Discussing ideas, not people

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: But is it about winning people over? Or is it about weeding out the weak? Survival of the fittest builds the strongest society and if we can let the weak go the strongest, most capable society will be the one that emerges.

In my experience, I've discovered that the whole approach of simplifying social reality to "survival of the fittest" is kind of a load of bullshit.

My brother had this mentality, spent years applying it to me. The effect it had was a drastic deficiency in self esteem and confidence while my potential was constantly under attack to "harden me up". It was only once I moved away from him and developed a circle of friends who socialized synergistically with me that it was restored, as well as an actively developed aptitude for pro-activeness under the stress of critical life changes.

The thing is, applying primitive philosophies of survival of the fittest across everyone is actually a very intellectually lazy way of approaching one's social reality among a modern society as complex as ours. While we as Humans do have many obvious psychological commonalities between us, we have even more differences individually because of DNA complexities that are important to take into account psychologically.

In any case, of course it comes down not to just winning people over, but actually having a productive communication process on both sides. If it's just an act of "I'm here to hammer the truth of reality on you whether you accept it or not", you've already seen how little comes of it. Social efforts are wasted on inefficient results.

I don't reckon that this temple is here to be a filter for "only the strong". I'm pretty sure there is an intention for helping those you might consider weak grow into being strong.

While we are indeed animals, as it would be most unwise to suggest otherwise, we are more complex and evolved than our lesser animal friends. We can't simply say survival of the fittest, as that seems to be what you are suggesting and feel free to correct me, and what are you suggesting we do with the weeded out people? What is the end goal of said weeding?

Tellahane wrote:

Gisteron wrote: I still believe that diplomatic solutions are both possible and preferable...

And how would you describe the process of achieving diplomatic solutions? what is your ideal methods between say two people of very opposing views?

Talking. It requires some recognition between them that they are indeed both human and not irredeemable wicked demons straight out of the pits of hell. Apparently that is a controversial notion these days, but it is a prerequisite for diplomacy, alas.

My point is (as if I expressed it poorly) that if we say that talking itself is the same as fighting, then why not skip the difficult talky phase of it and hop to the sword right away? I think we are better off seeing a difference... Call me crazy...

Manu wrote: But manners were meant for saving [strike]face[/strike] lives in a society where reputation is everything.

Fixed that for you. Look man, some people take respect very seriously. Life and death level seriously. Manners is just another word for respect and it allows serious people to interact with each other without anyone getting hurt.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Survival of the fittest builds the strongest society and if we can let the weak go the strongest, most capable society will be the one that emerges.

Im at least a little drunk but it seems to me even im ly inebriation that to speak with certainty on behalf of evolutionary selection requires either an extreme leap of faith or an extreme leap of arrogance.

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Survival of the fittest builds the strongest society and if we can let the weak go the strongest, most capable society will be the one that emerges.

Raeganomics is not the natural order of our species; science and other fields filled with people who actually know more than us on this basic concept consistently show, yeah, we like to compete and push ourselves and others, but we also didn't make it this far by eating each other or abandoning the weak.

People suck, but we're also a lot better than you give us credit for.

To stay on topic: ideas versus people in discussion...

Sometimes ideas and assumptions say more about the person expressing them. How does one separate that in a discussion?

Stormcaller wrote: Sometimes ideas and assumptions say more about the person expressing them. How does one separate that in a discussion?

There is a whole new level of analysis and insight available when you can examine ideas on their own merits without moralizing or proselytizing or concerning yourself with what the ideas being expressed “say” about the person expressing them.

A nazi a communist and a nun all write out the same algebra problem and they all come up with the same answer: which one of them was right?

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Manu wrote: But manners were meant for saving [strike]face[/strike] lives in a society where reputation is everything.

Fixed that for you. Look man, some people take respect very seriously. Life and death level seriously. Manners is just another word for respect and it allows serious people to interact with each other without anyone getting hurt.

Just because some are too sensitive to handle a harsh tone of voice doesn't mean their lives actually depend on it nor that anyone's is saved by a polite one. Manners and respect are not the same thing either. People I respect I treat as equals. I don't walk on egg shells to preserve their life as it was fragile enough to break under any stress like those egg shells did. If anything, I find it rather disrespectful to assume that they couldn't handle the same kind of normal human treatment the rest of us can, that they are something genuinely lesser in that way.

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Stormcaller wrote: Sometimes ideas and assumptions say more about the person expressing them. How does one separate that in a discussion?

There is a whole new level of analysis and insight available when you can examine ideas on their own merits without moralizing or proselytizing or concerning yourself with what the ideas being expressed “say” about the person expressing them.

A nazi a communist and a nun all write out the same algebra problem and they all come up with the same answer: which one of them was right?

All of them... for the algebra problem. This is a false equivalency fallacy.

Gisteron wrote:

Just because some are too sensitive to handle a harsh tone of voice.....

Theres no tone of voice on the internet. We’re all separated by distance and technology so its easy to pretend like youre so far above everyone else lol. However, in face to face interactions you know damn well theres a limit to how belligerent youll allow your tone of voice to become.

doesn't mean their lives actually depend on it...

We come from different places

nor that anyone's is saved by a polite one.

Have you ever seen someone get shot?

Manners and respect are not the same thing either.

Please do not split stupid hairs with me. Manners are the protocols we use to convey respect.

People I respect I treat as equals.

I have no equals. Theres always disparities of some kind or another. People i respect, i treat with courtesy.

I don't walk on egg shells

Thats not what i said, is it?

to preserve their life as it was fragile enough to break under any stress like those egg shells did.

Does chopping a straw man into pieces count as some kind of victory?

If anything, I find it rather disrespectful to assume that they couldn't handle the same kind of normal human treatment the rest of us can

You dont consider good manners to be normal, human treatement?

that they are something genuinely lesser in that way.

Youre countering a point that no one made, lol