Maybe read up on Spinoza and Taoism, like the Tao Te Ching. I’m a pantheist. So god=nature=universe, and we’re part of it. Like an apple tree apples, this planet peoples!
By nature I don’t just mean me. I mean seeing the whole world as an interconnected and interdependent organism. All is one and one is all.
I can further explain, I suppose. I don’t really care for excessive vanity. People and their main character syndromes. They become so obsessed, as you say, with fitting in. Being a member to some sort of click or grasping onto things (ideologies) for the sake of identity… Which is almost always paired with some kind of intense disdain for some particular out group(like jocks v. Nerds, whites v. Immigrants, Catholic v. Protestant v. Atheist, left v right, etc). People that just constantly regurgitate sayings from pop culture (or even the Bible) are often insufferable.
Hive mind mentalities. People that aren’t really finding themselves, nor their people. They’re just conforming to something comfortable, I suppose. Anything preferable to loneliness?
Great examples: maralago face, most religious people, clicks, Reddit, tbf most social media, etc.
Uh. None of those rituals are natural. That shit is as natural as a clown or circus. That’s mostly just animal(human) abuse… Like a Barnum & Bailey circus!
Pave Paradise is reference to a song… Originally by Joni Mitchell titled Big Yellow Taxi. Perhaps the lyrics will make my point more comprehensible? Give it a listen and tell me whatcha think. It’s similar to Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds in sentiment.
I do get it, you have your opinions, i understand what you mean by them , I’m just saying they’re inconsistent, arbitrary and unnecessarily rigid to me.
for example:
So god=nature=universe, and we’re part of it. Like an apple tree apples, this planet peoples!
and
Uh. None of those rituals are natural.
Are contradictory.
If we are part of nature, anything we do is natural, as reprehensible as it can be, it’s still a part of nature because we are a part of nature.
To be clear I’m not stating a position on the objective morality/ethics of those rituals (i do have opinions, they just aren’t part of my argument) , i was using them as an example of why the term “nature” is ambiguous and useless as a baseline because of it’s subjective interpretation.
Yes, cliques and cults(religions) and subjectively malicious groups exist, but it’s a false dichotomy to suggest it’s either complete self sufficiency or cult membership, nuance exists.
If you don’t think it’s possible to have a tattoo or piercing because of a personal decision, that’s your call, to me that sounds like a small distance from fundamentalism but as long as you aren’t forcing it on others , you do you.
Pave Paradise is reference to a song… Originally by Joni Mitchell titled Big Yellow Taxi. Perhaps the lyrics will make my point more comprehensible? Give it a listen and tell me whatcha think. It’s similar to Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds in sentiment.
I understand the reference, i was saying that whole sentence didn’t make any sense as an argument in this context.
You also still haven’t addressed the harm reduction conversation.
based on an inherent sense of right and wrong; natural justice. 2. a : being in accordance with or determined by nature; natural impulses.3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical.
It’s funny you claim a limited, special definition that’s more semantics than substance. Yet then still claim ambiguity is an issue. And state the problem is a subjective (limited, special) interpretation.
Sounds like a merry go round.
Fundamentalism? No. Not really. I was certainly tempted to just reply with something like you’re made in God’s image nonsense but I genuinely don’t believe that. I’m more a deist than any kind of theist.
Have you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris? I think that’s a good look into harm reduction.
oh damn, we can sigh? i didn’t realise that was on the table, i’ve been missing a trick this whole time.
ok, here i go.
based on an inherent sense of right and wrong; natural justice. 2. a : being in accordance with or determined by nature; natural impulses.3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical.
I’m glad you agree, none of those definitions imply an objective “natural” exists, so having them quoted helps, thanks.
It’s funny you claim a limited, special definition that’s more semantics than substance.
definition of what ? citation ?
Yet then still claim ambiguity is an issue.
Yes and i stated my reasons why.
And state the problem is a subjective (limited, special) interpretation.
I do, again, my reasons are stated.
but seeing as were are doing definitions now:
3 a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
Fundamentalism? No. Not really. I was certainly tempted to just reply with something like you’re made in God’s image nonsense but I genuinely don’t believe that. I’m more a deist than any kind of theist.
sigh (this is fun) , so let me get this straight, you considered replying with a straight up lie ?
For any particular reason…or ?
Also i didn’t mean religious fundamentalism, though it is on me that i didn’t specify.
Thanks though, the definitions thing is super useful:
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
Have you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris? I think that’s a good look into harm reduction.
I will have a read, does it outright reject the idea that psychological harm exists?
I don’t have the energy for this cherry picking nonsense.
Are you capable of understanding paragraphs? Is your context window too narrow?
Sigh. A lie? Oh sigh. Not really a lie but you wouldn’t understand why. They say the angels fly because they take themselves so lightly. What more then the father of all angels?
I don’t have the energy for this cherry picking nonsense.
I have directly responded to almost all of your replies, line by line, if that’s what you consider cherry-picking your standards as significantly higher than mine.
i mean, if you’re going to pick a deflection to disengage because you have no responses at least pick one that isn’t easily disprovable by just looking at the chain.
Or you could just say you don’t want to continue, without an excuse, like an adult?
Are you capable of understanding paragraphs? Is your context window too narrow?
As with most of your responses you’re going to need to be a bit more specific if you want an actual answer, the vague deflections with no specifics can only get you so far.
Sigh. A lie? Oh sigh. Not really a lie but you wouldn’t understand why. They say the angels fly because they take themselves so lightly. What more then the father of all angels?
See , now this is better, no pretence of sense to counter, just straight up, entirely absent-of-context sentences. Not much i can do with that.
I mean, you still haven’t actually answered anything directly so far, but at this point It’s more impressive than anything.
It’s absolute garbage as rhetoric, but who says art has to conform to reason or expectations?
You’re not responding to me in good faith. Are you just incapable of doing so?
I have responded in good faith to you. Your questions aren’t really clear (many seem rhetorical) and you keep referencing things that you don’t really seem to have brought up in any real tangible, palpable meaningful way. You just kind of glaze over them. And I’m really not sure what you’re getting at. And I’ve told you this so much over and over again and you really don’t explain yourself while I have explained myself to quite a lengthy extent which you don’t really seem to appreciate and instead insult.
And again… I can explain things to you but I can’t understand them for you. Real understanding takes a mutual dedication to try to alleviate ambiguities and not reinforce them and entrench inside of them.
Like, I’m pretty sure everyone reading this knows where my stance is but I have no fucking clue what yours is. Maybe just a clueless contrarian?
You’re not responding to me in good faith. Are you just incapable of doing so?
If you want to make a claim , provide examples, even a single example works.
All of my replies have been in direct response to your statements, with quotations to match, if you think one of those responses was in bad faith, point it out.
You can do this in real time, instead of waiting to vaguely accuse me of something without pointing to an example.
I have responded in good faith to you. Your questions aren’t really clear (many seem rhetorical) and you keep referencing things
that you don’t really seem to have brought up in any real tangible, palpable meaningful way.
You have responded…sort of, yes, good faith is debatable
My questions are clear, there are a lot of statements because I’m providing context and/or my stance something to support my claims and/or follow up questions.
Again, citation on the “reference to something not previously brought up” ?
You just kind of glaze over them. And I’m really not sure what you’re getting at.
Again, citation? literally any example you wish to point at, i will address.
I’ve been responding almost line by line, pick any example of when that response was vague, it’s not a test, i genuinely want an example.
And I’ve told you this so much over and over again and you really don’t explain yourself while I have explained myself to quite a lengthy extent which you don’t really seem to appreciate and instead insult.
There are copious examples of me explaining myself and my positions, if you want i can provide a list, or you could…just read the history.
You have explained some things and i have responded to them, again, line by line mostly.
Most of my responses have been to try and get clarification on the apparent contradictions in your explained positions.
The only vaguely insulting thing i can from my side was the last reply in the previous response and it was in response to a literal nonsense reply from your side.
And again… I can explain things to you but I can’t understand them for you. Real understanding takes a mutual dedication to try to alleviate ambiguities and not reinforce them and entrench inside of them.
If there was something you explained and i then replied with the same question again, please point it out.
Like, I’m pretty sure everyone reading this knows where my stance is but I have no fucking clue what yours is. Maybe just a clueless contrarian?
If by contrarian you mean i disagree with many of your stances, then yes, otherwise my positions have been consistent.
I’ve stated why i disagree, if you wish to discuss , reference an example.
For clarification my stance is:
God’s design (which you didn’t mean?, so that’s fine) and what is “natural” are a poor foundations for morals and ethics because they are subjective.
Harm reduction includes psychological harm, to exclude that is poor reasoning.
It’s possible to use body modification as an expression of self without having an underlying mental illness or psychological issue.
Counting Crows big yellow taxi is superior musically but Joni Mitchell’s original is better for the feels.
Providing a whole-ass book, or series of ideologies instead of an actual position is poor conversational technique, especially if you don’t even specify if it represents your position.
Your stance in general is clear, has been from the beginning, it’s when I’m asking for clarification that things get contradictory or vague.
Here is a summary (of my understanding) :
You seem to have close to fundamentalist 0 (in my opinion) beliefs about what people should and shouldn’t be doing wrt body modifications. 1
Your stance is that you don’t push this on others 2
You stated “I don’t think you’re going to improve on God’s design.” with no other context clues but later ( a few replies later ) said that isn’t what you meant. 3
You think a lot of body modifications are due to underlying mental illness or psychological issues.
Your boundary is restoring medical function/harm reduction is fine, anything else is not.
When asked if psychological harm reduction counts, you have provided no actual position except for a reference to a book.
You have a your opinions on what constitutes “natural”, when asked about a contraction in clarification your response was:
Cite a definition with no explanation as to why it was needed
Ignore the contradiction entirely
Claim i was using a special definition without specifying what you though it was.
`
0 See the previous reply about the definition of fundamentalism I’m using here
1 Note the words in bold, they are important.
2 I don’t necessarily believe that but I’d have no way to prove anything either way, so my beliefs are irrelevant.
Maybe read up on Spinoza and Taoism, like the Tao Te Ching. I’m a pantheist. So god=nature=universe, and we’re part of it. Like an apple tree apples, this planet peoples!
By nature I don’t just mean me. I mean seeing the whole world as an interconnected and interdependent organism. All is one and one is all.
I can further explain, I suppose. I don’t really care for excessive vanity. People and their main character syndromes. They become so obsessed, as you say, with fitting in. Being a member to some sort of click or grasping onto things (ideologies) for the sake of identity… Which is almost always paired with some kind of intense disdain for some particular out group(like jocks v. Nerds, whites v. Immigrants, Catholic v. Protestant v. Atheist, left v right, etc). People that just constantly regurgitate sayings from pop culture (or even the Bible) are often insufferable.
Hive mind mentalities. People that aren’t really finding themselves, nor their people. They’re just conforming to something comfortable, I suppose. Anything preferable to loneliness?
Great examples: maralago face, most religious people, clicks, Reddit, tbf most social media, etc.
Uh. None of those rituals are natural. That shit is as natural as a clown or circus. That’s mostly just animal(human) abuse… Like a Barnum & Bailey circus!
Pave Paradise is reference to a song… Originally by Joni Mitchell titled Big Yellow Taxi. Perhaps the lyrics will make my point more comprehensible? Give it a listen and tell me whatcha think. It’s similar to Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds in sentiment.
I do get it, you have your opinions, i understand what you mean by them , I’m just saying they’re inconsistent, arbitrary and unnecessarily rigid to me.
for example:
and
Are contradictory.
If we are part of nature, anything we do is natural, as reprehensible as it can be, it’s still a part of nature because we are a part of nature.
To be clear I’m not stating a position on the objective morality/ethics of those rituals (i do have opinions, they just aren’t part of my argument) , i was using them as an example of why the term “nature” is ambiguous and useless as a baseline because of it’s subjective interpretation.
Yes, cliques and cults(religions) and subjectively malicious groups exist, but it’s a false dichotomy to suggest it’s either complete self sufficiency or cult membership, nuance exists.
If you don’t think it’s possible to have a tattoo or piercing because of a personal decision, that’s your call, to me that sounds like a small distance from fundamentalism but as long as you aren’t forcing it on others , you do you.
I understand the reference, i was saying that whole sentence didn’t make any sense as an argument in this context.
You also still haven’t addressed the harm reduction conversation.
Sigh. From the dictionary:
It’s funny you claim a limited, special definition that’s more semantics than substance. Yet then still claim ambiguity is an issue. And state the problem is a subjective (limited, special) interpretation.
Sounds like a merry go round.
Fundamentalism? No. Not really. I was certainly tempted to just reply with something like you’re made in God’s image nonsense but I genuinely don’t believe that. I’m more a deist than any kind of theist.
Have you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris? I think that’s a good look into harm reduction.
oh damn, we can sigh? i didn’t realise that was on the table, i’ve been missing a trick this whole time.
ok, here i go.
I’m glad you agree, none of those definitions imply an objective “natural” exists, so having them quoted helps, thanks.
definition of what ? citation ?
Yes and i stated my reasons why.
I do, again, my reasons are stated.
but seeing as were are doing definitions now:
sigh (this is fun) , so let me get this straight, you considered replying with a straight up lie ?
For any particular reason…or ?
Also i didn’t mean religious fundamentalism, though it is on me that i didn’t specify.
Thanks though, the definitions thing is super useful:
I will have a read, does it outright reject the idea that psychological harm exists?
I don’t have the energy for this cherry picking nonsense.
Are you capable of understanding paragraphs? Is your context window too narrow?
Sigh. A lie? Oh sigh. Not really a lie but you wouldn’t understand why. They say the angels fly because they take themselves so lightly. What more then the father of all angels?
I have directly responded to almost all of your replies, line by line, if that’s what you consider cherry-picking your standards as significantly higher than mine.
i mean, if you’re going to pick a deflection to disengage because you have no responses at least pick one that isn’t easily disprovable by just looking at the chain.
Or you could just say you don’t want to continue, without an excuse, like an adult?
As with most of your responses you’re going to need to be a bit more specific if you want an actual answer, the vague deflections with no specifics can only get you so far.
See , now this is better, no pretence of sense to counter, just straight up, entirely absent-of-context sentences. Not much i can do with that.
I mean, you still haven’t actually answered anything directly so far, but at this point It’s more impressive than anything.
It’s absolute garbage as rhetoric, but who says art has to conform to reason or expectations?
You’re not responding to me in good faith. Are you just incapable of doing so?
I have responded in good faith to you. Your questions aren’t really clear (many seem rhetorical) and you keep referencing things that you don’t really seem to have brought up in any real tangible, palpable meaningful way. You just kind of glaze over them. And I’m really not sure what you’re getting at. And I’ve told you this so much over and over again and you really don’t explain yourself while I have explained myself to quite a lengthy extent which you don’t really seem to appreciate and instead insult.
And again… I can explain things to you but I can’t understand them for you. Real understanding takes a mutual dedication to try to alleviate ambiguities and not reinforce them and entrench inside of them.
Like, I’m pretty sure everyone reading this knows where my stance is but I have no fucking clue what yours is. Maybe just a clueless contrarian?
If you want to make a claim , provide examples, even a single example works.
All of my replies have been in direct response to your statements, with quotations to match, if you think one of those responses was in bad faith, point it out.
You can do this in real time, instead of waiting to vaguely accuse me of something without pointing to an example.
You have responded…sort of, yes, good faith is debatable
My questions are clear, there are a lot of statements because I’m providing context and/or my stance something to support my claims and/or follow up questions.
Again, citation on the “reference to something not previously brought up” ?
Again, citation? literally any example you wish to point at, i will address.
I’ve been responding almost line by line, pick any example of when that response was vague, it’s not a test, i genuinely want an example.
There are copious examples of me explaining myself and my positions, if you want i can provide a list, or you could…just read the history.
You have explained some things and i have responded to them, again, line by line mostly.
Most of my responses have been to try and get clarification on the apparent contradictions in your explained positions.
The only vaguely insulting thing i can from my side was the last reply in the previous response and it was in response to a literal nonsense reply from your side.
If there was something you explained and i then replied with the same question again, please point it out.
If by contrarian you mean i disagree with many of your stances, then yes, otherwise my positions have been consistent.
I’ve stated why i disagree, if you wish to discuss , reference an example.
For clarification my stance is:
Your stance in general is clear, has been from the beginning, it’s when I’m asking for clarification that things get contradictory or vague.
Here is a summary (of my understanding) :
`
I don’t have the interest for this.
You need a therapist. 🤔