User Tag List

View Poll Results: In a certain light, wouldn't nuclear war be exciting?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    21 52.50%
  • No

    19 47.50%
First 7151617181927 Last

Results 161 to 170 of 313

  1. #161
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    bad
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    I think you'd lose that bet. People who are against nuclear war (which should be all of us, when considering this issue in a concrete sense) are typically against it no matter who the target is.
    Imagine the target is a group you really hate, they attacked the nation you love.
    It happened in human history.

  2. #162
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unnamed View Post
    Imagine the target is a group you really hate, they attacked the nation you love.
    It happened in human history.
    Did you think restating the same scenario would change deeply-held beliefs against nuclear war? I don't care who the target is. No nukes.

  3. #163
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    Yeah, but if it is exciting to you then you're discussing at least one aspect of nuclear war, so it's natural that we'd arrive at this juncture so long as they be crazies like me here.
    Actually, no. You'd be discussing the form of a concept and how and when it can apply. Very likely you'd end up with a picture of how elements of the situation do take the same form as those seen in times and places and events that excite, and that probably--and as far as the discussion goes, uninterestingly--those elements would be significantly outnumbered by forms that horrify or just plain kill.

    How people are unable to see that concepts have parts... I am shocked and amazed. All the terminological hairs the logicians will split, and the feelers will endlessly categorise, and still there is no room for skinning conceptual imagery and looking at its jiggly bits?

    FOR SHAME, TYPOLOGISTS! FOR SHAME!
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  4. #164
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    For once I'm totally following Kalach.

    Edit: except these days I mostly tune out when people talk about se/si/ne/ni/fe/fi/fo/fum. Just don't care anymore. But in terms of the concepts in the thread divorced from the type slapfighting (and concepts can indeed be divorced from one another)... yeah. I don't know how to end this edit.

  5. #165
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    It is damn too.
    The pattern of responses does not support this as a conclusion. I don't think this is about Ni vs Si.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    Here's what you don't understand: I face everything I strongly care about Fi-first.
    And being Fi first you have the right to argue in the manner most rational to you. Therefore:

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    I also think you might be arguing in bad faith marm.
    This is an irrational statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    The more I look through this thread, the weirder it gets. Those among you who cannot see the fun side of death and destruction are... odd. There's an almost puritan concern for mortification of the flesh. You can't look away from the dirt.

    That is why I say Si. You've deified the concrete, which is what Si does, more or less. Indeed, it does it to the point where Ni cannot exist. Thus and therefore and ergo to boot, Si vs Ni.

    Look into it. You'll be glad you did.
    No, the only way your argument works is if the poll respondents change their type to match your assumption. There's no pattern at all so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    While we're here, what do you suppose Fi works with? It's a judgment that uses feeling as reason, but we've all heard again and again how feeling is fleeting. So what is it that Fi stews upon to create that judgment?
    Feeling is not fleeting to an Fi dom. An Fi dominant makes feeling judgements every second of the day, for example from how I feel about the orange juice I am currently drinking for breakfast to how I feel about the thread evolution here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    if the OP comment is a prompt to consider aspects of sudden upheaval and massive destruction in terms of *any* possible positive aspect that could arise, then yes, in a certain light, why not ask such a question and ponder on it.

    If it were meant rather as a prompt to investigate just how devastating destruction can be, then likely all sorts of talk of horror and moral indignation should ensue.

    But it says "a certain light". It's outright demanding you talk about what excitement really is. NOT WHAT NUCLEAR WAR REALLY IS. It asked you to discuss excitement in conceptual terms with reference to one aspect of excitement, that it includes danger and potentially very dangerous action with significant negative consequence.

    And so many went for the moral indignation instead. Who wouldn't try suggesting there is some failure to meet on a perceptual plane here?
    Some are focussing on "certain light" whilst others are focussing on evaluating "exciting". Therein lies the sticky point. To me, those two juxtapose each other in such a way that I have to choose to give one more weight than the other in deciding how to respond to the question. I then focus on "exciting" rather than "certain light". Exciting does connote pleasure, to some degree at least, and thus leads me to evaluate the question from the perspective of taking pleasure from the subject of human suffering. It's not about taking a moral position so much as which aspect of the question is more difficult to reconcile with internal belief.


    Another issue with this thread is that thoughts do precede actions. Too much mental masturbation on such topics truly does lead people to horrific action in the "real world". Just as surely as craving pizza for dinner causes you to pick up the phone and dial Dominos.
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  6. #166
    011235813
    Guest

    Default

    Another reflection: of course it's exciting "in a certain light" or games like Fallout wouldn't exist. They're basically giving people an opportunity to fantasize about scenarios like this without having to confront the consequences in a more realistic way. Which, in turn, seems to have led to an acute lack of imagination regarding the concrete.

    I don't know. I don't think this question is correctly framed if it actually intends to refer to scenarios that involve fantastically extenuating circumstances. It pretty much enters the realm of dystopian and post-apocalyptic fiction at that point. Which I usually enjoy, but it's FICTION. If I had to apply those situations personally to myself and the world I live in, I highly doubt that any part of me would go "Oh, yay, fun!"

  7. #167
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,781

    Default

    no, because no matter how angry i get at the world their still would be immense guilt if i was solely responsible for destroying it. Trust me I know this for a fact.
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  8. #168
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    bad
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Did you think restating the same scenario would change deeply-held beliefs against nuclear war? I don't care who the target is. No nukes.
    No,but the majority of human are not that kind of deeply-held believer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    For once I'm totally following Kalach.

    Edit: except these days I mostly tune out when people talk about se/si/ne/ni/fe/fi/fo/fum. Just don't care anymore. But in terms of the concepts in the thread divorced from the type slapfighting (and concepts can indeed be divorced from one another)... yeah. I don't know how to end this edit.
    When I understood these types,if everyone know who they really are, I firmly believe the "type slapfighting" is inevitable...

  9. #169
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    Some are focussing on "certain light" whilst others are focussing on evaluating "exciting". Therein lies the sticky point. To me, those two juxtapose each other in such a way that I have to choose to give one more weight than the other in deciding how to respond to the question. I then focus on "exciting" rather than "certain light". Exciting does connote pleasure, to some degree at least, and thus leads me to evaluate the question from the perspective of taking pleasure from the subject of human suffering. It's not about taking a moral position so much as which aspect of the question is more difficult to reconcile with internal belief.
    Yeah. I know. You and everyone else read the sentence wrong.

    Discussing how much less than perfect nuclear war is, is fine. In context though, point: missed. I know, right? How could that possibly happen? It's not like different priorities and perceptions exist, is it?


    There wasn't an argument, btw, about it being Si vs Ni. I didn't argue. I stated. Enthusiastically. And reasserted several times, while adding in suggestive explanatory outlines. IT"D BE STUPID TO ASSERT INDIVIDUAL FUNCTIONS CONTROLLING PEOPLE TO THAT EXTENT, WOULDN"T IT! It'd be alarmingly reductionist.

    However, I'd be willing to bet a dollar that heavy on the side of people who got outraged was a focus on "nuclear war" in its concrete image terms, with those terms understood to NOT admit division of images into any category other than the physical (the factual, the concrete, the holistically realistic). Those persons getting outraged without Si present in their mental clown suit were doing so for god only knows what reason, but if that proves Si people don't do Si, then perhaps we shouldn't believe typology after all.


    There's an intensity to the conservatism here.... it is both frustrating and uniquely exciting. If Jung was right, it should be nearly impossible for a person to see themselves from the outside. If everyone knew entirely how their own minds worked, Jung would be wrong.

    Meanwhile, gaah, you guys, grow your conceptual schemes a little.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  10. #170
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    I spent my entire formative experience with constant references to nuclear war, both political and artistic; when I was in high school some of my older friends hung out at a place called The Fallout Shelter.

    I know all of the songs about the Cold War, and it had a huge impact on my personality, to be such an impersonal world event.

    It was clearly impressed upon me by someone or something that this wasn't funny, probably the least funny thing possible, and this was real life.

    You can't tell people they're weird because they were traumatized as children by U.S. and Soviet propaganda, and the cultural reactions to that propaganda, and then as an adolescent and an adult found sufficient information to prove that yes, all of my worst fears are real, in fact nuclear destruction is even worse than what I imagined, when I see photos from Chernobyl.
    I grew up with all these influences as well, but it didn't traumatize me, or impact my personality much. The reverse is more true, in that my personality shaped how I processed and viewed events. I suspect the same is true for you. We can see the same thing, but interpret and respond to it very differently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    Now get off your high horse and acknowledge that there's an INTJ in this thread that used Te better than you did to address this problem.
    But there is also at least one INFP agreeing with Kalach. Not everyone with a given type will have the same opinion; we are not groups of paper dolls, cut on the same template.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    Of course fantasy has value. I just do not think that nuclear war has any good qualities for fantasy, since it destroys everything I hold dear, including my life and the life of other humans I love, humans I am indifferent to who are innocent, and also the existence of other living things such as plants and animals.

    The nuclear war scenario is not fun or funny to me in any way. There would be so much suffering, human and animal, that I can't justify it.
    How about asteroid impacts? Global greenhouse effects rendering much of the earth inhabitable? New viruses that kill large segments of the population? Even alien invasions? All of these scenarios involve the destruction of many of the things you mention. Are they more acceptable fodder for fantasy, perhaps because they lack human agency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    Even when I watch horror movies, I like movies about killers with interesting psychological profiles, where there are specific victims, or people can get away, or there's just a supernatural element.

    Nuclear war is too random, too wide-spread, and too destructive to the undeserving. It is effectively the end of the world, and even in cases when it is not the end of the world, the suffering is too on-going and distributed too long-range.

    This is called Fi. Deal with it.
    It is also called personal preference. Some people have no stomach for horror movies, and find fiction about individual killers, eg. serial killers, up-close-and-personal to be too creepy. It is silly to criticise people for what comes down to a matter of taste.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    I think about the eco-system, and I don't like the idea of large groups of innocent people suffering. I learned to stop watching the news because it bothered me so much, and the only other option is to become desensitized to the point of some of the unfortunate members of this thread.
    I don't like the idea of senseless suffering any more than you, but no amount of hypothetical consideration of destructive events on my part is going to precipitate a nuclear war. Moreover, if one is unable to distance oneself from the emotional response produced in a crisis situation, it can be more difficult to respond constructively.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    I really don't care what you think my type is, but I'm not going to sit here and let you lie to people on this forum about Ni being "what if," because it isn't.
    It may be easier to think of Ni in terns of "if . . . then . . . ". As in: if we had a nuclear war, then this is what would happen. Ni envisions a single integrated answer to the Ne open-ended question, all of it hypothetical, impersonal, and separated from any moral considerations.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Similar Threads

  1. With the best will in the world, is will enough, can it be sustained?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-16-2012, 07:39 AM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-28-2012, 05:26 PM
  3. Put your type in the best light
    By Laurie in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-08-2010, 07:26 PM
  4. So there's a nuclear war...
    By Langrenus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-05-2007, 10:49 AM
  5. Pick up groups in MMORPGs (or just WoW and guild wars)
    By Zergling in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2007, 01:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO