User Tag List

First 91011121321 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 221

  1. #101
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft View Post
    I think I see your point and I agree. The problem with values is that if we try to make it more consistent, people get offended. Must the listeners adapt or must the speaker change his form of language?
    or it would be a fucking good idea if the speaker had said this in a thread that wasn't a memorial thread!
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  2. #102
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    this whole conversation reminds me of this thread

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ent-minds.html
    Yes we are dealing with two different minds, the Rational and the Sympathetic:
    To show how these two minds work, let us place them within the dilemma of a familiar story. Here is the parable of the lost sheep from the Gospel of St. Matthew: "If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray."

    This parable is the product of an eminently sympathetic mind, but for the moment that need not distract us. The dilemma is practical enough, and we can see readily how the two kinds of mind would deal with it.

    The rationalist, we may be sure, has a hundred sheep because he has a plan for that many. The one who has gone astray has escaped not only from the flock but also from the plan. That this particular sheep should stray off in this particular place at this particular time, though it is perfectly in keeping with the nature of sheep and the nature of the world, is not at all in keeping with a rational plan. What is to be done? Well, it certainly would not be rational to leave ninety and nine, exposed as they would then be to further whims of nature, in order to search for the one. Wouldn't it be best to consider the lost sheep a "trade-off" for the safety of the ninety-nine? Having thus agreed to his loss, the doctrinaire rationalist would then work his way through a series of reasonable questions. What would be an "acceptable risk"? What would be an "acceptable loss"? Would it not be good to do some experiments to determine how often sheep may be expected to get lost? If one sheep is likely to get lost every so often, then would it not be better to have perhaps 110 sheep? Or should one insure the flock against such expectable losses? The annual insurance premium would equal the market value of how many sheep? What is likely to be the cost of the labor of looking for one lost sheep after quitting time? How much time spent looking would equal the market value of the lost sheep? Should not one think of splicing a few firefly genes into one's sheep so that strayed sheep would glow in the dark? And so on.


    But (leaving aside the theological import of the parable) the shepherd is a shepherd because he embodies the Sympathetic Mind. Because he is a man of sympathy, a man devoted to the care of sheep, a man who knows the nature of sheep and of the world, the shepherd of the parable is not surprised or baffled by his problem. He does not hang back to argue over risks, trade-offs, actuarial data, or market values. He does not quibble over fractions. He goes without hesitating to hunt for the lost sheep because he has committed himself to the care of the whole hundred, because he understands his work as the fulfillment of his whole trust, because he loves the sheep, and because he knows or imagines what it is to be lost. He does what he does on behalf of the whole flock because he wants to preserve himself as a whole shepherd.

    He also does what he does because he had a particular affection for that particular sheep. To the Rational Mind, all sheep are the same; any one is the same as any other. They are interchangeable, like coins or machine parts or members of "the work force." To the Sympathetic Mind, each one is different from every other. Each one is an individual whose value is never entirely reducible to market value.

    The Rational Mind can and will rationalize any trade-off. The Sympathetic Mind can rationalize none. Thus, we have not only the parable of the ninety and nine, but also the Buddhist vow to save all sentient beings. The parable and the vow are utterly alien to the rationalism of modern science, politics, and industry. To the Rational Mind, they "don't make sense" because they deal with the hardship and risk merely by acknowledgment and acceptance. Their very point is to require a human being's suffering to involve itself in the suffering of other creatures, including that of other human beings.
    --Wendell Berry, "Two Minds".

    And for the record, Mr. Berry is a staunch adovcate of protecting the enviroment, but does so while adhering to the moral principle of the sanctity of life. Much of your argument stems from the "Rational mind" whose mentality is largely responsible for the destruction of the enviroment in the first place.

  3. #103
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    its 11pm and im getting bit tired and if i continue this i will be replying all night and there are so many people replying back to me that i wont be able to reply all of them unless i get another computer and learn to use it same time as this one
    One more question: are you happy that at least 1/5 of the crops in Russia were destroyed this summer, making the price of wheat go up? Will you be happy when people starve?

    I'm just wondering who we're preserving the world for here, should we kill all Americans so people in other countries can thrive? Or is this about you, INTP, selectively picking and choosing who should die so that *your* life will be more comfortable?

  4. #104
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    The irony is that I do see the basis of your point, I am VERY liberal, but the fact that you're making this about ALL American lives being worth more dead than people from Iraq being dead makes your valid points become ridiculous. Your bizarre generalizations about America (here's a hint: those supposedly "average" people who you see on television or movies from the U.S. are actually upper-middle class to wealthy. The majority of us don't live that way, not even close) and the fact that you think because we disagree with what you're saying at all means that we don't care about the environment or resources or war or Muslims, or we don't comprehend the gravity of other deaths world wide, makes your standpoint exaggerated and hyperbolic...not to mention vaguely genocidal.
    you dont really get my point if you say that. added to that you dont really get my point, you try to add thoughts in what i say. you think you understand my point because you change the things that dont say directly and think what i say directly you spice up with the things you make up about what i dont say.
    dunno if that makes any sense in my imperfect english
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  5. #105
    Senior Member Phoenix_400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    I would never say that it's fine for people to die because of their environmental impact... Free birth control and zoning restrictions and preventing the developing countries from burning a shit-ton of coal should be a greater concern
    Free birth control (condoms) are available at most health clinics these days. Problem is most of the people today don't have the self-control to actual use it.

    As for the coal burning, think of all the green energy plans they're trying to put into place. With many 3rd world countries improving their way of living and increasing their resource consumption, it would be far more efficient to start enacting these green energy plans in those countries so its coming in on the ground floor. More developed countries have been operating for too long on an infrastructure based on oil. Starting with green energy right off the bat goes a lot faster and is less costly in the long run than trying to transition from one energy infrastructure to another. The transition still needs to happen, but in the less developed countries it really is a case of "build it right the 1st time instead of having to go back and correct all the problems"
    "People in glass houses shouldn't use Windex when living near bird sanctuaries."- myself

    "We are never alone my friend. We are constantly in the company of victories, losses, strengths and weaknesses. Make no mistake, life is war...and war is hell. Those who fight the hardest will suffer the most...but that's what you have to do: Fight. As long as you're feeling pain, then there's hope...because only the dead do not suffer." -RD Metcalf
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  6. #106
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix_400 View Post
    Free birth control (condoms) are available at most health clinics these days. Problem is most of the people today don't have the self-control to actual use it.
    free bc pills would be a more effective approach since males are less likely to face the consequences of unprotected sex than females are in most of the world... why put on a condom when YOU can't get knocked up and nobody's going to force you to pay child support?

    As for the coal burning, think of all the green energy plans they're trying to put into place. With many 3rd world countries improving their way of living and increasing their resource consumption, it would be far more efficient to start enacting these green energy plans in those countries so its coming in on the ground floor. More developed countries have been operating for too long on an infrastructure based on oil. Starting with green energy right off the bat goes a lot faster and less costly than trying to transition from one energy infrastructure to another.
    yes, this is true... especially in the countries with very large populations... impliment it in the new countries first and by the time you've finished up with that you should be efficient and cheap enough that even the developed countries should see some definite incentives to switching over
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  7. #107
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    One more question: are you happy that at least 1/5 of the crops in Russia were destroyed this summer, making the price of wheat go up? Will you be happy when people starve?

    I'm just wondering who we're preserving the world for here, should we kill all Americans so people in other countries can thrive? Or is this about you, INTP, selectively picking and choosing who should die so that *your* life will be more comfortable?
    i dont think starving people is the right way of getting rid of them because they will suffer too much in that.

    another example of you not getting my point. like i said earlier, americans arent the problem, they are just a part of the problem(one of the biggest, but not the only big part). since this attack was aimed as americans im using them as example

    im not thinking about myself in this matter, even if people would destroy the world i dont think it would start to effect in my lifetime. im thinking about the future generations of humans and animals and their surviving and well being

    edit.
    but thinking about it, it might be a good thing in the long run that those crops were destroyed since they were destroyed by fire. and this kind of burning of vegetation will renew the ground and it will produce bigger crops later and it will be able to crop longer. im not saying that it is a good thing even tho i speculate like this, but it might come off better this way in the long run
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  8. #108
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    i dont think starving people is the right way of getting rid of them because they will suffer too much in that.

    another example of you not getting my point. like i said earlier, americans arent the problem, they are just a part of the problem(one of the biggest, but not the only big part). since this attack was aimed as americans im using them as example

    im not thinking about myself in this matter, even if people would destroy the world i dont think it would start to effect in my lifetime. im thinking about the future generations of humans and animals and their surviving and well being
    You're right - starving people is inhumane. Let's send them to the gas chamber to "get rid of them" instead.

    I'm glad you're concerned about future generations of humans and animals surviving but wish death upon the people that are here. Tell me - do you believe that the future people will be of stronger moral fiber? Will they be better people more deserving of life? I'm glad that living breathing Americans are just examples to you rather than human beings, but that imaginary future people win your sympathy.

    Besides, it's not like we're not concerned about the environment just because we don't agree with your methods.

  9. #109
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    im thinking about the future generations of humans and animals and their surviving and well being
    Do you think the majority of humans care about future generations? Do you care?

  10. #110
    Senior Member Phoenix_400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    free bc pills would be a more effective approach since males are less likely to face the consequences of unprotected sex than females are in most of the world... why put on a condom when YOU can't get knocked up and nobody's going to force you to pay child support?
    I agree on that to a point. How many younger people do you know that have the responsibility to take the pills everyday as they're supposed to? There's also the point that women don't HAVE to have sex if their guy wants it. I've got plenty of female friends who made the guy go out to the store to buy condoms or absolutely refused him sex unless he wore one. There really is a lack of personal responsibility in the world today.
    "People in glass houses shouldn't use Windex when living near bird sanctuaries."- myself

    "We are never alone my friend. We are constantly in the company of victories, losses, strengths and weaknesses. Make no mistake, life is war...and war is hell. Those who fight the hardest will suffer the most...but that's what you have to do: Fight. As long as you're feeling pain, then there's hope...because only the dead do not suffer." -RD Metcalf
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Similar Threads

  1. How tall would 16 buildings need to be to house the world's population? (split)
    By EcK in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 08-11-2015, 05:38 PM
  2. What is truth (split from post poll)
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 01-27-2013, 09:47 AM
  3. Sept. 11, 2001
    By BRMC117 in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 09-14-2010, 03:49 AM
  4. Iran's Ahmadinejad: Sept. 11 attacks a 'big lie'
    By Scott N Denver in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 03-12-2010, 04:38 PM
  5. Locus of Control
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-18-2009, 12:48 AM

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