launch nukes at you (and you wouldn't retaliate), we could assume that all major cities and surrounding areas would be completely devastated. there are 50 states, which would mean at least 50 major cities counting around 2 million people on average (surrounding areas included). my quick math skills tell me that would be 100 million deaths alone, not counting any other large cities that may have been targeted as well.

and you'd still not choose the death of 5 million to avoid the death of 100 million? i'll be damned, you're a humanist through and through.


Well, let's see. How does 50 states = 50 major cities? Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont, et al. have none; California and Texas have several. Also, there are only 4 cities in the United States with more than 2 million people, and fewer than 30 metropolitan areas with more than 2 million people. So, your figures are basically pulled out of your ass. Secondly, retaliation against a nuclear enemy would do nothing to save the populace of the United States, so I don't see how whether I would retaliate would affect things at all. Thirdly, there is technology already developed that would help create an anti-nuclear defense shield, and that would be a national defense priority for me. In the end, you're positing a hypothetical that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Of course, 5 million dead is "better" than 100 million dead, but INTENTIONALLY killing 5 million vs. 100 million has no ethical difference. That's like the old Hitler vs. Stalin vs. Mao argument. Is one worse than the others? Their body counts range from 10-12 million to 50-60 million, but does that matter at all? Or do we go by percentage of the population dead? Isn't the point that they're mass murderers?
 

Sentura

Phoenix Incarnate
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
750
MBTI Type
ENXP
Enneagram
1w9
Well, let's see. How does 50 states = 50 major cities? Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont, et al. have none; California and Texas have several. Also, there are only 4 cities in the United States with more than 2 million people, and fewer than 30 metropolitan areas with more than 2 million people. So, your figures are basically pulled out of your ass.

i'm glad we agree. making assumptions is pulling crap out of your ass. but yeah, i'm sure that even with those metropolitan areas, the causalities could go well over 5 million - which, again, was my point. i wouldn't care about whether every state has a major city per se, just that the combined bombed population was over 5 million, obviously.

Secondly, retaliation against a nuclear enemy would do nothing to save the populace of the United States, so I don't see how whether I would retaliate would affect things at all. Thirdly, there is technology already developed that would help create an anti-nuclear defense shield, and that would be a national defense priority for me. In the end, you're positing a hypothetical that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

actually yes it has - i was trying to prove a point. it was a hypothetical situation, i'm surprised you didn't see that before now. i'll make a note about expecting less from people over the internet.

Of course, 5 million dead is "better" than 100 million dead, but INTENTIONALLY killing 5 million vs. 100 million has no ethical difference. That's like the old Hitler vs. Stalin vs. Mao argument. Is one worse than the others? Their body counts range from 10-12 million to 50-60 million, but does that matter at all? Or do we go by percentage of the population dead? Isn't the point that they're mass murderers?

who cares about ethics? also, let's just forget about anything good any mass-murdering leader ever has done for any nation ever. i mean, isn't the label mass-murderer overriding any former title?

either way, i wasn't discussing the ethics of this situation. i was discussing what would be the proper thing to do. since the situation was entirely hypothetical, we can assume that we don't have to care about details outside of our scope. thanks for playing.
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
i'm glad we agree. making assumptions is pulling crap out of your ass. but yeah, i'm sure that even with those metropolitan areas, the causalities could go well over 5 million - which, again, was my point. i wouldn't care about whether every state has a major city per se, just that the combined bombed population was over 5 million, obviously.

First of all, it's casualties, not causalities. More importantly, 5 million vs. 100 million is not the question. Who did the killing and why they did it are the issues at hand.


actually yes it has - i was trying to prove a point. it was a hypothetical situation, i'm surprised you didn't see that before now. i'll make a note about expecting less from people over the internet.

What are you talking about? I know it's a hypothetical; no one is killing anyone in real life, and this issue hasn't come up in real life outside of the instance of dropping atomic bombs on Japan (which I maintain was wrong). I was trying to demonstrate to you that your question has no validity EXCEPT as an ethical question, and that there is no difference there unless I am killing innocent people deliberately, which is wrong in any context.


who cares about ethics?

Considering it was an ethical dilemma that you posed, I would say anyone who ponders it.


also, let's just forget about anything good any mass-murdering leader ever has done for any nation ever. i mean, isn't the label mass-murderer overriding any former title?

Yeah, pretty much. I don't think that Hitler's oratorical gifts or Stalin's bureaucratic skills or Mao's popular nonfiction really matter much when you look at their track records, do you? The fact that they thought they were doing good when they were actually doing evil is something to think about it in "ends justify the means" situations, I think.


either way, i wasn't discussing the ethics of this situation. i was discussing what would be the proper thing to do. since the situation was entirely hypothetical, we can assume that we don't have to care about details outside of our scope. thanks for playing.

You are really obtuse. You "weren't discussing the ethics of this situation," but you were "discussing what would be the proper thing to do." What the hell do you think the words "ethics" means? Descriptive ethics is the branch of philosophy that considers the moral outcome of specific situations. If you are trying to be completely utilitarian and maintain that 5 million dead is better than 100 million dead, and it does not matter why or by whose hand, fine, but that that line of argument really has no consideration for the value of individual human lives outside of statistics.
 

Frank

New member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
689
Of course the nt's tend to be superior in strategic intellect, it is how we are cut. The nf tend to be more gifted than most in their deep understanding of others. I am however sincerely happy that s types especially the sj are the majority. I mean seriously if there is any truth to this typology stuff could you think of a better type to be the pillars of society. I don't think most n types really give enough of a shit to keep society as we know it functioning over the long haul.
 

FinalFrontier89

New member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
18
MBTI Type
ENFP
I think for those unfamiliar with the myrers briggs test, they'd simply term their N qualities as "depth" or "capability for abstract thought" and would consider it a major divisive point too, even if they're not able to quantify it quite as much.
 

LunarMoon

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
309
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3
First of all, it's casualties, not causalities. More importantly, 5 million vs. 100 million is not the question. Who did the killing and why they did it are the issues at hand.
That's subjective. It can easily be argued that apathetically allowing 6 billion people to die when they could have been saved is just as bad, if not worse, than killing 5 million directly.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't think that Hitler's oratorical gifts or Stalin's bureaucratic skills or Mao's popular nonfiction really matter much when you look at their track records, do you? The fact that they thought they were doing good when they were actually doing evil is something to think about it in "ends justify the means" situations, I think.
Hitler's Holocaust or Stalin's massacre of the Soviet people did not have any goals that would be viewed as worthy of the sacrifice. Hitler's actions were based on flawed scientific methodology at best and many of Stalin's kills were to preserve his own sense of paranoia-ridden security. In this hypothetical scenario the goal is the preservation of not only the human race but of the entire planet. "The ends justify the means" becomes a lot more persuasive when the stakes are so absurdly high.
If you are trying to be completely utilitarian and maintain that 5 million dead is better than 100 million dead, and it does not matter why or by whose hand, fine, but that that line of argument really has no consideration for the value of individual human lives outside of statistics.
Sure it does. 95 million more people dead means 95 million more individual lives ripped, torn, and sundered apart. Each of those 95 million people represents an individual human life (your neighbor, your children, your dog) and that's a fact that most people can't seem to grasp. It seems that the phrase "1 million men, women, and children" died in the Rwanda massacre doesn't really hit people until they see the pictures. But the suffering is just as real.

Ala "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."

S functioning is essential. But nobody remembers the construction workers who built the great building, they remember the architect. The S pump out the babies and keep society running, but the N's are more visionary. What I am trying to say is, if ever there was an Übermensch who created an enlightened Despotism, that person would be an N.

True, but keep in mind that the vast majority of Ns never accomplish such great feats as designing the Taj Mahal. The ones that do are geniuses and sociogenetic freaks and the fact that they are N is merely secondary.

I am however sincerely happy that s types especially the sj are the majority. I mean seriously if there is any truth to this typology stuff could you think of a better type to be the pillars of society. I don't think most n types really give enough of a shit to keep society as we know it functioning over the long haul.
I'd imagine that it'd be an absolute disaster. If it was a majority of xNTPs very little would actually get done and the "not giving a shit" attitude would prevail. If there was an increase of xNTJs you'd have a collection of idealistic, overconfident people attempting to push their vision of the world, constantly squabbling for power.
 

mortabunt

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
963
MBTI Type
type
Enneagram
5
N is like extra special functioning that comes out of the basic S function. N, biologically, is more advanced.
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Don't you ever get bored of trolling?
 

thisGuy

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
1,187
MBTI Type
entp
N is like extra special functioning that comes out of the basic S function. N, biologically, is more advanced.

would that imply that Ns have a small penis? all the extra biological mass you refer to has to come from somewhere
 

mortabunt

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
963
MBTI Type
type
Enneagram
5
It's a brain function. You have it as well, but you don't use it. I have to use a lot of S. I do things that are considered highly S activities. However, I can use my N to be more strategic about them. P.S.: size has nothing to do with it. It's not about the size of the pen, but the quality of the writing.
 

mortabunt

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
963
MBTI Type
type
Enneagram
5
^ I got your double meaning there, kinky...
Randomnity and This guy: Stop jumping to conclusions, and RTFM. IF you can't udnerstand what the writing means, then don't respond.
 
Top