Ideology

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:49 pm

Haidt is just a gateway to Jordan Peterson. :P

Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13828
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 558 times
Been thanked: 599 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:07 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Slow down, Rocky.

Your daughter is now in the midst of a life that by American standards is pretty darn good, and by global standards is utopian. Yes, she will endure hardship and pain as she goes through life just as anyone else does, and as you are correctly teaching her, "suck it up and drive on" is a good attitude to have. But let's not get too wrapped up in the rhetoric. She's most likely going to be just fine.







LOL.....I need to bookmark this because you contradict it on a weekly basis. I have said how great of a time we live in to you so many times and you continually disagree with it...particularly when it comes to economics. I can find literally HUNDREDS of posts by you that claims there is injustice and unfairness in the world. In fact, your definition of injustice and unfairness is MUCH MUCH broader than mine. We argue about it all the time. And now you write this?

I have always said this is the best world possible -- in fact, more than just about anyone else in the politics section. That being said, it's still going to kick you in the ass. That's what this world and the people within it need to prepare for. Luckily, my post and the philosophy it refers to won't be lost on everyone.



Mountaineer Buc wrote:Humans have been avoiding suffering, struggle, and pain for millennia. The notion that they should "embrace the suck" doesn't change that, nor does that make them more virtuous for having done so.



Where in the world have I said that people should embrace the suck? I said don't run away. If you think that's embrace: 1.) it doesn't surprise me 2.) all the power to you


Sometimes I think you want to argue with me for the sake of it. You could have just given me the same reply you gave Buc2, but instead you want to pick a fight.

agreed, that's is the thing, no matter how much you try to protect someone, **** is going to happen. And if you shelter people too much, and don't let them overcome it, they don't know how to respond to the ****. Seems common sense to me. Obviously you have to be smart about it....as we teach our kids how to handle the negative in life...it's not feed them to the wolves all at once. If something has truly awful consequences, you don't let your small kid fail and suffer those consequences...you guide them as best you can and you temper the consequences if you can. but when it comes to the overprotective stuff we see helicopter parents doing all the time -- forget that...I'll let my kid fail and suffer discomfort.


All well and good except...

I see it as a founding principle of my life and I'm teaching it to my daughter.


"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"

All I said was that this is a neato saying for people to suck it up and drive on, but is Rhetorically nonsensical and in no way a whimsical insight into human existence.

"Bah gawd, I teach muh kids that tough **** happens and they're gonna have to deal"

You're masturbating. Stop it.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14813
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 679 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:15 pm

You crack me up

As I said, it is a founding principle of my life’s philosophy...as it has been across many cultures, religions and societies throughout the history of the world

It’s ok that it’s not yours. It’s not for everyone
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 7005
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 378 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:26 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:You crack me up

As I said, it is a founding principle of my life’s philosophy...as it has been across many cultures, religions and societies throughout the history of the world

It’s ok that it’s not yours. It’s not for everyone

Your founding principle has no basis in reality.

Just out of curiosity, what are the other founding principles?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14813
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 679 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:28 pm

DreadNaught wrote:Haidt is just a gateway to Jordan Peterson. :P





I certainly see great overlap in some of their ideas, but I think I’m others they are quite opposed to each other

I think Haidt doesn’t put quite the emphasis on Reason that JP does and as such isnt quite so Aristotelian
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 7005
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 378 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:30 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:You crack me up

As I said, it is a founding principle of my life’s philosophy...as it has been across many cultures, religions and societies throughout the history of the world

It’s ok that it’s not yours. It’s not for everyone

Your founding principle has no basis in reality.

Just out of curiosity, what are the other founding principles?



Lol...sure it doesn’t

I’m also certain you will think my other principles aren’t founded in your reality either ... and I’m more than ok with that
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 7005
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 378 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:35 pm

I don't believe folks like Haidt and Peterson are peddling "rhetorical nonsense". I think living your life and teaching your kids that since the society is doing well thus we'll probably be fine is a lazy way of coasting through life that could lead to nihilism.

Embracing the inevitable challenges and struggles in life and learning to overcome them teaches us what we are capable of. We further our individual development by consonantly pushing against the edges of our comfort zones, thus expanding them. In increasing our capabilities we are able to take on more responsibility in our lives. Through that constant expansion of capability and responsibility we are able to better serve those around us (starting with our family) and thus making society better as a result. It's also increased responsibility and capabilities that often provide us what we consider happiness.

If we don't do this we are basically avoiding that which makes us uncomfortable (like say asking for a raise). That pattern of behavior limits our individual capability and as a result what we could be responsible for. Who does that benefit other than a government that wants to control those aspects of your life?
Last edited by DreadNaught on Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13828
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 558 times
Been thanked: 599 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:35 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Your founding principle has no basis in reality.

Just out of curiosity, what are the other founding principles?



Lol...sure it doesn’t

I’m also certain you will think my other principles aren’t founded in your reality either ... and I’m more than ok with that

It would seem that way, wouldn't it?

What's the matter, you think my unhinged leftist philosophy is going to ruin your fundamental principles? Make a mockery of them? Try me.

It won't kill you...
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14813
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 679 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:42 pm

DreadNaught wrote:I don't believe folks like Haidt and Peterson are peddling "rhetorical nonsense". I think living your life and teaching your kids that since the society is doing well thus we'll probably be fine is a lazy way of coasting through life that could lead to nihilism.

Embracing the inevitable challenges and struggles in life and learning to overcome them teaches us what we are capable of. We further our individual development by consonantly pushing against the edges of our comfort zones, thus expanding them. In increasing our capabilities we are able to take on more responsibility in our lives. Through that constant expansion of capability and responsibility we are able to better serve those around us (starting with our family) and thus making society better as a result. It's also increased responsibility and capabilities that often provide us what we consider happiness.

If we don't do this we are basically avoiding that which makes us uncomfortable (like say asking for a raise). That pattern of behavior limits our individual capability and as a result what we could be responsible for. Who does that benefit other than a government that wants to control those aspects of your life?



That's exactly right...challenge, discomfort and overcoming fear, pain and tragedy are things that can give meaning to life because ultimately these are the things that can help lead to what Maslowe calls self-actualization (there are other things as well). In addition, it fits within much ancient Greek and Medieval Christian philosophy. This is by far the most powerful thing people like JP and Haidt have to offer this world and why they are so popular.
Last edited by Zarniwoop on Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:57 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 7005
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 378 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:43 pm

Every single person in this world deals with adversity. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is a cliche about handling diversity. There are countless examples of how this is true:

- Lifting weights
- Running longer distances
- Actual principle behind vaccinations
- Playing chess
- Reading
- Playing a musical instrument, practice increasing skill
- Playing a musical instrument which alters your hands (ie, callouses from playing guitar)
- Working through math problems
- Any artistic endeavor
- Anything that requires mental dexterity
- Dealing with disappointment/loss

I could go on and on. The point is that improving at anything in life means facing a challenge and bearing down to meet it. Whether it's running a marathon or doing calculus or dealing with a jerk of a boss or figuring out how to make rent, every challenge can be met. But that means that somewhere along the line, some work has gone in to developing strategies for dealing with said task.

No matter how enthusiastic someone is, they are not going to physically and mentally be prepared to complete a marathon without ever training for it. And if my kid would die if she could not run a marathon when she hits 18, it damn well would be my fault if she never trained before the day of the race.

Protecting kids from things like "opposing viewpoints" in college doesn't prepare them for the real world. They don't know what they believe or why they believe it until it is challenged. Haidt often laments this fact, that instead of turning out critical thinkers, schools are churning out dogmatics with no concept of how anyone on earth could think differently than they do, nor why they should allow anyone who thinks differently to speak their mind. They've been told that it's dangerous, akin to violence, when people present a view that in any way detracts from the dogma.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 194 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:45 pm

napping in a hammock doesn't kill me, therefore it makes me stronger.


Ken is right. It's a cliche'
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14813
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 679 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:52 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:napping in a hammock doesn't kill me, therefore it makes me stronger.


Ken is right. It's a cliche'

What was that whole thread about not twisting around what people are saying? Do you want to be someone who is seen as incapable of having a discussion with? Because honestly that’s what I am getting from you. Again.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 194 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:52 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:

Lol...sure it doesn’t

I’m also certain you will think my other principles aren’t founded in your reality either ... and I’m more than ok with that

It would seem that way, wouldn't it?

What's the matter, you think my unhinged leftist philosophy is going to ruin your fundamental principles? Make a mockery of them? Try me.

It won't kill you...


I'm happy to discuss my personal philosophy...in order to make our discussion as valuable as possible (both to me and you) we need to make sure we are using the same framework and vocabulary. In order to achieve this first step why don't you tell me why you think my first principle "isn't founded in reality".

1.) in reality do people suffer loss, injustice and unfairness?

if so,

2.) in reality do you think people react differently to those things?

if so,

3.) in reality do you think their differing reactions will lead them to different outcomes in life?

if so,

4.) in reality, are those outcomes significantly different?

if so,

5.) in reality, can people be trained to respond to loss, injustice and unfairness?


If you answer yes to all those things, then tell me which part of reality breaks down the first principle I spoke of. If you do that I will better understand your viewpoint and will be able to better communicate mine.

likewise, if you answer no to one, let me know which, I will learn where our initial dissonance is and be able to adjust my reasoning and vocabulary accordingly.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 7005
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 378 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:57 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:napping in a hammock doesn't kill me, therefore it makes me stronger.


Ken is right. It's a cliche'

What was that whole thread about not twisting around what people are saying? Do you want to be someone who is seen as incapable of having a discussion with? Because honestly that’s what I am getting from you. Again.

Because, dammit Ken I'm trying to have a rhetorical discussion with someone who won't engage.

so yeah, I'm trying to goad him into telling me what it is he beleives so that maybe, just maybe, we can talk about it. Because if I ask him nicely like I did, I get blown off when I dare to present something that doesn't jibe with his fundamental principles.

everybody's prattling on about fundamental principles and the decline of western civilization without actually saying anything of frickin substance. It's a circle jerk.

EDIT: Look at that, it worked.
Last edited by Mountaineer Buc on Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14813
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 679 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Buc2 » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:59 pm

Image
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 12367
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 1000 times
Been thanked: 429 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:59 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:What was that whole thread about not twisting around what people are saying? Do you want to be someone who is seen as incapable of having a discussion with? Because honestly that’s what I am getting from you. Again.

Because, dammit Ken I'm trying to have a rhetorical discussion with someone who won't engage.

so yeah, I'm trying to goad him into telling me what it is he beleives so that maybe, just maybe, we can talk about it. Because if I ask him nicely like I did, I get blown off when I dare to present something that doesn't jibe with his fundamental principles.

everybody's prattling on about fundamental principles and the decline of western civilization without actually saying anything of frickin substance. It's a circle jerk.


I happily and willingly engaged you above....sorry for the delay, i happily and willingly engaged the poster in front of you first.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 7005
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 378 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:01 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Because, dammit Ken I'm trying to have a rhetorical discussion with someone who won't engage.

so yeah, I'm trying to goad him into telling me what it is he beleives so that maybe, just maybe, we can talk about it. Because if I ask him nicely like I did, I get blown off when I dare to present something that doesn't jibe with his fundamental principles.

everybody's prattling on about fundamental principles and the decline of western civilization without actually saying anything of frickin substance. It's a circle jerk.


I happily and willingly engaged you above....sorry for the delay, i happily and willingly engaged the poster in front of you first.

hold on. Let me me read and consider what you posted.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14813
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 679 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:12 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:It would seem that way, wouldn't it?

What's the matter, you think my unhinged leftist philosophy is going to ruin your fundamental principles? Make a mockery of them? Try me.

It won't kill you...


I'm happy to discuss my personal philosophy...in order to make our discussion as valuable as possible (both to me and you) we need to make sure we are using the same framework and vocabulary. In order to achieve this first step why don't you tell me why you think my first principle "isn't founded in reality".

1.) in reality do people suffer loss, injustice and unfairness? Yes

if so,

2.) in reality do you think people react differently to those things? Yes

if so,

3.) in reality do you think their differing reactions will lead them to different outcomes in life? Yes

if so,

4.) in reality, are those outcomes significantly different? Yes

if so,

5.) in reality, can people be trained to respond to loss, injustice and unfairness? Yes


If you answer yes to all those things, then tell me which part of reality breaks down the first principle I spoke of. If you do that I will better understand your viewpoint and will be able to better communicate mine.

likewise, if you answer no to one, let me know which, I will learn where our initial dissonance is and be able to adjust my reasoning and vocabulary accordingly.

I'm playing along until I find your base assumption.

3 and 4 is where I start to diverge from this logic path because we begin to consider externalities that can affect the outcomes.

5 has me very dubious and I suspect you felt the same the first time you read it yourself.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14813
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 679 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:21 pm

I have no qualifications for answering YES to any of those 5 questions.

Saying a principle isn't based in reality as you did is a large claim. I'm 100% OK if you simply disagree with my principle or you think it is irrelevant -- that is why I laid out those questions...they attempt to get to both points (disagreement or irrelevance)...and see where the dissonance might lie. But to say it isn't reality makes it difficult to move forward in any meaningful way as I don't understand how any portion of what I wrote isn't based in logical or philosophical reality.

There are many people who write about how overcoming challenge and obstacles can be a central tenet of philosophy -- not just the modern folks like JP and Haidt.

Have you read Nietzche? He talks about Wille zur Machte extensively in his writings, most notably in Zarathrusta and it has a very significant overlap with what I wrote. How about Jung? He talks about much of the same in his writing on suffering.

Medieval Christian philosophers often talked about the necessity to overcome the obstacles that God put's in front of you -- E.G. Aquinas. You can even go to earlier religious philosophers like Augustine of Hippo in Confessions. They focus on overcoming challenges because it makes us more complete and divine.

To a large degree much of Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy carries the same message as they were both influenced by Homer whose entire catalogue is about heroic achievements of overcoming tragedy and living a life that trains you to do so because it brings you closer to the gods.

I could go on and on with references....none of these folks thought the principle I spoke of was not founded in reality.

Most of my personal philosophy is influenced by the people I listed above...and those are the examples I often use to illustrate my own (as they are all much better writers than me)...so I was trying to get an idea of which of those you respect and acknowledge as legitimate philosophical sources because I can alter my response accordingly.


(edit - and these are just Western philosophies....many Eastern philosophers write about it as well -- whether they be Far East Asia or Eastern Orthodoxy)
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 7005
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 378 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:50 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:I have no qualifications for answering YES to any of those 5 questions.

Saying a principle isn't based in reality as you did is a large claim. I'm 100% OK if you simply disagree with my principle or you think it is irrelevant -- that is why I laid out those questions...they attempt to get to both points (disagreement or irrelevance)...and see where the dissonance might lie. But to say it isn't reality makes it difficult to move forward in any meaningful way as I don't understand how any portion of what I wrote isn't based in logical or philosophical reality.

There are many people who write about how overcoming challenge can be a central tenet of philosophy -- not just the modern folks like JP and Haidt.

Have you read Nietzche? He talks about Wille zur Machte extensively in his writings, most notably in Zarathrusta and it has a very significant overlap with what I wrote.

Medieval Christian philosophers often talked about the necessity to overcome the obstacles that God put's in front of you -- E.G. Aquinas. You can even go to earlier religious philosophers like Augustine of Hippo in Confessions. They focus on overcoming challenges because it makes us more complete and divine.

To a large degree much of Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy carries the same message as they were both influenced by Homer.

I could go on and on with references....none of these folks thought the principle I spoke of was not founded in reality.

Most of my personal philosophy is influenced by the people I listed above...and those are the examples I often use to illustrate my own (as they are all much better writers than me)...so I was trying to get an idea of which of those you respect and acknowledge as legitimate philosophical sources because I can alter my response accordingly.

Well, I got to tell you I'm a little disappointed. Medieval Christians also believed in things like self flagellation as a price to pay to become more divine. That suffering brought you closer to Christ. That has wormed its way through the ages all the way through the Puritans to the Protestants, Calvinists, and to this day the Amish and some other sects.

I think your fundamental principle that "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is quite literally rooted in all of (what I believe to be) the worst aspects of Christianity as a religion in practice. Still. That is your belief based on your faith and I have no choice but to respect that.

I can respond with my logic and my reasoning, but you have opened up enough of yourself to demonstrate to me that your principles are based in religious faith and one of my principles is to not interfere with someone else's faith or lack thereof. I don't think we can continue this and maintain what little modicum of mutual respect we have left.

Still. I think I understand you better.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14813
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 679 times

Re: Ideology

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:55 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:I have no qualifications for answering YES to any of those 5 questions.

Saying a principle isn't based in reality as you did is a large claim. I'm 100% OK if you simply disagree with my principle or you think it is irrelevant -- that is why I laid out those questions...they attempt to get to both points (disagreement or irrelevance)...and see where the dissonance might lie. But to say it isn't reality makes it difficult to move forward in any meaningful way as I don't understand how any portion of what I wrote isn't based in logical or philosophical reality.

There are many people who write about how overcoming challenge can be a central tenet of philosophy -- not just the modern folks like JP and Haidt.

Have you read Nietzche? He talks about Wille zur Machte extensively in his writings, most notably in Zarathrusta and it has a very significant overlap with what I wrote.

Medieval Christian philosophers often talked about the necessity to overcome the obstacles that God put's in front of you -- E.G. Aquinas. You can even go to earlier religious philosophers like Augustine of Hippo in Confessions. They focus on overcoming challenges because it makes us more complete and divine.

To a large degree much of Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy carries the same message as they were both influenced by Homer.

I could go on and on with references....none of these folks thought the principle I spoke of was not founded in reality.

Most of my personal philosophy is influenced by the people I listed above...and those are the examples I often use to illustrate my own (as they are all much better writers than me)...so I was trying to get an idea of which of those you respect and acknowledge as legitimate philosophical sources because I can alter my response accordingly.

Well, I got to tell you I'm a little disappointed. Medieval Christians also believed in things like self flagellation as a price to pay to become more divine. That suffering brought you closer to Christ. That has wormed its way through the ages all the way through the Puritans to the Protestants, Calvinists, and to this day the Amish and some other sects.

I think your fundamental principle that "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is quite literally rooted in all of (what I believe to be) the worst aspects of Christianity as a religion in practice. Still. That is your belief based on your faith and I have no choice but to respect that.

I can respond with my logic and my reasoning, but you have opened up enough of yourself to demonstrate to me that your principles are based in religious faith and one of my principles is to not interfere with someone else's faith or lack thereof. I don't think we can continue this and maintain what little modicum of mutual respect we have left.

Still. I think I understand you better.


LOL
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 289 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:09 pm

I'm serious. I don't mess with religious principles.

Or at least I try not to
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14813
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 679 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:11 pm

I gave a wide range of places that same philosophy is espoused...both prior to Christianity (ancient Greek philosophers) as well as modern day atheists who despise Christianity...and yet somehow it turned into a discussion of faith. I would have been more than happy to discuss it from any of those viewpoints.

Interesting.

I'm glad we didn't go too far down the road


And all I did was ask you to clarify why it isn't "real world"...I even said I'm perfectly happy if you disagree with the principle. It's no skin off my teeth
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 7005
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 378 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:23 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:I'm serious. I don't mess with religious principles.

Or at least I try not to


Then don't conflate it with religious principles. Zarni provided numerous non-religious examples, including the source of this (Haidt). You're the one that decided to single out the religious example as a reason to not respond. Just re-read Zarnis post without the reference to Medival Christianity and respond accordingly.

Or don't. But this act of deflection is obvious.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13828
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 558 times
Been thanked: 599 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:26 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:I gave a wide range of places that same philosophy is espoused...both prior to Christianity (ancient Greek philosophers) as well as modern day atheists who despise Christianity...and yet somehow it turned into a discussion of faith. I would have been more than happy to discuss it from any of those viewpoints.

Interesting.

I'm glad we didn't go too far down the road


And all I did was ask you to clarify why it isn't "real world"...I even said I'm perfectly happy if you disagree with the principle. It's no skin off my teeth

Your philosophical principles are rooted in your religious principles. Not the other way around.

Ultimately, we'd be discussing faith. Nothing good would come of it.

Upside is moving from topic to topic I have a better understanding of where you get your point of view. I can and will disagree with it where applicable, but I'm not about shitting on people's religion.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14813
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 679 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:30 pm

This has nothing to do with religion. Zarni, just edit that part of your post so MB can let it go. Your post is just as relevant without citing religion.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13828
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 558 times
Been thanked: 599 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:32 pm

DreadNaught wrote:This has nothing to do with religion. Zarni, just edit that part of your post so MB can let it go. Your post is just as relevant without citing religion.

Quit trying to start ****.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14813
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 679 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:09 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:This has nothing to do with religion. Zarni, just edit that part of your post so MB can let it go. Your post is just as relevant without citing religion.

Quit trying to start ****.

lol. How so?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13828
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 558 times
Been thanked: 599 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:21 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Quit trying to start ****.

lol. How so?

Scroll up.

I goaded him into this. You think I reversed course because he cited Aristotle and Plato?

I'm not going there. I'll accept his faith as his core basis for reason. I can debate the reason and the conclusions it draws, but I'm not going to sit here and tell the man the very core of his very being is right or wrong.

That's a fucked up thing to do to someone.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14813
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 679 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:24 pm

No, guys. It’s obvious that Zarniwoop has based his principle on religion. I mean, his first example was that noted Jesus freak Nietzsche.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 194 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests