Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ignoro]

Alright. Don't read this spoiler. It makes me sad. I did not make that thread for ID.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Exhibit A with a couple examples]
[What I'm getting at: how people react to such things as these]
[Ramble on about biased approaches to foriegn ideas]
[Blah some on how people should approach such ideas, but never do]
[Bit of a disconcerning conclusion I could draw and a little on what I hate about it]
[Responders jump into the exhibit A and begin gnawing on it in similar manner to what I just rambled about]
[Hey, can't you read?]
[Thread locked]

I've taken some aspirins and I think I can say exactly what I want you all to hear clearly now:

You are an animal. Your higher thought is partially restricted at times to this fact. Be self aware of how you think and why you think that. Your mind is not entirely your own. Instinct makes us crack things down into absolute blacks and whites and forces us to be narrow. It forces us to think things and be hostile.

How do I suggest you avoid this? Well, you can't. It's a sad impossibility that you will never completely break free of your limitations. What I do suggest is to approach ideas in the following manner:

1 ) What is your immediate reaction?
2 ) Override that. This is the hardest part.
3 ) Defend or attack whatever idea you normally wouldn't.
4 ) Do so until you can no longer, or until you can see the other side from the one you're on. TRY to see the other side. Force yourself to waver to the other side.
6 ) Keep respect for whatever side you forced yourself into. This is the other hard part.
7 ) Go until you no longer can, or until you can see the other side from the one you're on.  TRY to see the other side. Force yourself to waver to the other side.
8 ) Repeat back and forth. Find the fence.
9 ) Now you've done both. Don't pick one. Pick bits while sitting on the fence. What bits of truth did each have?
10 ) Compromise into the grey. Any shade. Go back and forth again if you have to.

YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO PROVE OR DISPROVE ANYTHING. YOU ARE TRYING TO SEE MORE.
You should begin to realize some things most people normally don't. Such as that not one of the sides is 100% correct in every aspect. There is no right or wrong answer. Some may be better than others at certain things, but you begin to see shades of grey as there is and how everything has some value. Do not fight from compromising, compromise if just because you can see where it is necessary.
If you use fighting words, things that even you could find irrelevant with intentions of fighting to the death, claim a traditional view as 100% correct in every aspect, or any sort of put down:
YOU LOSE.

You can never really win, as there is nothing to win. As soon as you feel an objective to WIN, you're slipping.
The objective is broader perspective and respect.

Who am I to tell you this? I have no right to. But nor do any of you I think.

Here's the fun idea I came across that brought this on:
I reject autonomous thought therefore I am of free mind.

It then occurred to me that the above is impossible to achieve, and the motives from which the need arises to do so is self defeating.

I'm going to have to refrain from posting before I've fully composed myself.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to retire somewhere that people don't eat my exhibits.

[chaoticag]

The way I approach any idea is as follows:

1. How does this sound? Does it contradict anything that I know for undeniable truth? What about things that seems more likely?

2. Does it contradict itself? Anything that strikes me as increadibly odd about?

3. Is it valid? Where and how did it come about? What people believe about it, and where would you find its greatest supporters? A newspaper is not a valid source of scientific information, as reporters are not scientists.

After that, it should be worth putting an idea in your head. Knowing both sides of an arguments is something to know before jumping into something, and avoid sticking to one side of something if there is overwhelming evidence agains you. You will at one point or another be found wrong, which is fine but it is best to learn how to distinguish between scientific articles which are true or false.

[mainiac]

tl;dr

...I spent last evening reading about gas cycles.  Not because I had to, because I found it stimulating.  But the OP is boring even to me.

[Yanlin]

tl;dr

...I spent last evening reading about gas cycles.  Not because I had to, because I found it stimulating.  But the OP is boring even to me.

You are no longer welcome in this awesome thread.

[inaluct]

tl;dr

Ignoro needs to learn the fine art of expressing an idea concisely.

[Gunner-Chan]

Ignoro needs to learn the fine art of expressing an idea concisely.

Agreed, should you found a ministry to help people like him out?

[inaluct]

Hmm. Good idea.

[Armok]

I need to PM or email the OP, is he banned? If it sees this, I urge it to use the Email button in my profile so we can communicate that way. I only post here as his own topic seems a likely place for him to look and I do not participate in the discussion.

[Toady One]

I didn't do anything.  It looks like he deleted himself.

[Strife26]

Pulled a Fenrir?

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

... Is that a real word?

[Punch me. I know it's a word]

[Rooster]

Try thinking that "god" (I'm not talking to muslims or buddha followers right now) is the ultimate evil, and you'll just do what this topic told you to. Hitler is a merciful tactician compared to Moseh (I. Hate. Him. So. MUCH.). Also why only 5% of believers actually reads the bible? And why are people around me stupid enough to deny the fact that we ARE animals. Thinking like a slave or a peasant(on offense to actual peasants) is sad.

[Sean Mirrsen]

We're not animals. We're essentially the same as animals, but we're not animals per se, as it's a very definite distinction. We're all biochemical machines, yes, both us and animals.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

We're not animals. We're essentially the same as animals, but we're not animals per se, as it's a very definite distinction. We're all biochemical machines, yes, both us and animals.

Noo, check out the word animal in a dictionary, you have it backwards. You can use the word animal and mean only animals other than humans, but that is a secondary, non-scientific usage of the word. Humans are scientifically classified as animals.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Well, scientifically we are all animals, we're also mammals, omnivores, and primate derivatives (some are more derived than others). But really, we are no more than biomachines, and from that perspective the definition of "animal" versus "human" is pretty distinct. Scientifically the raspberry and the watermelon have a lot more in common than one would think, but I only call watermelons "berries" when I want to amuse the listener. Think of us as the watermelons of berries - we stand out from the crowd, so we call ourselves humans and differentiate ourselves from primates regardless of who we scientifically are.