Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
[USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST]
Durr Hurr Vorpy Hurrr
...Me?NO!
@Bob: Personal guilt is a powerful motivator too.
As I mentioned, people tend to confuse the appeal to emotion fallacy with stuff that has nothing to do with it.
people that something is true. There is nothing wrong with it otherwise
Hedonism is good for those who want no self-responsibility and who hate authority.
Umm, this one's preferred stance is something like ethical hedonism. And
this one's attitude towards authority is...messed and complicated, but
it is not hate. Wish it was hate, would be simpler.
we are justified in showing scrutiny towards something that would cause
trouble, but I digress."
Or in other words, it was just a clumsy example chosen for the express purpose of avoiding people's toes as I might with any other example.
Example.
EXAMPLE.
*I am not on board with PETA.*
The point was that I believe there is a significant bias that afflicts people when dealing with whether or not they chose to support something (or not support something), caused by laziness/fear/difficulties in general/weakness/motives/discomfort/or what else have you.
^And because they are regarded as a joke.
If I used something serious, I would be risking a fight,
I'm fairly sure the majority of people with common morals at the time do not believe that they are most likely false, considering how morals tend to be srs bzns.
Even if I could be killing millions with every step, given how big I know the world to be, I could be running flat out for the rest of my life and I wouldn't even get close to euthanising them all.
I'm pretty sure everyone has ethical ideals that are technically impossible to actually achieve... and it is best not to think about them overmuch as it serves no practical purpose...
But beyond that I do also know that people are pretty much just hypocrites and love nothing more than proclaiming one thing while effecting the opposite. That said, I'm also sure they're not generally aware they're doing it. Moral Myopia and all that. Folks got a different set of rules for "what people should do" and "what I will do". All part of the game. Try to make them look the same on the surface, but everyone is skimming the top off when they reckon others aren't looking. I figure somehow it increased biological fitness at some point to start being a hypocrite.
One such topic was asking what it would take to convince you of God. Some of the responses were normal-ish responses that one might expect, but many of the others were striking.
A few were of the mind that "absolutely nothing" would convince them, and others stated that they would probably take their own life. Some even stated that they would rather go to hell. Those are some pretty strong responses, and I'm not sure whether I can even take them seriously, but they are there nonetheless. Other topics like this have had a similar effect. People would still have abortions under worst case scenario, and the reverse is true for pro-lifers refusing to have abortions.
If we are so clingy to standing for what we believe in, then how can we even be sure that we are thinking straight and are wise in our decision? It is unsettling that we would all be so weak. How much of this can be attributed to hyperbole on the part of the people saying these things?
For example, a simple demonstration would be enough to convince this one in existence of a god. A demonstration accompanied with calling a particular name and absent in all other instances would convince this one in existence of a god of particular religion. But convincing this one that such god a) is who it says it is (instead of any creature using it's name) b) can be trusted and is worthy of following - honestly, this one does not know what would it take to convince her.
Also, if this one was convinced that certain gods (an Abrahamic god among them) exists, she'd probably became clinically depressed and turned to drugs in order to forget about it just for a moment. However, it would not make her deny god's existence were it proven without any possible doubt. This one is not about to close her eyes and sing "la-la-la, I don't see anything" in the face of obvious. As long as there are legitimate reasons for doubt, though, this one would cling to her doubt, even though there are some ideas that she extends willing suspension of disbelief towards despite having even less proof.