Print

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

[ToonyMan]

So if you killed somebody and they didn't understand your reasoning it wouldn't be "right" to kill them?

[Criptfeind]

Um. No. From my prospective.

Most likely so from theirs.

If you would kill me for a unknown reason, I would be unable to preemptively (This one is just for leafsnail) revenge myself on you. Which would be sub optimal.

Edit: Whoops, read your question wrong, fixed it.

Edit 2: Augh. Words are confusing. Let me spell it out.

I would see it as right.

They would see it as wrong.

[Leafsnail]

Leafsnail: You are both assuming I am a psychopath, and that there is nothing needed to start it.

Unless you can time travel, then a "preemptive strike" is, by definition, before they have done anything.  You are prepared to attack people who have not committed any act of violence based on the assumption that they will.

1: I do believe in escalation of violence so a person can not respond to it.
2: I do believe in a preemptive attack to prevent any violence against me.

These are the two things I have problems with.  1 means you commit worse acts of violence than the people you think of as bad (incidentally, even if the person doesn't respond to it... what if they have, say, a big brother who can?  Or they bring their entire family on you?  Nevermind, we'll assume that you can fight off any amount of people).  2 means you commit these acts of violence on people who are guilty of nothing except making you think they might be violent to you at some point, in order to intimidate them.  Together, I'd still say this strategy amounts to "Become the top bully".

I would be unable to preemptively (This one is just for leafsnail) revenge myself on you. Which would be sub optimal.

It's exactly the same contradiction but with a different word.  I don't actually think this is just a matter of semantics - fundamentally, you can't legitimise your actions as "revenge" if you do them first.

[ToonyMan]

If both parties perspectives are different then how is there ever going to be any one truth?  You wouldn't be able to "justify" killing somebody and they wouldn't be able to "justify" killing you.  The whole viewpoint falls apart when there's two possibilities of completely different stances (yes/no) at once.

[MaximumZero]

On bullying: I was bullied a lot in jr high(middle school) and high school. I have always been a very physically oriented person so this isn't the best advice to someone who isn't willing to take a punch (or really anyone, for that matter. I'm more just venting than anything else.)

You have to let them know that you're not afraid, and that they can't hurt you. They hit you, smile at them. They hit you harder, laugh. They hit you more, look calmly at them and ask if they're done yet. If they refuse to stop, let them tire themselves out, then fight back with the ferocity of a rabid dog. Let them know that you'll never be hurt by them, and that they should probably stop.

More often than not, they did.

[Bohandas]

Violence only begets more violence.

Unless of course you kill absolutely everyone in the whole entire world.

[Criptfeind]

It's exactly the same contradiction but with a different word.

Yes. That is why it is for you. I do not really want to get into a semantic argument where I am most assuredly wrong. So that was a throwaway joke.

For the rest, you do have a valid point. I guess you have nothing but my word that I am not a psycho and that I am not stupid.

If both parties perspectives are different then how is there ever going to be any one truth?  You wouldn't be able to "justify" killing somebody and they wouldn't be able to "justify" killing you.  The whole viewpoint falls apart when there's two possibilities of completely different stances (yes/no) at once.

So, my view point falls apart because it does not lead to everyone killing each other? Oh the horror.

[ArKFallen]

Violence only begets more violence.

Unless of course you kill absolutely everyone in the whole entire world.

Then you'll probably have boredom/loneliness issues that you take out on the only thing left that feels pain and screams.
I'm not knocking this, it's just how it'd turn out.

[Bohandas]

If both parties perspectives are different then how is there ever going to be any one truth?  You wouldn't be able to "justify" killing somebody and they wouldn't be able to "justify" killing you.  The whole viewpoint falls apart when there's two possibilities of completely different stances (yes/no) at once.

Indeed...

(From the Principia Discordia)


Psycho-Metaphysics

The Aneristic Principle is that of Apparent Order; the Eristic Principle is that of Apparent Disorder. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of Pure Chaos, which is a level deeper than is the level of distinction making.
      With our concept making apparatus called ``mind'' we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled ``reality'' and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see ``reality'' differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper than is the level of concept.
      We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The Order is in the Grid. That is the Aneristic Principle.
      Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the Aneristic Illusion (Aneristic DE-lusions, or anerisms, are discussed in the document on Eristic Avatars, elsewhere). Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.
      Disorder is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like ``relation'', no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is ``absence of female-ness'', or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the Eristic Principle.
      The belief that ``order is true'' and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the Eristic Illusion.
      The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered. A good example of all this is Starbuck's Pebbles.
      Reality is the original Rorschach.
      Verily! So much for all that.

[ToonyMan]

If both parties perspectives are different then how is there ever going to be any one truth?  You wouldn't be able to "justify" killing somebody and they wouldn't be able to "justify" killing you.  The whole viewpoint falls apart when there's two possibilities of completely different stances (yes/no) at once.

So, my view point falls apart because it does not lead to everyone killing each other? Oh the horror.

Your viewpoint falls apart because everybody isn't dead.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You have to let them know that you're not afraid, and that they can't hurt you. They hit you, smile at them. They hit you harder, laugh.

This is an excellent example of how it is scary as all hell to see someone perform an "inappropriate response". In that, responding to a situation in a manner that goes against all social expectations. Physical violence on one's person is generally responded to with anger and physical violence towards the perpertrator, or fear and submission to the perpertrator. Thus, responding to physical violence with laughter, neutrality, arousal, or batshit crazy rambling will be not only unexpected, but appear very, very, very wrong to the person accosting you. Do this kind of wrong reaction in all possible interactions with them, not just violence, and they'll quickly become so unnerved by the thought of even looking in your general direction that the problem should never arise again.

[Criptfeind]

If both parties perspectives are different then how is there ever going to be any one truth?  You wouldn't be able to "justify" killing somebody and they wouldn't be able to "justify" killing you.  The whole viewpoint falls apart when there's two possibilities of completely different stances (yes/no) at once.

So, my view point falls apart because it does not lead to everyone killing each other? Oh the horror.

Your viewpoint falls apart because everybody isn't dead.

That's cause:

1: Apparently most people do not share it.
2: You seem to misunderstand, there needs to be no conflict, and even with conflict there needs to be no death (even with two people that share this same ideas)
3: I do not understand what you are saying, you just said (this is a quote) 'You wouldn't be able to "justify" killing somebody and they wouldn't be able to "justify" killing you. ' So if no killing is justified then why would there be any killing?

[Bohandas]

The only people who bullied me in school were the faceless totalitarian authorities who made the school's rules.

[ToonyMan]

I'm talking about your viewpoint, which allows your death RIGHT NOW possibly.  I just wanted to point this out and explain a few things.  Killing somebody is never justifiable in my views.

[Criptfeind]

I'm talking about your viewpoint, which allows your death RIGHT NOW possibly.  I just wanted to point this out and explain a few things.  Killing somebody is never justifiable in my views.

Only if I was a threat to some one.

Also, you have to accept that people will want to kill you so they can wear your skin or something. Of course you don't want it, but anyone can die at any time.

And killing is only rarely justified for my views.