User Tag List

First 8910

Results 91 to 98 of 98

  1. #91
    Join Date
    May 2009
    6w7 sx
    SEE Fi


    Quote Originally Posted by CrystalViolet View Post
    Why the tone? It was meant with the best of intentions, as I was interested in the topic, and interested in what you had to say, without your histrionics, which were threatening drown out the debate.

    Don't bother replying to this, I have you on ignore as you are primed for a fight. It's shame because you are good value when you don't have that huge chip on your shoulder.

    At least you are entertaining in this mood, I'll give that.
    lol this is hilarious!!!111

    why the tone? Because I knew when you said take it back a notch you were referring to what you perceive to be "my histrionics"...that you now openly admit when confronted

    passive aggression is so transparent to me. I hate it more than most things in daily life, I see it as an insiduouly dishonest way of being an asshole while trying to make the other person look bad, and keep lying to yourself that you were in the right.

    That's why Im drawn to direct people, and even those who are openly assholes so I don't have to deal with this self-righteous b.s.

    Pro tip: if you want to condescendingly play kindergarten teacher or amateur moderator do it privately via rep or pm instead of presuming people want your passive aggressive moral correction in public, its a way to maintain a level of respect.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    May 2009
    6w7 sx
    SEE Fi


    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Tolerance does not mean changing your personal beliefs. It does mean coexisting peacefully with people whose beliefs are different. In other words, treating the gay couple next door with courtesy and fairness even if you disagree with gay unions. We cannot legislate or force our beliefs on others, we can only place requirements on actions. Sometimes beliefs follow actions, as when someone comes to see gay relationships in a different light after gaining more direct experience with gay couples. This can only evolve on its own, though.

    In principle I agree. The sticking point is just how far this basic framework reaches. What laws must the private institutions hold to? Child labor restrictions? No racial/gender/nationality/gay discrimination? OSHA safety rules? Building codes? Must they pay minimum wage, or even deduct taxes/FICA contributions? Especially when it comes to religious organizations, it is no longer just a clash of cultures or worldviews, but runs into the separation of church and state. We have had some discussions about French Muslims, for instance. Just as they must find a way to express their culture within the framework of French laws, U.S. Christians must stay within U.S. laws. The distinction becomes especially blurred when a private, often a religious, organization is in the position of providing a public service, as through Pres Bush's "Faith-based initiative".

    So do I. In the melting pot, every constituent part loses its individual identity, and the whole becomes some homogeneous substance. In the mosaic, each piece is identifiable as an individual, but notice: each must be cut sometimes to fit into a good place in the overall design. Hence the compromise of surrendering or revising some parts of your culture (e.g. learning a new language) while retaining others (preferences in food, home decor, etc).

    Yes, tolerance is a means, a practice, much like civility. A means can itself be an end, though. Consider literacy. Reading and writing are means of communication, enabling people to share and store information. For someone lacking this skill, literacy becomes a goal.

    Did the girl assume she would be accepted as she was, or did she know she would be going against established custom? In short, did she fail to adapt out of ignorance, or choice? Conflicts like this arise as much from faulty assumption (that everyone will act like us) as from deliberate stubbornness.

    If the nudist girl had landed in Alaska, it wouldn't have taken her long to figure out that clothing definitely makes sense. Social constraints can be much less compelling. I suppose we are back at Te vs. Fe judgment.
    agreed. And does this practically make sense tends to be how I think, if I am not operating by my own Fi. Social compulsion makes sense to me when and only when its pragmatic.

    And my argument is that tolerance as an end goal unto itself can be pushed to a point that it no longer necessarily makes pragmatic sense, but is simply followed bc it is understood to be socially correct.
    ...and that is what I question

  3. #93
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Yes, tolerance is a means, a practice, much like civility. A means can itself be an end, though. Consider literacy. Reading and writing are means of communication, enabling people to share and store information. For someone lacking this skill, literacy becomes a goal.
    Whether tolerance itself can be considered an end is, I think, conditional on other factors.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  4. #94
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by Blank View Post
    Or you can make the comma after well into a semi-colon~!

    /English major

    */English Major

  5. #95
    Meat Tornado DiscoBiscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009


    I see oppressive tolerance here as well Marm.

    I would have posted more substantively earlier, but I didn't want to get roped into the whole situation.
    Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
    - Edmund Burke

    8w9 sx/so

  6. #96
    . Blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    */English Major
    I would be inclined to disagree with you.

    Do not capitalize major areas of study, unless referring to a language:

    She is studying economics and French.
    Ti = 19 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Te = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ne = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fi = 15 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Si = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ni = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Se = 11[][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fe = 0

    Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
    Man got to sit and wonder why, why, why;
    Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
    Man got to tell himself he understand

  7. #97
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012


    Simply if you want to change someone's mind or perception about something then you need to convince them and they need to do the rest themselves. But what you cant do is force them or enforce a mindset of consideration towards something just because it is 'right' or 'nice'.

    Look at racism, all the current social environment of tolerism did was push it underground, so that it builds like a pus-filled wound and then seeps out all over the place like on the internet. People cannot help but notice what they see as double-standards or discrepancies in what so called 'tolerance' wishes to bring about. Of course sometimes such people are completely wrong and their perception is based on a bias of information subject to their observations.

    But there is often a valid point in there as well.

    As a child I was given the luxury of choice, no one told me racism was wrong or right. I was allowed to choose it for myself, (although there will always be some external influences and only a naive fool would say otherwise but they were not strong indoctrinations), but I came to the conclusion over time that racism was wrong in a value driven way because it cannot be accurate or fair to judge someone solely on one aspect of their being like that. Especially to apply a series of pre-conceived ideas of how that person would act because of it.

    However it was never and will never be a crusade of mine. For me it is dripping water on a stone, you cant just force people to accept a mindset they dont have. If people are racist of mind then that is their prerogative, if you wish to change it do so with intelligent argument and convince them. But dont try to bring about a socially enforced mindset that follows you around like an old woman tapping you on the shoulder and reminding you of the past.

    In the formal enviroment of the workplace and in shopping etc... of course it should be illegal to refuse either commerce or jobs just because of racial appearance or background. But people shouldn't have to enforce it in the informal setting of the rest of life.

    You dont have to like those opinions of course, but in this country people have actually been arrested for doing something like posting racist tweets. To me that is nothing short of facism. I dont like the tweets and I dont support them, but to arrest someone for them? Why not simply remove them from the site and moderators there can ban the person if they so wish based on their own site rules?

    It's a dangerous prosecution which uses emotional trauma from verbal comments as it's basis. And it sets a dangerous precedent.

    Unfortunately such a position is usually held by those who are upset that their views are now more readily challenged. Saying something and receiving a response is not what im talking about and there is no problem with that in day to day life.

    But if someone who did not hold those views was to mention it, he or she would br drowned out by those who did and those who do so for the wrong reasons, an example of which is above.

    My problem lies entirely within an official enforcement of thinking or feeling something and how people can only do that and hold no other view outward or inward.
    This does not mean of course that we should dismiss crimes that are racially motivated, but it also doesn't mean that we need to suddenly turn everything into a discussion about race over the problem of the crime itself, nor is it a justification for prejudicial views, but then again that is my own opinion; this is the point.

    For myself ive always been one for individual criteria, for me fairness or equality means that each person has the right to be judged in the same way, based on the same signals and traits. How they walk, they expression, their clothes, their mannerisms, their idiosyncracies, their views and so on. I feel no obligation to go out of my way to help or be nicer to someone of a different skin colour, but I do see an obligation to go out of my way to help or be nice to those individuals who I like or have an affinity for, this is the realm of personal bias, but it is one no one can deny or escape. Also I do note differences in skin colour or facial attributes, but that doesn't mean I make a judgement about it or based on it. I just think it is idiotic to say such things as 'colourblind'.

    Im also talking from all angles here as well, not just white people towards others.

    Incidentally this entire essay of a post is actually applicable to anything, not just race but I used such a subject because it is the most obvious and prevelant.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  8. #98
    Senior Member Vilku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012


    ive reached the conclusion, tolerance is the most illogical moral meme of twenty first century.

    why? lets say you have person with Se + Fe and a person with Fi + Si..
    fi si believes the other is responsible for controlling their feelings, and then BANG! out of nowhere, for no apparent reason the fe + se user physically assaults si fi user due misinterpreting a smile incorrectly.

    well.. in finland that justifies it cause se fe felt threatened, therefore his actions, even if with permanent injuries are perfectly justified.
    and for an si fi user, the organ which got damage might hold the only reason they live for, say, if the person is a passionate musician and you lost ability to sing properly.

    well this happened to me, and after six months im not having that much trouble swallowing anymore... but my ability to voice act and sing has suffered, and not fully recovered. as it just happens, voice acting is the only passion which has allowed me to keep surviving for many years, and it takes one idiot + morally screwed society to take it from me?

    morality is science, saying otherwise will demise lives of many innocents.
    just cause some book says how its predetermined is the reason why this individual didnt even reckon his action at any point, as he knew there are no penalties for assaulting when you poses an excuse.

    if there are more se + fe users, that means its literally illegal to be fi si user as they se fe's set the moral standards, and as such necessity of psychological study and reformation of laws is absolute necessity.
    what is supposed to be obvious only cause for majority it is, doesnt mean it ever will be for me especially as i simply dont experience what they do, and as such poses natural barrier of understanding the animalistic aggression rules which shape laws.

Similar Threads

  1. ESTP vs ENTP - the value system
    By nanook in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 04-09-2009, 10:14 AM
  2. The Post-Secular as the Post-1968 Generation
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-23-2008, 03:17 PM
  3. The Iron Man Fallacy
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-14-2008, 05:29 AM
  4. The Nature of Values
    By Kiddo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 06-22-2008, 02:42 PM
  5. [MBTItm] NF as the quintessential confidant.
    By Cypocalypse in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-31-2008, 04:50 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