Print

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

[Argembarger]

All you need to really, objectively prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt is to find a single person that, even at their most fundamental level, doesn't believe it.

To do this you need a perfect science of the brain. Because we have to analyze their brain. Because they could be lying.

And at that point it becomes irrelevant because you now have a perfect science of the brain. Make them never lie again. All it takes is a scalpel and a steady hand.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Bleeding heart liberals are, in some form, true, but ultimately misguided as well. You can't save everyone,

The hell is this referring to?

you can't put everyone in prison,

Something about the death penalty? An extremely small percentage of crimes are potentially capital, the automatic appeals process leads to seeking it costing the state more than just locking them up for life would, and were you to make more crimes capital offenses, say, armed robbery or rape, you'd be increasing the risk to the victims since the criminals would have no motivation not to kill them to get rid of any witnesses.

you can't NOT resort to the same tactics that enemies use on our own troops; all is fair in war, but we have people who decide they think they know better or that we're "morally superior" to other people. I would like to think that we're "better" than the "enemy" we have made because we don't use such tactics, but at least I acknowledge their effectiveness during war, where hundreds could be saved by the actions of a few.

What the fuck tactics are you talking about? Torture? Despite what cheap action movies would lead you (and the former administration) to believe, torture doesn't actually yield reliable information. Quite the opposite, really, with the added "benefit" of stirring up more resentment and hatred against your soldiers. When "the enemy" does it, it's not to get information out of people, it's to inspire terror in others and/or to get their rocks off. And really, the only other "tactic" our current enemies (and some "allies" *coughIsraelcough*) use is just randomly murdering/bombing civilians, which is also pretty fucking counterproductive.

Generalizations? I don't think you realize just how anti-woman just about everyone on earth is. I can't really name any man from the top of my head that doesn't seem to think that we are rather superior to women in every way imaginable. Some are just lying through their teeth about the way they really feel. You may have convinced yourself that you're pretty fine when it comes to equality, but in reality, if you look very critically, you too will see that you're just as bad as it gets.

This is an incredibly ignorant and harmful way of thinking.

It's still true, though. When you divide people into two groups according to some trait, everyone will think that their own group is superior for no objective reason. In this example it's gender, but you'll get the same with hair colour, body type, political views, any sort of personality trait or even something as trivial as musical preferences.

The biggest error in that way of thinking is assuming that everyone will automatically have solidarity with any category you feel like shunting them into, ignoring both the extremely limited nature of generalizations and the fragmentation and division that occurs even in self-applied, tight-knit groups. Which is to completely ignore just how idiotic the sentiment of "lol all men secretly hate women because penis lol" is.

[Vector]

Right... I'll explain.  There are plenty of people who say things which imply that they hate women or don't think of them as real people, deserving of a chance or a voice.

Many of these people are women.  I have been one of them.  I changed my mind because I realized that I was being a complete bigot.  The fact that society broadcasts few positive messages about women does not imply that there are none to be had.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

What kind of proof do you want?

Undeniable, irrefutable evidence that:

The problem is people thinking the world right now is fine and denying that deep inside everyone hates women, even the women.

Make them never lie again. All it takes is a scalpel and a steady hand.

A. That is one of the most horrifically unethical suggestions I have ever heard.

B. No it doesn't. Making them not be able to lie would involve destroying the majority of the frontal lobe.

[Argembarger]

Just to clarify, what I said was not at all serious and I do not condone unwarranted invasive brain surgery or other similarly unethical practices.

However, the procedure need not destroy the entire frontal lobe. Y'see, it depends on what we discover during our perfection of the science of the brain. We could narrow it down to a few neurons, who knows?

Although some believe the science of the brain is such that it can never be perfected. But we don't know that yet. So it's all ambiguous.

It might not be as brutal as a full-on lobotomy. Let the scientists learn and discover, and maybe in a few decades we'll have an answer.

And then we can wipe out the knowledge of what bigotry even is. Muhahaha.

EDIT: Relevance = There's no way to prove that everyone does or does not hate women, objectively, unless we scan someone's brain AFTER developing a perfect science of the brain. But once we do, we just need to find one person to disprove the claim.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If people want to be bigots, that should be their choice, even if it's a bad one. Freedom of thought is perhaps the most sacred of freedoms there is, because it's almost impossible to revoke.

In any case, lying is directly an output of being able to manufacture thoughts without direct outside data. If you take out lying, you take out imagination and the ability to create. It's a system. A few neurons are not set aside for lying. If you want to keep someone from being able to lie, you have to bring down the entire system of creative thought because they are one in the same. And that means dead-on-the-inside nightmare fuel.

[Argembarger]

I'll get back to you once we have a perfect science of the brain so I can give you the "I-told-you-so" certificate, or the "I-was-totally-off-on-that-one,-here's-a-cookie-to-symbolize-my-regret-and-inaccurate-hypothesis" cookie, depending on what has been discovered between now and then.

[Vector]

If people want to be bigots, that should be their choice, even if it's a bad one.

All right, I'm just going to cut this out of the rest of your quote and go take a shower or something.  Someone else can tell you why this makes them angry.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If people want to be bigots, that should be their choice, even if it's a bad one.

All right, I'm just going to cut this out of the rest of your quote and go take a shower or something.  Someone else can tell you why this makes them angry.

I'm sorry, but I will not condemn an idea, even an evil one. Once you start condemning ideas, it is only a matter of time untill the rest go with it.

[Vector]

I'm sorry, but I will not condemn an idea, even an evil one. Once you start condemning ideas, it is only a matter of time untill the rest go with it.

This statement requires proof.

[Argembarger]

methinks the contention lies in the ambiguity between "having bigoted thoughts" and "being a bigot".

One is involuntary in some cases, the other is completely controllable. Both are not to be expected in a happy, harmonious world.

EDIT: And yeah, proof. Slicing the rotten parts out of a tomato in order to salvage the good does not authorize throwing out the tomato in its entirety.

[Virex]

I don't think it is possible for someone to harbor a believe without acting on it. One may suppress the tendencies but sooner or later, at an unguarded moment one will act on it. this may not seem like a problem if the person in question is trying, but if it happens during a job interview, when voting or at other critical moments when one feels in control, then it does become a problem. And that's exactly what's happening in our society. We've taken the steps we could without taking the fight to the minds of people and it just doesn't work.


Also, I will not be able to prove my claims conclusively, since we're talking about a social phenomenon here and not something one could take into the lab. What I will however try to do is prove it beyond reasonable doubt, though you'll have to wait a little longer for me to compile the evidence.

[Argembarger]

I'll get the scalpel.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm sorry, but I will not condemn an idea, even an evil one. Once you start condemning ideas, it is only a matter of time untill the rest go with it.

This statement requires proof.

This is how it seems to happen, in my eyes: Pick an oppresive regime. Any one, it doesn't matter, as long as they started suppresing ideas. Read how they went about it and see if it follows this pattern. They'll start with the things that people will accept, that the majority of the public sees as evil, whatever those may be at the time. There won't be much outcry, because they think the society they live in will be better off with those ideas stamped away. Then the regime will move inwards, to things that aren't evil so much as they are seen as less-than-decent or perhaps counterculture. Dissent, usually. Eventually, the only way to live that doesn't involve being shot by Millitary Police (or whomever they use for speech suppresion) is the "offical" government approved lifestye. That said, dissolving supression of ideas down to a direct process is impossible, this just seems to be the general way it happens.

[Leafsnail]

I'm sorry, but I will not condemn an idea, even an evil one. Once you start condemning ideas, it is only a matter of time untill the rest go with it.

Once you start making the slippery slope fallacy, it's only a matter of time before it sneaks into every aspect of your thought.