Scenario - what do you do?

[Japher]

I'm not big on dialectics, I would probably side with the arguments, at least for social consequences. As I said in another thread "you become the company you keep". I believe that people who find themselves in particular social situations have found themself their because of personal choices that they did not know would impact that aspect of their life.

If I follow a social dialectic train of thought all I come up with is the self loathing whinning that I hear every day; how nothing is never anyone's fault. That, is never the case. An individuals decision for moral direction and dedication to a certain level of stubborn pursuit defines the path they have set for themselves.

Granted, you don't get to pick the stream you are on, or the rapids you will forge. However, you get to stock your own boat and determine what is most important to you.

You wish yourself where you want to be by deciding who it is you are. Where you end up will be determined by your ignorance, or lack thereof.

[Ecthy]

That's all sound and right. What I'm getting at is the fact that sometimes you might make loads of decisions without knowing what you're doing because you're not aware of certain things, not because you secretly want the outcome.

Also, all action you do is perceived and answered by others. In fact, the more people try and think about their actions in a social context, the more screwed up it all gets because there's just no natural reactions any more. So avoid people who're not real, but even then you're still not only a victim of your own deeds but how they're perceived by others and so on. A spiral downward can be the result, or upward, or nothing.

Therefore it might be better not to develop any concepts at all unless you also do this in a two-sided manner, by talking to people and stuff. What I don't like are one-sided logics that come out of individuals and pay no respect to the perception and reaction on behalf of others at all.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Japher
You wish yourself where you want to be by deciding who it is you are. Where you end up will be determined by your ignorance, or lack thereof.

Ignorance is big in most people because we're not born with a diploma in cognitive sciences.

[Japher]

What I'm getting at is the fact that sometimes you might make loads of decisions without knowing what you're doing because you're not aware of certain things, not because you secretly want the outcome.

Making decisions without knowing what you're doing does lead to what you secretly want; instant gratification. It's only when people hold other wants or desires over this that they actually get something else; what they deserve.

You may argue that they may not be graditude in what they find by making ignorant decisions, I would argue the opposite, and probably isn't even a point to merit debate.

The real argument comes from you hating this one-sided logic that ignores (pays no respect to) other's perceptions or reactions. I'm not going to bother arguing whether it is one-side, because I can also agree with this labeling. However, I think ignoring ones perceptions or reactions in lieu of paying attention to a defining virtue or moral code (in a purely social structure) as a guide would benefit greater than would be to please the present company. It is when people do this that they become more than celebrities, and head towards greatness.

Is that Machiavellian? I don't know, but then I'm only halfway through my lecture series on The History of Western Thought (on tape)... very interesting though.

Ignorance is big in most people because we're not born with a diploma in cognitive sciences.

I've had long arguments with friends about logic. I've always come to the conclusion that Logic is merely a motivation that helps us decided what to do when we are ignorant.

My friends can disagree at length to argue that it is only logic if the motivation leads you down the Right path.

[Ecthy]

No, it's not Macchiavellism, it's western indiviualism of the anglo-saxon sort. I find that kind of thinking a lot in people posting here, but among most Europeans it's less present, and only in a$$holes

[Dis]

I'd give it up, pretend to be his *****, then find out where he lives, then shoot him twice in the testicles, once in each kneecap, blowtorches for the arms and face, scalping, and finally one shot in the gut.

[Ecthy]

Dis would be a prison *****

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Give up the mud!

Is that some sort of quaint Finnish term for pederasty?

I thought that was "hey, are you going to the sauna?" I suppose they probably have a few terms, though, kind of like Eskimoes and "snow".

[Dis]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Dis would be a prison *****

let's be honest here. I am 5 foor 8, and I weigh 150 pounds. I know my limitations.

I have taken special precautions to avoid going to prison. Yep, you guessed it. I'm a ***** of a judge. . Actually, I follow all the laws, that has kept me out of prison thus far.

[Japher]

Originally posted by Ecthy
No, it's not Macchiavellism, it's western indiviualism of the anglo-saxon sort. I find that kind of thinking a lot in people posting here, but among most Europeans it's less present, and only in a$$holes

Wow! I'm a westerner, an individual, an anglo-saxon, and a arsehole!

[Spec]

What does this have to do with a 7' crazy man thats wants to pound your ass in a locked room?

Spec.

[Apocalypse]

It's actually fairly easy to choke people out, as I have learned.

[KrazyHorse]

Only if they don't have a clue how to defend against it.

[Apocalypse]

Even people who have clues leave themselves open in other ways, especially to arm bars.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Even people who have clues leave themselves open in other ways, especially to arm bars.

Not if they are the smartest person here.