[Rhubarb]

Dude. Possibly the coolest thing, philosophically speaking, I've ever seen you write. Try as I might (and I did try, believe me), I can't actually disagree with a single thing you said. I think that actually broadened my opinions and changed my overall perceptions a little bit. So, uh... thanks for that... seriously. Didn't you once say you weren't any good at writing objectively?!

[Laughlyn]

Laughlyn - I always thought it was chicks that were seen as 'crazy'. Personally I kind of prefer to hang out with dudes because they're a lot more laid back. And I can think of a lot of exceptions to fuck with my own argument just now. Honestly, I think it depends on the culture/area, and the upbringing. I'm still of the opinion that people are just people.

Also, I just realised I fucked up one of my earlier points whilst under the impression that you were a girl.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why does everyone around here make that mistake? Guess I should pick a better persona. Most of my arguement is likely influenced by the women in my life, the greater number of my past flatmates have always been female, so I tend to get both sides. (often at the same time.)

On a side note, you seem to think that personality-wise, guys are really messed up and that women are somehow preferable. I've always thought the exact reverse. Odd, eh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not quite, I tend to find girls emotions easier to tap into than guys. If a female friend\collegue has an emotional problem I'll get asked to listen and advise, Virtually never happens with males.

On your other points, and good ones they were too, It's not the anger or fear that I'm against, it's the physical manifestation of them. People are naturally emotional, can't change that and don't want to, but it's how they deal with their emotions that's the problem. Although Slade does raise a good point, nothing happens without conflict. Conflict doesn't have to mean physical violence.

I guess that makes me a pacifist too.

[MacGyver's Mullet]

Didn't you once say you weren't any good at writing objectively?!

I guess I probably said something like "it's impossible for anyone to write entirely objectively" because we are always influenced by our conditioning. The same is true of that piece I guess - I couldn't have written that 4 years ago even, without witnessing the changes in myself over that time.

[Slade]

Aww man. Now we've got more intelligent people on here and I'll get shown up for the inarticulate dufus I am. Ah well. It was bound to happen eventually. I'm lazy so I'll just formally welcome you new people here to the Debate Club. Check the rules, blah blah blah. Don't always take everything too seriously around here, et cetera.

But Mr. Mullet, don't confuse cynicism with apathy, they are very different things. I'm rather bitter and cynical, but I still care about things, some to the point of having to refrain from watching the news occasionally so I don't get frustrated to the point of hitting things. Sure, I don't think much will help change the world, but I'm still willing to give it a try because it's better than giving up and sitting on my arse.

Personality is a mutable and ever-changing thing. Like you said, we are constantly adapting to new ideas and environments and adjusting/altering our perceptions because of it, but we never 'lose' ourselves, we simply change. No one should ever be afraid of the assimilation of those ideas at the risk of the self, it's just mental growth.

I'm not a pacifist, just a peacenic who's also wimpy and laid-back.

[MacGyver's Mullet]

But Mr. Mullet, don't confuse cynicism with apathy, they are very different things. I'm rather bitter and cynical, but I still care about things, some to the point of having to refrain from watching the news occasionally so I don't get frustrated to the point of hitting things.

Oh I agree, I'm extremely cynical about a lot of things - especially, as you mention, the mainstream media. I'm the guy who provides amusement to others by shouting at the tv.

But I used 'cynical apathy' (or however I phrased it) as a description for someone who is both those things together - like someone who just doesn't care either way, but cares about trivial shit like which cleb is fucking which other cleb etc. I really have a dislike for that kinda thing.

[Rhubarb]

I guess I probably said something like "it's impossible for anyone to write entirely objectively" because we are always influenced by our conditioning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not quite what I meant (cos I've been arguing that point with various people for ages, along with my 'there's no such thing as truth' crusade). I just seem to seem to remember you saying something a while back that roughly equated to 'I'm not a great writer' (although that wasn't the wording at all). It's entirely possible I misinterpreted... I guess I just never really thought of you as all that philosophical (psychological?) outside of a political demographic.

/has acquired new respect for you

It's probably fairer to say that I fear a society without individuality. And individuality automatically breeds conflict. Which I don't really see as a bad thing. When Laughlyn mentioned 'violence', I more or less equated it with 'violent emotion'. A world without violence seems to be, to my mind, a world without difference of opinion, or without disatisfaction.

Taking this on a more personal tangent - being someone who's pretty much ruled and shaped by sharp emotional swings, the thought of being permanently contented just disturbs me. It'd be nice to be happy, but to me there are more important things than happiness. I don't like being depressed (although you're right about the anger), but the outcomes and effects of depression are what motivate me in almost all things.

As you say, all of it's pretty much from upbringing and influences... I've always been that way, and probably always will. But in a society where all the 'real' problems are gone, I (and others, I assume) will always find others to focus on... as you say, we won't be able to help it. And you know what happens when people get too riled over things of little importance. Before long, there'd be conflict again, which would spread to a larger scale over time (as it always does), and violence would again be the norm. Obviously I'm taking a lot of liberties here, especially since this rhetorical utopian society has absolutely no definition at this point, but this is more or less what I meant when I say that most people (including myself), as they are now, can't maintain a world catered toward non-violence.

edit-

But I used 'cynical apathy' (or however I phrased it) as a description for someone who is both those things together - like someone who just doesn't care either way, but cares about trivial shit like which cleb is fucking which other cleb etc. I really have a dislike for that kinda thing.

I actually wrote something related to this the other day in my 'stays on the hard drive never to be seen by other eyes' blog. It occurred to me again as I read your earlier post... that it bugs me that a lot of people I know will freely ignore government figures (from wherever you like) who commit countless atrocities, but will direct a surprising amount of venom toward celebrities whose style they have a grudge against. I think that in a society with no greater problems, this would increase sharply. Sounds a bit awful. Although not as awful as wholescale torture and execution.

This post has been edited by Rhubarb: 30 April 2005 - 05:43 PM

[Slade]

Back in Victorian England 1800s, those people were the bourgeoise. That is, they are cultural equivalents.

[barend]

this topic has become far too full of depth...

it was meant to be a fun thread to bag out the other gender...
now it's about violence in society...

so here's a little joke to move us back...

Q: Why do women wear make up and perfume?





A: because they're ugly and they smell bad!

[Laughlyn]

Errr. Isn't that the same reason guy's use Deoderant\aftershave?

[Slade]

Who's side are you on?!

[civilian_number_two]

Hey, let's merge the humour with the creepy sex and violence:

How do you get a nun pregnant?











You fuck her!

[barend]

Errr. Isn't that the same reason guy's use Deoderant\aftershave?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

another outburst like that, and you're banned!

[Laughlyn]

Oh I get it, Pointing out Mr Barends mistake is ban worthy, how could I forget?

Who's side are you on?!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The guys of course, but if we keep making flawed arguments the girls will eat us alive.

EDIT:hang on a second, Barend's not even a mod.....

This post has been edited by Laughlyn: 01 May 2005 - 11:20 PM

[Rhubarb]

Oh man. How sweet would it be to be a mod on this subforum...


Edit:Yarr! I smell like roses doused in kerosene and then washed until the kerosne comes all the way off! lolz!!!!11111 BLAHMBAGO! :angry:

Cheers,
- Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator

This post has been edited by Slade: 02 May 2005 - 01:40 AM

[Slade]

Heh, yeah. I don't think you can go around toting the mod muscle here, can you Barend?