Social Progress

[Limper]

Do you feel that human societies are moving toward something? Is there a direction or result that all that has happened is directing our species into? Is there enlightenment at the end of time?

Just curious what others think on this. Ed and I are at odds on it.

I feel there isn't a directio to it and that there is no form of inevitable result of our 'progress'.

He feels its going somewhere and that somewhere is better.

[Northcott]

I don't view it as anything particularly mystical or enlightening. Simply that I believe there's a discernable trend in history for the growth of beneficial practices, such as civil rights, socially beneficial laws, etc, to be clung to by the populace, making retraction or removal of them to be difficult at best. The end result, I feel, is like sifting flour; it will eventually, over time, remove most of the unwanted elements.

We'll never acheive Utopia -- people are too stupid, lazy, and selfish for that. But I feel that where we are now is a Hell of a lot better than where we were 500, 100, even 50 years ago. I also believe that our current society is suffering from a stage of abusing those benefits, so we're likely to see a downturn before things get better again.

I also believe the advent of mass media sped this process up.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I certainly don't think there is a "destination" or end point. But I do think that, in a saw-toothed, X steps forward, Y steps back (where, on average, X>Y) way, we are getting morally better.

I don't think it's inevitable - some sort of global environmental collapse or a world war or some other disaster could reverse centuries of moral progress in the space of a decade. But under current conditions, thing are, on average, getting better.

And I do think I perceive a mechanism behind it. As a result of our need to learn things from one and other, higher primates evolved "mirror neurones" by which we can actually "feel" something that an observed animal is doing or experiencing. This had the side-effect of developing a sense of empathy in higher primates (and maybe other animals, like African parrots).

While empathy had survival value because it made us protect and sometimes even sacrifice ourselves for family members (thus increasing the chances that some of our shared genes, including the empathy geneplex, would be passed on) it also had the potential to be survival-retarding because it would cause us to sacrifice ourselves for others who share none or very few of our genes. Consequently, we evolved the internal wiring for "in-group" and "out-group" thinking. Empathy is for the "in-group" (which, originally, was the family or clan with whom we shared lots of genes). The out group was to be treated with indifference or even empathy's twisted sibling, sadism (young bonobos (usually the gentlest and most social of animals) will every now and then band together and go out in search of a bonobo from another clan, which they will then torture to death, including ripping off its genitals and making it eat them.)

Technological change in humans later necessitated transferring (through cultural conditioning, rather than genetic change) "in-group" thinking to larger and larger groups - the clan, the tribe, the city, the small nation. In other words, we have been culturally commandeering our evolved capacity for empathy and applying it to larger and larger groups (in many cases, against the genetic interest empathy was originally "designed" to serve). In general, we like empathy - we want to be in people's in-groups. We have, as Dawkins' says, partially taken away our evolution from the control of natural selection and put it in the hands of cultural or "memetic" selection.

The problem is, we still have that wiring for "out group" thinking. Indeed, the fear and loathing for the out group is a very quick, but morally costly, way of solidifying the solidarity of an in-group.

Much for our recent moral progress has come from reconciling our innate evolved rationality to our innate evolved empathy. You feel empathy for stranger X but not stranger Y. But what is the difference between them? You can't come up with one that satisfies your desire to be internally consistent. If the contradiction is driven home often enough (through study or thought or public discussion or public activism or art or satire or some other part of the sea of memes we bathe in and call culture), you feel guilty about the contradiction. Eventually, you convince yourself that you should care for stranger Y as much as stranger X. Give it a generation or so, and an intellectual commitment becomes an emotional one - Y has become as much a part of the in-group as X. And now it's time to ask why we don't care as much about stranger Z as we do about X and Y. And so on.

But that nasty out-group wiring is always there, lurking in the shadows...

[Bagpuss]

I don't view it as anything particularly mystical or enlightening. Simply that I believe there's a discernable trend in history for the growth of beneficial practices, such as civil rights, socially beneficial laws, etc, to be clung to by the populace, making retraction or removal of them to be difficult at best. The end result, I feel, is like sifting flour; it will eventually, over time, remove most of the unwanted elements.

Unfortunately there does seem to be a lot of evidence that its two steps forward one step back some of the time. In some regions it's even three steps back. There have been reasonably civil societies throughout history that has been generally good that have collapsed due to either/both internal and external pressures, and been replaced by significantly worse societies.

[Bagpuss]

The problem is, we still have that wiring for "out group" thinking. Indeed, the fear and loathing for the out group is a very quick, but morally costly, way of solidifying the solidarity of an in-group.


This is why we need to find extra-terrestrials as soon as possible to provide a clear "out group" humanity can united against.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

This is why we need to find extra-terrestrials as soon as possible to provide a clear "out group" humanity can united against.

I suppose we could fake it? Fake message from the stars? Invasion force on its way - will take fifty years to get here? ;)

[Northcott]

Unfortunately there does seem to be a lot of evidence that its two steps forward one step back some of the time. In some regions it's even three steps back. There have been reasonably civil societies throughout history that has been generally good that have collapsed due to either/both internal and external pressures, and been replaced by significantly worse societies.

Undoubtedly. In my original reply to Limper I noted that there were times and places where regression occurred. There still are. Looking at the grand course of world history, however, when one 'enlightened' society (and I use the term 'enlightened' loosely) begins to tumble, it's already had an impact on the world around it, and some of the ideas live on, change, and grow. Societies that thrived and then fell did not do so in isolation. Even our sense of modern politics in the western nations is often compared back to that of the Greeks and Romans, in spite of the vast differences that lay beneath the shared names of republic and democracy.


I suppose we could fake it? Fake message from the stars? Invasion force on its way - will take fifty years to get here? ;)

I'm not sure whether or not you're into comics. Ever read Alan Moore's "The Watchmen"?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Undoubtedly. In my original reply to Limper I noted that there were times and places where regression occurred. There still are. Looking at the grand course of world history, however, when one 'enlightened' society (and I use the term 'enlightened' loosely) begins to tumble, it's already had an impact on the world around it, and some of the ideas live on, change, and grow. Societies that thrived and then fell did not do so in isolation. Even our sense of modern politics in the western nations is often compared back to that of the Greeks and Romans, in spite of the vast differences that lay beneath the shared names of republic and democracy.

True. But we also have a very Western-Europe-centred view of history. The idea that the Roman Empire fell and then there was the Dark Ages and finally a return to civilisation in the high Medieval period and the Renaissance is a good description of the experience someone living in Western Europe, but its not accurate from a global perspective. The Roman Empire didn't fall until the 13th or 14th century (I may be off by a century there, it might be 14th/15th), depending on whether or not you say the Eastern Roman Empire ended with its fall to the Latins or (after the Greeks recovered it) to the Turks. There's no bright line between Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantium, one slowly evolved into the other and much of Byzantium was still recognisably Roman right up until the end. Indeed, the Renaissance got much of its impetus from Byzantine scholars who fled to Italy after Constantinople ("the New Rome") finally fell to the Turks.*

Classical civilization was preserved and progressed in the East for the centuries of the West's Dark and Middle Ages, only to be passed back to the West in the Renaissance. At which point, of course, the West did many truly wonderful (and a few truly awful) things with it.


I'm not sure whether or not you're into comics. Ever read Alan Moore's "The Watchmen"?

No. But I've vaguely heard of it.

*BTW, if you've ever wondered where Russia gets its strange sense of superiority from, it's because Moscow was pretty much a colony of Byzantium and many in Russia saw Moscow as the "New New Rome" after the fall of Constantinople. Unfortunately for the Russians, most of the great Byzantine liberal scholars preferred to flee to their colony in Venice and from there to Italy rather than brave the snows of Russia.

[Northcott]

Somewhere around here I've got a book that's a translation of primary source documents of letters and journals written by crusaders. Their reaction to Constantinople was almost funny -- it would make great flavour text for a low fantasy campaign. The flipside was pretty cool, too: reading about the reaction of the locals to these Norman brutes riding through.


If you ever get a chance to read the Watchmen, do. You'll laugh when you get to the punchline about uniting the human race.

[Varaj]

I believe that cultural evolution will help cultures succeed that have certain traits. I believe social justice and tolerance, lifting up as many people as possible, are strong survival traits in a culture.

[Northcott]

I believe that cultural evolution will help cultures succeed that have certain traits. I believe social justice and tolerance, lifting up as many people as possible, are strong survival traits in a culture.

I wish I'd been that concise!

[doc]

Since the far left leaners want to do away with and social concept of right and wrong, I don't see anything good happening but choas

[Limper]

I wish I'd been that concise!

We all do man, we all do.

[Varaj]

Since the far left leaners want to do away with and social concept of right and wrong

I'm not sure I believe that is true.

[Limper]

I'm not sure I believe that is true.

The far left and far right have both lost sight of the social contract under which we all live.

Would you buy that?

[Varaj]

The far left and far right have both lost sight of the social contract under which we all live.

Would you buy that?

Sure. I would also say that the far left and the far right want to restrict, not increase, liberties. There is very little different in them in my mind.

[Limper]

Sure. I would also say that the far left and the far right want to restrict, not increase, liberties. There is very little different in them in my mind.

Well you can't go around letting your enemies have the same rights as you do can you? Of course not, you find ways to restrict them while allowing you to feel superior.

[Northcott]

We all do man, we all do.

:ignore:

[doc]

I'm not sure I believe that is true.

Just look at the news man, in you're own state a girl can get an abortion because she has anxiety attacks (or could), child molesters are given slaps on the wrists. The media is more concerned about some bimbo in hollywood then in reporting the news you care about. Illegal's can commite crimes and no one cares till they kill someone (then they point fingers at each other to shift blame), all the while some dick head is whineing about thier "rights".

[Varaj]

Just look at the news man, in you're own state a girl can get an abortion because she has anxiety attacks (or could), child molesters are given slaps on the wrists. The media is more concerned about some bimbo in hollywood then in reporting the news you care about. Illegal's can commite crimes and no one cares till they kill someone (then they point fingers at each other to shift blame), all the while some dick head is whineing about thier "rights".

Two points:
1. None of that actually argues for what you said.
2. Most of that is hyperbole and lies.

[doc]

Two points:
1. None of that actually argues for what you said.
2. Most of that is hyperbole and lies.

You calling me a liar ? You better look back at the last 12 months Bubba and rethink that statement. Or was Dr. Tiller just holding thier hands ?

[Varaj]

You calling me a liar ? You better look back at the last 12 months Bubba and rethink that statement. Or was Dr. Tiller just holding thier hands ?

Do you care if illegals commit crimes?

[Northcott]

You're crossing a line again, Varaj. Disagreement, varying opinion, different interpretation of facts, or even believing in an outright error does not make somebody a liar. Some folks take that kind of accusation as a deadly insult.

[Varaj]

You're crossing a line again, Varaj. Disagreement, varying opinion, different interpretation of facts, or even believing in an outright error does not make somebody a liar. Some folks take that kind of accusation as a deadly insult.

"Illegal's can commite crimes and no one cares till they kill someone (then they point fingers at each other to shift blame)"
Can you tell me that isn't a lie? It certainly isn't true. So what is it?

[Limper]

Can you tell me that isn't a lie? It certainly isn't true. So what is it?
"Illegal's can commite crimes and no one cares till they kill someone (then they point fingers at each other to shift blame)"

Are untrue and lie the same thing?

[doc]

Do you care if illegals commit crimes?

Yes, that's why I want to see a wall, end of sanctuary cities and for the local LEOs and ICE to communicate with each other to find, ID and deport (or jail) dangerious illegals. I'm all for immergration, but at least try to be a citizen

[Varaj]

Yes, that's why I want to see a wall, end of sanctuary cities and for the local LEOs and ICE to communicate with each other to find, ID and deport (or jail) dangerious illegals. I'm all for immergration, but at least try to be a citizen

Then you lied with this statement. The rest is hyperbole.
"Illegal's can commite crimes and no one cares till they kill someone (then they point fingers at each other to shift blame)"

[Northcott]

"Illegal's can commite crimes and no one cares till they kill someone (then they point fingers at each other to shift blame)"
Can you tell me that isn't a lie? It certainly isn't true. So what is it?

Yes, I can tell you it isn't a lie. When somebody believes something, even if we perceive that thing to be patently untrue, they're not lying -- they're just wrong. Lying is the purposeful act of presenting information we know to be untrue as the truth for reason of deception.

If you believe Doc to be blatantly, blindly, prejudicially wrong -- that's one thing. Not that he'll like the prejudicial accusation more, but that's a seperate issue. Regardless of whatever issues may arise, I wouldn't call him a liar.

[Varaj]

Are untrue and lie the same thing?

To with full knowledge present untruth as truth with the attempt to deceive is a lie.
That is exactly what doc did. He claimed a fact that he knows isn't true as truth to back a false claim.

[Varaj]

Yes, I can tell you it isn't a lie. When somebody believes something, even if we perceive that thing to be patently untrue, they're not lying -- they're just wrong. Lying is the purposeful act of presenting information we know to be untrue as the truth for reason of deception.

If you believe Doc to be blatantly, blindly, prejudicially wrong -- that's one thing. Not that he'll like the prejudicial accusation more, but that's a seperate issue. Regardless of whatever issues may arise, I wouldn't call him a liar.

He just admitted he knew it was wrong.

[doc]

Then you lied with this statement. The rest is hyperbole.
"Illegal's can commite crimes and no one cares till they kill someone (then they point fingers at each other to shift blame)"

Look at the illegals that got away with crimes in the last 6 months and the cops were late in reporting or didn't report them to ICE at all, later on the killed people while drunk, commiting crimes or child molesting. What was the reaction then ??

[Northcott]

He just admitted he knew it was wrong.

No. He tripped over his own generalization. Hyperbole.

[Varaj]

Look at the illegals that got away with crimes in the last 6 months and the cops were late in reporting or didn't report them to ICE at all, later on the killed people while drunk, commiting crimes or child molesting. What was the reaction then ??

Do you care? Are you the only person that cares?

[Northcott]

Doc, your unfocused presentation is bordering on ranting. I love a good rant as much as the next guy, but you're putting yourself in a bad light. Go for specifics, or cull the rant. Otherwise this is likely to go south in an unfun way.

[Varaj]

No. He tripped over his own generalization. Hyperbole.

Didn't look like hyperbole, it looked like a false claim he knew was false.

[Limper]

To with full knowledge present untruth as truth with the attempt to deceive is a lie.
That is exactly what doc did. He claimed a fact that he knows isn't true as truth to back a false claim.


Doc is driven by the emotion he feels when he argues and not by logic. I also don't think he actually knows for sure that what he says is untrue... not any more than you do.

Feeling something is true when its not is not the same thing as false council and subterfuge (aka a lie).

Docs crime is not thinking to long on it before giving example not lying. You are assuming his intention is to decieve. His intention is to state what he feels.

[Varaj]

Doc is driven by the emotion he feels when he argues and not by logic. I also don't think he actually knows for sure that what he says is untrue... not any more than you do.

Feeling something is true when its not is not the same thing as false council and subterfuge (aka a lie).

Docs crime is not thinking to long on it before giving example not lying. You are assuming his intention is to decieve. His intention is to state what he feels.

He can not honestly believe nobody cares when he himself cares.

[Northcott]

Didn't look like hyperbole, it looked like a false claim he knew was false.

We read it differently. I don't perceive purposeful deception as being in line with Doc's self-image, cultural programming, or personal ethics. It doesn't fit with his history. Self-deception? Yes... but we're all guilty of that to one extent or another.

[Limper]

He can not honestly believe nobody cares when he himself cares.

Once again you are making assumptions about others and how their minds work.

[doc]

I know others care Varaj, but the general not careing by folks is what I commented on, emotion drives me and I'm not the best at stateing my agruments. But that's no reason to call me a liar, show me a rebuttal and I'll take it back, but don't automatically blow me off because you disagree.

[Varaj]

We read it differently. I don't perceive purposeful deception as being in line with Doc's self-image, cultural programming, or personal ethics. It doesn't fit with his history. Self-deception? Yes... but we're all guilty of that to one extent or another.

Self-deception is still a lie. It is no longer self-deception when he shares it with the rest of us.

Once again you are making assumptions about others and how their minds work.

You don't want to know my opinion of somebody that can't tell that statement is false.

[Varaj]

I know others care Varaj, but the general not careing by folks is what I commented on, emotion drives me and I'm not the best at stateing my agruments. But that's no reason to call me a liar, show me a rebuttal and I'll take it back, but don't automatically blow me off because you disagree.

I've already shown you a rebuttal. You care thus your statement is false.

[doc]

:) ok you got me there, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I got to go for today, so y'all have fun and CYA manana'.

[Northcott]

Self-deception is still a lie. It is no longer self-deception when he shares it with the rest of us.

Wrong. A lie implies purposeful deception. The very nature of self-deception is one of a state that lacks conscious realization. Sharing information or an opinion from a flawed source does not make it a lie, as the intent to decieve is lacking.

Finger-pointing and accusation of lies when you cannot argue a point is not only unproductive, it is alienating and highly insulting. It does nothing to further communication, and if perpetrated without foundation it serves only to reduce respect for the accuser. Don't be that guy. Accept that you're probably parsing the given information differently than most other people are in this case.

I don't believe that Doc is correct in his assertations, but we lost sight of debating that point the moment that accusations of deception were levelled. It comes across as hyperbole to accuse him of lying. There's no benefit to be had in pursuing this course.

[Ergeheilalt]

I'd like to think society and asymptotically approach the Utopian limit. I view a lot of the changes made in the past 50 years a positive steps forward. There has been a lot of positive social change and that has been good for everyone.

But here were are, ground to what seems like a screaching halt. It's very easy to be a socially forward thinking group of people, but when you start losing out on the infrastructure that got society where it is today, growth in the Utopian approach begins to bottom out.

I think before humanity bounds forward again in huge positive steps, there is going to need to be an immense concerted effort to give everyone the building blocks of Utopia. That gets into engineering, energy policy, and R&D sorts of ideas that just make my heart (and to a great sense, my brain) sing with joy.

I just don't think we'll reach that point in the near future.

[Varaj]

Wrong. A lie implies purposeful deception. The very nature of self-deception is one of a state that lacks conscious realization. Sharing information or an opinion from a flawed source does not make it a lie, as the intent to decieve is lacking.

Self-deception is purposeful deception. That is the nature of self-deception, not an unconscious mistake. Self-deception is a lie you tell yourself even though you know it is a lie.
He didn't share information from a flawed source he made a statement that in inherently false.


Finger-pointing and accusation of lies when you cannot argue a point is not only unproductive, it is alienating and highly insulting. It does nothing to further communication, and if perpetrated without foundation it serves only to reduce respect for the accuser. Don't be that guy. Accept that you're probably parsing the given information differently than most other people are in this case.
I don't believe that Doc is correct in his assertations, but we lost sight of debating that point the moment that accusations of deception were levelled. It comes across as hyperbole to accuse him of lying. There's no benefit to be had in pursuing this course.

Again doc already admitted he isn't correct that his statement is inherently false. He lied and refuses to retract it. He said all and admits he it isn't all. That is a lie.

[Stratego]

Doc, your unfocused presentation is bordering on ranting. I love a good rant as much as the next guy, but you're putting yourself in a bad light. Go for specifics, or cull the rant. Otherwise this is likely to go south in an unfun way.

Geez, man why're you always raggin' on the South?

I believe that sometime in the far future humanity will escape its limitations. I don't believe we will always be confined by our greedy, short-sighted nature. That scene in Babylon 5 where they show a future human becoming pure energy and following the Vorlons out into the great Unknown. That's what I see. At least in my occasional bouts of optimism. Most of the time I'm as cynical as the rest of you fucks.

[Northcott]

Self-deception is purposeful deception. That is the nature of self-deception, not an unconscious mistake. Self-deception is a lie you tell yourself even though you know it is a lie.

The premise of deception is, not surprisingly, to deceive. If one is aware of the deception, the deception does not exist. Something cannot remain self-deception if one realizes that the tale told one's self is a lie.

You have fallen back on this tactic of finger-pointing and accusing of lies in the past, Varaj. It's being applied poorly, at best. Please stop it.

[Varaj]

The premise of deception is, not surprisingly, to deceive. If one is aware of the deception, the deception does not exist. Something cannot remain self-deception if one realizes that the tale told one's self is a lie.

Lying is the attempt to deceive. Success is not required.


You have fallen back on this tactic of finger-pointing and accusing of lies in the past, Varaj. It's being applied poorly, at best. Please stop it.

In short, no.

In long. He lied, plain and simple. He told a untruth, admitted to it and refuses to recant the untruth that he admits he told. I will call people on it when they do it. I have never called somebody a liar when they haven't lied( as I see it). If you don't like it get them to stop lying.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Oh, the irony. The irony. Too bittersweet to even describe.

[Varaj]

Oh, the irony. The irony. Too bittersweet to even describe.

Color me confused on what you mean.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Color me confused on what you mean.

I'll explain it in a PM, because the last thing I want to do is to add to this train wreck (I've filled my quota for the month).

Suffice it to say publicly that I'm not really criticising you.

[GreyOne]

It's difficult for society to progress while the legal profession remains in charge of things.

[Northcott]

Lying is the attempt to deceive. Success is not required.

Which requires a conscious decision. You're claiming that self-deception is done knowingly -- which means that the deception cannot possibly work.

As for Atticus; in his inability to restrain himself from taking a shot, he's very likely trying to point out that I'm advocating a more productive means of conversation for you, while I (almost without restraint) whaled on him for months.

The difference is that I'm presuming you have at least some modicum of affection or respect for the people you're alienating.


Edit: Because you seem to refuse to accept the notion that self-deception is based upon believing one's distortions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception

[Varaj]

Which requires a conscious decision. You're claiming that self-deception is done knowingly -- which means that the deception cannot possibly work.

As for Atticus; in his inability to restrain himself from taking a shot, he's very likely trying to point out that I'm advocating a more productive means of conversation for you, while I (almost without restraint) whaled on him for months.

The difference is that I'm presuming you have at least some modicum of affection or respect for the people you're alienating.


Edit: Because you seem to refuse to accept the notion that self-deception is based upon believing one's distortions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception

:confused:
Did you even read that article? It backs exactly what I've been saying.


And self deception has nothing to do with doc's lie. He claimed no one cares and admitted he cared. That isn't self delusion. His first statement was a falsehood and his second statement shows he knew it.

So what should I do when presented with a lie like that?

I'm honestly confused here. Doc makes a false statement about me and I call him on it and I'm the bad guy? :confused:

[Northcott]

:confused:
Did you even read that article? It backs exactly what I've been saying.

Yes, I did. And no, it doesn't. Consider the following:
It is no longer self-deception when he shares it with the rest of us.

From the article: "if someone can believe their own "lie" (i.e., their presentation that is biased toward their own self-interest), the theory goes, they will consequently be better able to persuade others of its "truth.""

Apparently even when shared with others, it's still self-deception.

Self-deception is purposeful deception. That is the nature of self-deception, not an unconscious mistake. Self-deception is a lie you tell yourself even though you know it is a lie.

From the article: "Therefore, if self-deception enables someone to believe their distortions, they will not present such signs of deception and will therefore appear to be telling the truth."

If somebody believes the distortion, then the person does not recognize it as a falsehood. If they consciously recognize that they are perpetrating a falsehood, then they are a liar. The key here is belief. A lie that is seen through is not believed. Without the investment of belief, there is no deception. A person cannot know that a piece of self-deception is a lie and still believe in it.

He didn't share information from a flawed source he made a statement that in inherently false.

Unless you're expecting that Doc is somehow perfect, I'd say that even his opinion comes from a flawed source. There's a reason why opinion holds less weight than fact. Speaking of less than perfect sources...

And self deception has nothing to do with doc's lie. He claimed no one cares and admitted he cared. That isn't self delusion. His first statement was a falsehood and his second statement shows he knew it.

Have you not, in the past, nodded your head in agreement when Doc's lack of clarity in communication has been pointed out to him? If so, then why in the name of all good reason would you presume perfect clarity of statement and intent behind his words now? All issues of debate upon the implications of a term aside, this makes no sense.

So what should I do when presented with a lie like that?

I'm honestly confused here. Doc makes a false statement about me and I call him on it and I'm the bad guy? :confused:

I've seen you use this tactic in the past. At first it enraged me, as the first time I saw you use it you were aiming at me, but I've come to accept it as a possible cognitive dissonance: unable to accept one reason or the other as an explanation for a given statement, you revert to presuming intent of deception where it may not exist. We all have our triggers -- God knows I have mine -- I just can't figure yours out.

I suppose that with most other people this might not stick out so much, but given your normal hyper-rationality it's sort of a giant, glowing, neon sign.

Edit: So I'm not trying to say you're "the bad guy" here. I don't think there's slanderous intent, and I genuinely believe that you believe the point of view you're presenting. I just think it's incorrect, and calling people 'liar' tends to burn bridges. And as burning bridges with people over an error is something that sucks...

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Trust me, Varaj, walk away now. There's nothing there worth engaging with. Address only that which makes sense (preferably in the third person), ignore the craziness, and don't, under any circumstances, respond to the insults. It's the only way to retain your sanity.

[Varaj]

A bunch of stuff that is not germane, we can argue self-deception psychology some other thread. :)


Unless you're expecting that Doc is somehow perfect, I'd say that even his opinion comes from a flawed source. There's a reason why opinion holds less weight than fact. Speaking of less than perfect sources...



Have you not, in the past, nodded your head in agreement when Doc's lack of clarity in communication has been pointed out to him? If so, then why in the name of all good reason would you presume perfect clarity of statement and intent behind his words now? All issues of debate upon the implications of a term aside, this makes no sense.

Dude he said, in effect, 1=2. It isn't a lack of clarity it a falsehood at the most basic level. And worse it is a falsehood that brings me into it.



I've seen you use this tactic in the past. At first it enraged me, as the first time I saw you use it you were aiming at me, but I've come to accept it as a possible cognitive dissonance: unable to accept one reason or the other as an explanation for a given statement, you revert to presuming intent of deception where it may not exist. We all have our triggers -- God knows I have mine -- I just can't figure yours out.

I can't even figure out what you are saying here.


I suppose that with most other people this might not stick out so much, but given your normal hyper-rationality it's sort of a giant, glowing, neon sign.

Right inline with the hyper-rationality. He states a lie, I call him on it. Explain to me how him stating no one cares when he knows some people care isn't a lie when it is false and he knows it is false.
He said
{all}=Doesn't care
{I}=care
{I} is a subset of {all}
It is falsehood and it was proven that he knew it to be false by his admission of {I}=care. How is it unreasonable to assume that he knew he cared thus knowing is statement was false.


Edit: So I'm not trying to say you're "the bad guy" here. I don't think there's slanderous intent, and I genuinely believe that you believe the point of view you're presenting. I just think it's incorrect, and calling people 'liar' tends to burn bridges. And as burning bridges with people over an error is something that sucks...

Ok so you don't want the direct approach, how should I handle somebody stating something that is false at a basic level and there is no doubt they know it is false?

[Bagpuss]

Erm is this thread about social progress or just anti-social name calling? :confused:

[Varaj]

Erm is this thread about social progress or just anti-social name calling? :confused:

I'm not sure there has been any name calling. If you like I can call you a poopy head. :)

[Bagpuss]

Thanks that helps...

Calling someone a lair (even if they are) is still name calling.

Wanker. :cool:

[Varaj]

Thanks that helps...

Calling someone a lair (even if they are) is still name calling.

Wanker. :cool:

That's cool. I would say it more a statement of fact. :tongue:
Name calling to me implies some untruth.

Poopy head. :D

PS: Just what is a wanker anyhoo?

[Bagpuss]

Wanker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker) - Technically someone who wanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wank). But considered an mildly offensive term, its a step up from plonker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonker). I could have equally called you a tosser. It relates to Jerk in US slang.

[Varaj]

Wanker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker) - Technically someone who wanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wank). But considered an mildly offensive term, its a step up from plonker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonker). I could have equally called you a tosser. It relates to Jerk in US slang.

Cool, thanks.

[Limper]

Thanks that helps...

Calling someone a lair (even if they are) is still name calling.

Wanker. :cool:

Why would calling somone a domicile piss them off?

[Bagpuss]

Why would calling somone a domicile piss them off?

Good question, but completely unnecessary if you had seen the housing conditions in Birkenhead.

[Limper]

Good question, but completely unnecessary if you had seen the housing conditions in Birkenhead.

Is Birkenhead part of Chavland?

[Bagpuss]

We prefer to call them skallies, although they seem to be in the decline now. There are whole sections of old housing ear-marked for "redevelopment".

[Limper]

We prefer to call them skallies, although they seem to be in the decline now. There are whole sections of old housing ear-marked for "redevelopment".

We call that eminent domain.

[Northcott]

A bunch of stuff that is not germane, we can argue self-deception psychology some other thread. :)

I think it is insofar as it goes to the root of your point about deception: intent or lack thereof. But... I'm going to try and curb my innate drive to chew on a point until it's dead. I don't think we're going to come to a resolution on this, so the notion of hammering it out until one might be reached is pointless at best.

Ok so you don't want the direct approach, how should I handle somebody stating something that is false at a basic level and there is no doubt they know it is false?

Try extending the concept of human fallibility, and realize precisely who you are examining for precision in use of language. Really, man -- We've just got Doc on the path of dropping the DOB shtick and using capitals and punctuation in his posts. You're looking for precise use of language in the face of broad, sweeping, obviously emotion (rather than rational) driven statements.

I think it's safe to say that you may well be the only person who took his statements as lies rather than kneejerk overstatement.

I'll try and restrain myself to keeping that as the last I say on this matter. Oh, and if there's a grain of truth to Atticus' continued passive-aggressive sniping (Atticus: shut the fuck up and carry it to Off Campus if you really want to shoot your mouth off without contributing to a conversation), my apologies if any insult was offered in the posts. I don't recall anything overt or purposeful in there.

[Varaj]

I think it is insofar as it goes to the root of your point about deception: intent or lack thereof. But... I'm going to try and curb my innate drive to chew on a point until it's dead. I don't think we're going to come to a resolution on this, so the notion of hammering it out until one might be reached is pointless at best.



Try extending the concept of human fallibility, and realize precisely who you are examining for precision in use of language. Really, man -- We've just got Doc on the path of dropping the DOB shtick and using capitals and punctuation in his posts. You're looking for precise use of language in the face of broad, sweeping, obviously emotion (rather than rational) driven statements.

I think it's safe to say that you may well be the only person who took his statements as lies rather than kneejerk overstatement.

I'll try and restrain myself to keeping that as the last I say on this matter. Oh, and if there's a grain of truth to Atticus' continued passive-aggressive sniping (Atticus: shut the fuck up and carry it to Off Campus if you really want to shoot your mouth off without contributing to a conversation), my apologies if any insult was offered in the posts. I don't recall anything overt or purposeful in there.

That's cool.

[Atropine Mama]

Social progress -- when both of you can walk away from an argument without having won or lost.

:)