[MBTI General] The moment you realize there's no dialogue possible

[tcda]

Maybe you should stop reading more into shit than is said? I told you why Darwin would be ashamed of you (a joke, btw), you asked why, I gave a reason why.

When you make a joke on a forum to someone who doesn'tknow you, maybe indicate it as a joke next time?

You're reading way more shit into it than was stated (I think cuz you don't know how to refute this point):

What is the point you want me to refute?

- agree with him 100% ????
- rejecting the theory of evolution ????

^ where are you getting such bullshit from that one line I said? Hyperbolic, you, stop it.

Normally when you state in a public debate "Darwin would be ashamed of you", it implies the other person is negating the law of evolution, and not another marginal issue which Darwin argued for, some aspects of which are still disputed.

You know what, let's hear you out......why isn't competition a "natural law"? Let's hear your arguments.

Well what I was referring to in my original post was the fact that primitive communist societies existed which were based on solidarity and co-operation between members of the tribe in order to collectively strengthen it against external threats.

Without wishing to idealize those socieities (I in no way do), it simply shows that human societies are not inherently based on competition between individals to climb above one naother in wealth and status, but can be based on solidarity in order to defeat external or natural obstacles to wellbeing.

You're gonna have to prove how competition is not (and has not been) inherent in human beings and society. I.e., not a "natural law"

I can't prove a negative can I?

I did not say competition is something human beings have no natural capacity for, I said it's not a law that all human societies have to be based on competition between individuals, as primitive communist societies show.

This is what you've brought the argument down to? My opinion versus yours?
Pathetic. You're grasping at straws.

No, my point was that despite all your pretentious name-dropping and appeals to "sociology", "anthropology" and "biology", you in fact ignored that within all those fields, the things you are arguing for are disputed.

Yes, communism. And, your point doesn't disprove mine. Communism is to be the final step aimed to be achieved by a society. It's a process. Different systems have aimed to get there, aimed to practice it (did they practice it 100% according to "formula"? No, and I never claimed that)....all I claimed was that they failed. And, gave a reason why. It intrinsically negates competition. And, given that competition is one of the two main vehicles of motivation in humans, that's why. And, there's always been someone in "power"/pulling the puppet strings....which is kinda a farce to Marxist theory. And, kinda proves my point

Right, but this is just your opinion. Because in fact Marxism presupposes a revolution in the advanced countries in order for socialism and later communism to be successfully built, so the fact that it "failed" in Russia is a moot point. Marx and Engels never thought Russia would have a revolution before Germany, and Lenin never thought socialism could be reached in Russia until there was a revoltion in Germany. From 1917 until hsi death he understood it as a period of "state capitalism" and that socialism could only be built ont he back of successful revolutions in western Europe (which were a genuine historical possibility had it not been for the poor organization of the German revolution).

See you cannot claim to have disprove a Marxism "in practice" until the conditions under which it claimed it could successfully introduce socialism were met. They have not been yet.

I am not claiming to have proved Marxism to you I am just pointing to your 1.)ignorance or 2.)Willfull intelelctual dishonesty on this issue.

Regarding "someone always being in pwoer", yes I've read the post-modernists too. Can you refrain from just stating your religious beliefs at me though - I don't accept them just because you state them at me.

 

[Qre:us]

When you make a joke on a forum to someone who doesn'tknow you, maybe indicate it as a joke next time?



What is the point you want me to refute?



Normally when you state in a public debate "Darwin would be ashamed of you", it implies the other person is negating the law of evolution, and not another marginal issue which Darwin argued for, some aspects of which are still disputed.

Could it be that a core theory of Darwin's stood in stark contrast to what your position was, hence, "Darwin would be ashamed of you", i.e., sexual selection? You just interpreted it your way, and took offense. The point about you not being able to refute was that, indeed the idea of competition was relevant to a theory of Darwin's, and I gave evidence...so, rather than being able to counter, you decided to take my joke on your fanciful tangent.



I don't need to appeal to your sentiments to figure out when to, and when not to, drop my jokes.

Well what I was referring to in my original post was the fact that primitive communist societies existed which were based on solidarity and co-operation between members of the tribe in order to collectively strengthen it against external threats.

Like what? Hunter-gatherers? And, that they displayed no inclination of this concept of competition?

Without wishing to idealize those socieities (I in no way do), it simply shows that human societies are not inherently based on competition between individals to climb above one naother in wealth and status, but can be based on solidarity in order to defeat external or natural obstacles to wellbeing.

Do human societies, in general, exist in isolation?

I can't prove a negative can I?

Of course you can, as every negative entails a positive. Thus, you can prove its opposite.

I.e., by proving that there was only purely cooperation within, and, amongst humans.

I did not say competition is something human beings have no natural capacity for, I said it's not a law that all human societies have to be based on competition between individuals, as primitive communist societies show.

Yeah, first you have to show that these primitive societies did not engage in competition in any form, e.g., between each other. Thus, making your case for "no natural law" of competition.

No, my point was that despite all your pretentious name-dropping and appeals to "sociology", "anthropology" and "biology", you in fact ignored that within all those fields, the things you are arguing for are disputed.

Show me where? Remember, unlike your short-sightedness, I said there was both cooperation AND competition.

See you cannot claim to have disprove a Marxism "in practice" until the conditions under which it claimed it could successfully introduce socialism were met. They have not been yet.

And, my point was that there never will be an ideal time, in reality, to make Marxist theory into practice. Those who tried, in whatever way they interpreted it, failed.

I am not claiming to have proved Marxism to you I am just pointing to your 1.)ignorance or 2.)Willfull intelelctual dishonesty on this issue.

Where am I willfully intellecutually dishonest? You not understanding my point, does not prove shit.

Regarding "someone always being in pwoer", yes I've read the post-modernists too. Can you refrain from just stating your religious beliefs at me though - I don't accept them just because you state them at me.

Do not practice willful intellectual dishonesty by claiming things to be my religious beliefs. If it was a joke, then, you should practice what you preach about when and how to make jokes.

 

[tcda]

Could it be that a core theory of Darwin's stood in stark contrast to what your position was, hence, "Darwin would be ashamed of you", i.e., sexual selection? You just interpreted it your way, and took offense. The point about you not being able to refute was that, indeed the idea of competition was relevant to a theory of Darwin's, and I gave evidence...so, rather than being able to counter, you decided to take my joke on your fanciful tangent.

But the whole theory of sexual selection is not based ont he premise of competition, is it? This is why you need to be more specific.

I don't need to appeal to your sentiments to figure out when to, and when not to, drop my jokes.

Where did I ask you to appeal to my sentiments? I'm simply pointing out that you can hardly expect me to know when you are joking or not unless you indicate. I don't reallt see what's controversial about this, but whatever.

Like what? Hunter-gatherers? And, that they displayed no inclination of this concept of competition?

Who said anything about "no inclination"? We're talking about the laws which govern a social system not about the wide range of possible emotions a human may feel.

Do human societies, in general, exist in isolation?

No. Which is why I clearly stated that the primitive communism example is not a perfect one. It simply shows that a society can run on the basis of internal solidarity in order to overcome external obstacles. I did not say they were in all ways "proof" of the viability of future communism

For example the situation was very different: An industrialized communist society wouldn't suffer the same scarcity and need to compete against other tribes as primitive communist societies, would it? Seeing as we now have the technology to feed the whole world population for example.

Of course you can, as every negative entails a positive. Thus, you can prove its opposite.

I haven't claimed to prove the opposite anywhere, I simply refuted your deterministic claims.

I.e., by proving that there was only purely cooperation within, and, amongst humans.

I never claimed this though. Anywhere. Ever.

Show me where? Remember, unlike your short-sightedness, I said there was both cooperation AND competition.

Clearly. However there is no "natural law" saying socieities have to be governed by the principle of competition. This has been my only point throughout.

And, my point was that there never will be an ideal time, in reality, to make Marxist theory into practice. Those who tried, in whatever way they interpreted it, failed.

Nobody is asking for an ideal time.

And there is no "whatever way they itnerpreted it", about it. This is the worst kind of postmodernism. Marx and Engels were clear that communism must be implemented globally, and could not be built by the backwards countries without revolution in the industrialized coutnries

There is no way that Stalinism or Maoism or Titoism were just a "different interpretation" of Marxism. They explicitly rejected the fundamentals of Marxism.

So in fact all you are telling me is, that Russia under Lenin wasn't able to build socialism without revolution in Germany, which Lenin agreed with, and so do I. Likewise, you're telling me that the german revolutionw as defeated. Again, I can't dispute that.

However I don't see how you can deduce from this that Marxism is impossible. The fact that we haven't had a successful revolution int he west so far, makes it impossible?

But what about all the hsitorical tendencies towards revolution in the West? The German bourgeosiie in 1919 were certainly scared enough of it. You can tell me now its impossible, but then this would make all the repression they unleashed upon the Spartacist Uprising, a complete waste of time!

What a shame they didn't have you guiding them back then, and they wouldn't have wasted all that effort crushign a revolution which was doomed to failure from the beginning!

Do not practice willful intellectual dishonesty by claiming things to be my religious beliefs. If it was a joke, then, you should practice what you preach about when and how to make jokes

I'm just making a sarcastic reference to the metaphysical nature of post-modernist ideas about "power".

 

[Qre:us]

But the whole theory of sexual selection is not based ont he premise of competition, is it?

Did I say it was?

This is why you need to be more specific.

Or, if you wanted clarification, specifics, you ask. I will not be specific (as I cannot know the level of specificity for each and every person I'm responding to, durr!), just to avoid you making hyperbolic claims from a statement of mine. I expect you to monitor that action yourself, by asking for further clarifications, if you so desire. Or if I see you are misinterpreting my point, tell you how and why you are doing so, and how it's irrelevant to my point.

All I can do is be precise in what little I do say.

Unlike you, see below:
***

Your original statement, in response to this point of murk's:

Talking to a woman about the merits of competition, she is adamantly opposed to it. She presents me a situation from her experiences thinking it an argument against competition: A class of Inuits who refuse to answer questions so as not to demonstrate superiority over their classmates.

^ is there even a hint that that example was talking about the social system/governance of Inuit society as a whole? Or, merely about Inuits take on "competition"?

Her example seems a good one of why competition is not a "natural law" of human society as many pseudo-philosophers claim.

You said "a natural law" of human society. Not, the natural law of [governing] human society.

Not every society is based on competition, and, I never disputed that. Nor did I think that you meant only the governance (politics) of a social system.

However, competition is, in different forms, a natural "law" of human society (hence, my first example to you, Darwin/sexual selection). Meaning, it is universal - i.e., law of nature/"natural law".

You should be more specific/precise.

And, when you saw that my example of Sexual Selection/Darwin's theory was not relevant to your original point about simply meaning the governance of a social system [as you now later claim is what you originally intended :rolli:], you should have clarified for me right then and there, rather than a whole segment of irrelevant complaint of how you think I misinterpreted what you think about Darwin's theory. A simple, "huh, how does Darwin's sexual selection/competition even relate to my point of governance of a social system?" would have been a major clue.

Who said anything about "no inclination"? We're talking about the laws which govern a social system not about the wide range of possible emotions a human may feel.

Do you know what natural law means?

Laws of Nature (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It's not simply about the governance of a social system. You didn't specify that you were talking only of the governance of a social system.

Your bolded below.....see your original point which sparked our discussion, and then see above my points.

No. Which is why I clearly stated that the primitive communism example is not a perfect one. It simply shows that a society can run on the basis of internal solidarity in order to overcome external obstacles. I did not say they were in all ways "proof" of the viability of future communism

For example the situation was very different: An industrialized communist society wouldn't suffer the same scarcity and need to compete against other tribes as primitive communist societies, would it? Seeing as we now have the technology to feed the whole world population for example.


I haven't claimed to prove the opposite anywhere, I simply refuted your deterministic claims.



I never claimed this though. Anywhere. Ever.



Clearly. However there is no "natural law" saying socieities have to be governed by the principle of competition. This has been my only point throughout.



Nobody is asking for an ideal time.

And there is no "whatever way they itnerpreted it", about it. This is the worst kind of postmodernism. Marx and Engels were clear that communism must be implemented globally, and could not be built by the backwards countries without revolution in the industrialized coutnries

There is no way that Stalinism or Maoism or Titoism were just a "different interpretation" of Marxism. They explicitly rejected the fundamentals of Marxism.

So in fact all you are telling me is, that Russia under Lenin wasn't able to build socialism without revolution in Germany, which Lenin agreed with, and so do I. Likewise, you're telling me that the german revolutionw as defeated. Again, I can't dispute that.

However I don't see how you can deduce from this that Marxism is impossible. The fact that we haven't had a successful revolution int he west so far, makes it impossible?

But what about all the hsitorical tendencies towards revolution in the West? The German bourgeosiie in 1919 were certainly scared enough of it. You can tell me now its impossible, but then this would make all the repression they unleashed upon the Spartacist Uprising, a complete waste of time!

What a shame they didn't have you guiding them back then, and they wouldn't have wasted all that effort crushign a revolution which was doomed to failure from the beginning!



I'm just making a sarcastic reference to the metaphysical nature of post-modernist ideas about "power".

 

[Jaguar]

An INTP-ENTP crap fest.

 

[Fecal McAngry]

I think that's basically what happens in US politics.

The two polarized factions cannot agree or acknowledge the initial premises of the other... so during elections it's merely two people screaming out their viewpoint and trying to make the other just look bad, as part of an all-out war for one side to grab power and then use it. Negotiation still occurs, but only because the system is setup in a way that sometimes you just need more support... and then people merely do trade-offs or wrangle tit-for-tat for things.

I am a former liberal. I "turned libertarian" sometime in the mid 90s. Many of the people I interact with are liberals, and have been so their entire lives--including perhaps my closest friend. I generally find political debates to be fruitless/impossible with such people--while I know and understand their premises as well as they do, they do not understand my premises or POV at all...

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

This thread is a good example of the original topic.

The humor is not lost.

 

[tcda]

Did I say it was?

No, you simply shouted "Darwin would be ashamed at you!" and claimed that "biology" "espouses" the "law of competition". And then later chucked me a Wikipedia link. In reality then, your only point was, that on one aspect of one law, which is not undisputed within biology, Darwin's opinion contradicted mine.

So in other words, your evidence didn't match your claims.

You said "a natural law" of human society. Not, the natural law of [governing] human society.

Well is there any proof that it is a natural law of human society? All you have shown me is a link whose empirical study is primarily of animals, not humans.

Not every society is based on competition, and, I never disputed that. Nor did I think that you meant only the governance (politics) of a social system.

I'm glad we agree. This is the only bit I am really interested in. Though it begs the question then of why you think Marxism is impossible.

However, competition is, in different forms, a natural "law" of human society (hence, my first example to you, Darwin/sexual selection). Meaning, it is universal - i.e., law of nature/"natural law".

But the link you gave me doesn't prove that "competition is a natural law of human society", at all. It says that one theory is in part based on that, and that its empirical study was of animals.

And, when you saw that my example of Sexual Selection/Darwinism was not relevant to your original point about simply meaning the governance of a social system, you should have clarified for me right then and there, rather than a whole segment of irrelevant complaint of how you think I misinterpreted what you think about Darwin's theory. A simple, "huh, how does Darwin's sexual selection/competition even relate to my point of governance of a social system?" would have been a major clue.

Ok so now you're going to rewrite my whole post for me? Why don't I just give you my password and be done with!?

To be honest if you are going to claim that "biology" "espouses" a "natural law" and that "Darwin would be ashamed" of a certain argument, then it's up to you to prove that, not me.

All you have showed so far is that as part of one theory, Darwin proposed "competition" as a natural law, and that msot of the supporting evidence is based on animals not humans (heh maybe I should change my username to ad nauseum)

It's not simply about the governance of a social system. You didn't specify that you were talking only of the governance of a social system.

You are right. I should have. Hopefully now we agree.

 

[Qre:us]

No, you simply shouted "Darwin would be ashamed at you!" and claimed that "biology" "espouses" the "law of competition". And then later chucked me a Wikipedia link. In reality then, your only point was, that on one aspect of one law, which is not undisputed within biology, Darwin's opinion contradicted mine.

So in other words, your evidence didn't match your claims.

Me giving one example does not mean that's the only example. Whatever, you want to corner what I said to be something it is not, practice intellectual dishonesty, keep right ahead.

Well is there any proof that it is a natural law of human society? All you have shown me is a link whose empirical study is primarily of animals, not humans.

But the link you gave me doesn't prove that "competition is a natural law of human society", at all. It says that one theory is in part based on that, and that its empirical study was of animals.

All you have showed so far is that as part of one theory, Darwin proposed "competition" as a natural law, and that msot of the supporting evidence is based on animals not humans (heh maybe I should change my username to ad nauseum)

Humans are animals.

I suggest if you're really interested to see sexual selection in humans, not just wiki links (that was just for starters/basic info, I referred you)...go to google scholar, type in "sexual selection" "humans" "competition"...and knock yourself out.

Oh, and every time you get rejected by a girl, and you see her in the arms of another dude....let one word reverberate in your mind, "competition".

I'm glad we agree. This is the only bit I am really interested in.

You are right. I should have. Hopefully now we agree.

And, this all could have been avoided if you were precise with your original point (use that Ti!), and, challenged my original direction of interpretation of your stance, as not being relevant to your "supposed" original point. (I still believe you changed your stance half-way through when you got cornered)

I'm done, as it seems your "original point" wasn't even clear in its intention by the words you chose to state it.

This thread is a good example of the original topic.

The humor is not lost.

Yup. Two different premises without mutual understanding. Yet, one argument.

 

[tcda]

Me giving one example does not mean that's the only example. Whatever, you want to corner what I said to be something it is not, practice intellectual dishonesty, keep right ahead.

So you chose to give a poor example when really there were a lot of good ones available?

Humans are animals.

Semantics. You can't study "competition" in dumb beasts and apply it to conscious beings. I thought you were also a fan of "sociology", "antrhopology" and "philosophy".

Or maybe Foucault should have based his theories on power on the behaviour of peacocks.

Oh, and every time you get rejected by a girl, and you see her in the arms of another dude....let one word reverberate in your mind, "competition".

I don't believe I said that competition doesn't exist under capitalist society. Clearly, it does. Like I said all along, I acknowledge that humans are capable of competition.

What if that guy murders that girl? Does murder then become a "law" of human society too?

And, this all could have been avoided if you were precise with your original point (use that Ti!), and, challenged my original direction of interpretation of your stance, as not being relevant to your "supposed" original point. (I still believe you changed your stance half-way through when you got cornered)

I'm done, as it seems your "original point" wasn't even what was really intended by the words you chose to state it.

I changed my stance when I got "cornered"...except that, nobody has proved this "law of competition" in humans, and it in fact seems to be very controversial.

Regardless, I can assure that what I'm really interested in, is defending the possibility of a Communist society based on co-operation between individuals, and not specifically on whether or not there is a "law of competition" in the abstract sense.

 

[Totenkindly]

This thread is a good example of the original topic.
The humor is not lost.

Oh be good -- we should all be appreciative they were willing to stake their reputations to offer us a real-time example!

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

murkrow--

I don't value "value systems," because some cultures are objectively superior to other cultures. Inuit culture has yet to produce a Dante, a Galileo, a Michelangelo, or a Brunelleschi. And I'm just comparing them to a single European city.

Perhaps this has been addressed, but neither Galileo, Dante, or Michelangelo ever demonstrated the ability to survive in wind chills at -70 degrees F and lower, or the ability to take down a whale since there was no capacity to obtain food other ways. I will venture a guess that extreme survival required a kind of community effort in which competing to shine as its brightest star would be the death of all.

Objective superiority takes on a different meaning when it lies rigidly in the distant snow.

 

[professor goodstain]

murkrow--

I don't value "value systems," because some cultures are objectively superior to other cultures. Inuit culture has yet to produce a Dante, a Galileo, a Michelangelo, or a Brunelleschi. And I'm just comparing them to a single European city.

Usually I let a conversation drop if it looks like there is nothing to be learned from it.

For example, if someone is presented with an objection to a position, and instead of creatively meeting the objection, they just repeat their position, as if asserting a conclusion is the same as justifying it, then it is like, "well, I'm wasting my time."

I do like to talk to people who either know more than I do, and/or are mentally active instead of passive. Intelligence is meeting problems in a fresh, and maybe even risky way, instead of using ideas as some sort of security blanket, burying an entrenched perspective in a cocoon of words.

^ super ESTJ

idk. there are some signs of P there, imo

 

[professor goodstain]

almost forgot, if we of indo-euro descent didn't shovel all our religious/nonreligious, forced english speaking, 10 thousand year old custom killing values shit down Inuit and other native throats
they would have already had their own renaissance by now possibly even far more superior than even future visitors of earth
yes, that includes you too 'save the whalers'. get off their ass already

 

[EJCC]

This thread is a good example of the original topic.

The humor is not lost.

QFT

/argument

 

[yenom]

There is no pure right and wrong in arguments.
However, two person cannot be right at the same time, espeically two sides of view contradict each other.
I usually consider both sides of point of view (and conduct an investigation on the opposing side) on issues I am passionate about. If they do not make sense to me, I just reject it.
The purpose of the arguing is to find out the truth. If it does not help me search for the trutha and I have to waste time proving to people my point of view over and over again, then i just withdraw from the arguement. I am however the type of person who always believe I am right and have to win every arguement. I always will try to understand and assimilate what the other side is saying.

The truth however does not mean I am right and you are wrong. I never have this kind of attitude.

 

[tinkerbell]

when you've spent 3 hours in their company and they haven't drawn breath on how wonderful they are (and you're thinking - WTF)

 

[matmos]

when you've spent 3 hours in heir company and they haven't drawn breath on how wonderful they are (and you're thinking - WTF)

Oh, yes. Further: spending any time with anyone and you notice the pause when you are speaking is not being used by them to listen, but to formulate the next parry with with little regard to what you've actually said.

But your right, Tinks. It's worse when they blow their own trumpet without even the pretense of listening.

 

[tcda]

Oh, yes. Further: spending any time with anyone and you notice the pause when you are speaking is not being used by them to listen, but to formulate the next parry with with little regard to what you've actually said.

Basically, XNTP's.

 

[disregard]

When I hear the word "about" pronounced "abewt".

And "out" "ewt".

Cannot. Process.

It's the only thing I dislike about Canadian-friendly HGTV.

Well, that and nit-picky potential buyers focusing mainly on the changeable aspects of their prospective new home.