If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You lost then, you lost now. If you are determined to be asleep, I won't disturb you again. Night night, Mr. B.
It's not my fault you are inconsistent, mate.
This thread is about gays, wtf has religion got to do with it ?
Look - I evaluated and rejected your argument fucking years ago mate. I know exactly what you're getting at, but I rejected it as not really being very useful. It means nothing to people, it says nothing about the reality of people's lives. Its impractical adolescent nonsense - I know the state is a fiction that only has power because people believe in it and obey it etc - however it is a very powerful fiction that has very real consequences. Your approach is facile, pathetic and useless. Grow the fuck up and do something useful.
Yeah you wouldn't like it.
Because its dehumanising and infantilising.
I have answered it. Unfortunately Fiend seems incapable of understanding an opinion that directly contradicts her own world view.
I think you need to actually read the thread.
Then your not very bright, are you.
Please enlighten me as to what this means.
LOL. Enjoy your tax bill.
Does that include you?
Yay!
Because........
How would you know?
Like..... helping people set up new lives for themselves?
What was that about irony?
Not very bright are you?
You've already been caught out lying once about this, so quit while you're ahead. BTW why are you posting my email address on www.isitfair.co.uk?
In some respects, yes. I don't want to go to jail.
People want to believe in it. If you think that everyone is going to stop believing in it and the people who hold the power are going to let go of it without a fight, then you're even more of a fool than I already took you for.
Because your argument is pathetic, facile and useless.
Yeah like delivering leaflets eh? :rolleyes:
Of course. That goes without saying.
Possibly. I was brought up a Christian and rejected it after a lot of thought however.
I haven't put words in anyone's mouth. If anything thats what Fiend was doing with my argument.
I'm not. Maybe how about you try and engage with my posts rather than throwing your toys out of the pram, huh?
Ok, you think that hurting people is wrong. So someone else doesn't. Why are they wrong? Why are you right?
I dare you to actually think about it, and actually answer the question.
Yeah, you were. I answered your question at least 2 or 3 times, you then refused to acknowledge that I had and starting bleating on about me avoiding the question - I wasn't. I answered it several times. If you refuse to actually read and try and understand it, I dunno why you bother posting in the first place.
We've been through this as well. See this is why I get annoyed. You don't bother to read my posts, you just ask the same questions again and again and again. For the record however - do you like being hurt? How does it make you feel? Can you empathise with another persons hurt? Can you imagine how they might feel? Well there's your answer.
I have. Several times.
Ok, so assuming I can (and you've said yourself earlier in this thread, or in a similar one that empathy needs to be taught by parents) Why should I care?
Why is it right for me to care about anyone? Care about how they feel and moderate my behaviour to fit?
You don't have to care, you don't have to do anything.
Do you care about anyone? Why?
No, thats not quite what I said.
So, if a person doesn't care, that's ok?
If a person doesn't care about what? OK with who?
Doesn't care about other people, what they do or say, and that's ok in the sense, that you have no right to dictate to them that they shouldn't be doing it.
Well its a very broad generalising question, but if someone genuinely doesn't care about anyone at all, I'd suspect that they would have some kind of personality disorder. Is that OK? Well...it isn't OK and it isn't not OK. It just is. Maybe someone with that kind of personality disorder could benefit from some kind of therapy, but I don't think it would be ethical to force them into therapy. Of course, people like this often hurt other people with their actions as they have no conscience or empathy - maybe if they do severely hurt someone, part of their punishment/rehabilitation could be therapy. But if they're not hurting anyone, then, yeah, its OK I guess (if you want to put it in those terms). Not a very fulfilling or happy life though I suspect.
A basic knowledge of mental health issues, a g/f studying psychoanalytic psychotherapy, a passing knowledge of DSM IV. Do you think its normal for people not to give a shit about anyone at all?
We've dealt with this. If you still can't work it out, there's nothing else I can do for you.
I didn't say that. Another example of you not bothering to read my post properly.
Another example of you not bothering to read. Why do you bother posting when you don't actually take any notice of the replies you get?
Ok, what you've posted, and all you've posted it what you think, without any backing for why you think it other than it's your experience of humanity. Which has been established without comment is insufficient, ie, it's yours, and not everyones.
I don't think it's normal for people not to give a shit, but what makes me right? What makes you right? Why is it that you can call people not normal if they don't care?
If you read great literature, watch great drama, read classic poetry etc it will mostly give you similar views - people are complex, morality is complex and people are capable of great love, empathy and sacrifice. I can refer you to a book of my g/f's "The Cradle of Thought" by Peter Hobson (a Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at the Tavistock) or other psychoanalytic papers or developmental psychology papers that research into child development and the development of thinking and emotion. I can refer you to anarchist writers and philosophers and books debating human nature etc etc.
Experience, being human, feeling, thinking etc.
Experience, being human, feeling, thinking etc.
I haven't called anyone "not normal". Again this is a highly complex thing, of course societies views of "normal" and "not normal" are very politically loaded (e.g. communist Russia locking up dissidents in mental asylums, the British authorities treatment of Wally Hope, the differing experiences of black and white, rich and poor within the mental health system etc) and in a state of constant flux and change. This is the point - things aren't "right" or "wrong" - these are constructed in a social, political, cultural and historical context - although saying that, I'm not a complete po-mo relativist, 'cos that then leads you down the path of having to defend female circumcision etc. I do think that morals/ethics etc should be based on what I've previously stated.
Which is it?
You're not reading my posts again. Look - "If you read great literature, watch great drama, read classic poetry etc it will mostly give you similar views - people are complex, morality is complex and people are capable of great love, empathy and sacrifice. I can refer you to a book of my g/f's "The Cradle of Thought" by Peter Hobson (a Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at the Tavistock) or other psychoanalytic papers or developmental psychology papers that research into child development and the development of thinking and emotion. I can refer you to anarchist writers and philosophers and books debating human nature etc etc."
You're being black and white again. Nothing is "right" or "wrong" in an absolute sense - but I believe that hurting people is wrong, as do the vast majority of other people. This is, I believe, because the vast majority of people are capable of empathy, love and co-operation. To be honest, I don't really know what you're asking.
I would say a lot of people find much of religious teaching particularly offensive and intolerant - thus it can be criticised with sufficient legitimacy.
Completely different from attacking gays or the working class.
You're still giving experience, other people's now, and therfore saying you're right because the majority agree. Is the moral standard that which the majority holds?
yes otherwise hitting someone would be "right", people can feel pain, empathy, morality is about relating your specific experience with the majority of others' experiences, and if you don't give a shit hitting someone then yes you have something wrong with your head, not that you have the "right" moral coe and the rest "wrong"
No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying at all. Its about how you view human nature - a Nazi twat with a bad understanding of Nietzsche and Darwin would argue that might is right. I'm arguing that compassion is right. I think I'm right, he thinks he's right. Which view would you bet would cause more misery?